Go to CNF homepage
The Canadian Nuclear FAQ  

by Dr. Jeremy Whitlock

www.nuclearfaq.ca

My response to Esther Enkin, CBC Radio:


1998 February 23

Esther Enkin
Managing Editor and Chief Journalist
Information Programming
CBC Radio

Dear Ms. Enkin,

Thank you for your reply (1998 February 10) to my comments about the IDEAS series on nuclear power. I have received a detailed response from Mr. Allen as well, and will be responding to him shortly.

I am glad to see that the conflict-of-interest issue pertaining to Mr. Allen has been addressed. I should point out that this wouldn't have been an issue at all if the nature of Mr. Allen's CBC production were more objective; I therefore feel this is more a question of responsible journalism. However, the measures you have informed me of seem adequate to address the current problem; I will wait until I have thoroughly read Mr. Allen's response to see if the matter as a whole can be closed.

In the meantime, I wish to respond to one comment in your letter; namely: "Energy Probe is not simply, as you [I] characterize it, an anti-nuclear group, but a public policy group that deals with the energy sector." I appreciate that Energy Probe involves itself with non-nuclear policy issues; however, I believe my characterization of the group (and here it is important to distinguish between Energy Probe, which we are talking about, and its parent organisation, the Energy Probe Research Foundation) as Canada's "most vocal" and "well-known" anti-nuclear group, is without question. Energy Probe's own literature emphasizes the influence it has had on energy policy, and the media exposure it has enjoyed over the years - while listing examples of articles and appearances that are almost 100% anti-nuclear in nature. Regardless of other activities, and regardless of how it may wish to portray itself in various forums, Energy Probe is a very active, and effective, Canadian anti-nuclear group.

Moreover, it is precisely this biased mandate, combined with the self-indulgent pairing of influence on public opinion and dependence on public opinion for funding, that I feel removes its right to be thought of as an objective "think tank" in this area. Such was the characterization accorded it by the IDEAS show, and hence the need - if only in the name of good journalism - to give equal time to the industry's point of view.

Sincerely,

Jeremy Whitlock