News and Discussions > Rennhack's Blog

Nuke News IS back!

<< < (4/4)

OldHP:
Unfortunately, most reporters have a tendency to throw in the anti-side, even when writing what should be a positive article.  As much as I'd rather not read the 'junk', it does pay to know what the anti's are hanging their hat on.  This has been true for man-nnn-y years.  If you don't read what their reading, you really can't present the real truth.

If I were voting I'd say leave it there, with the exception of the sources that Mike mentioned, those that gain credibility by being linked here.  Knowing what your next door neighbor or your debate opponent is using as a source is always helpful.

JMO

Rennhack:
The term "Author" here is the website not the person, so just report to me any websites that as a source are just totally worthless, if you come across one.

atomicarcheologist:
I am of the opinion that it's probably more of a hassle to clear out the possibly offending stories than it is to delete ones that come through which are totally anti-nuke without scientific merit.  I'm guessing that the news source being used trolls the news feeds for keyword and sends those articles to Nukeworker.com.  So, if "Bunny huggers hate nuclear power" and nuclear power is a search term, then the article appears here.  While if the author is Nuclear News, it may well advocate hooking up with the local NRA chapter and funding a bunny hunt.   ;)  If it's Granpa Earth News, then it may be about how although bunny huggers hate nuclear power, the bunnys don't care.  Both stories have pluses and minuses, neither authors should be deleted from search.
Just MHO. 

Navigation

[0] Message Index

[*] Previous page