Feb 11, 2008

Editorial: Pete, Jeff, Tom: fight for LANL cleanup

The New Mexican, 2/8/2008

Lab lawyers might argue mightily that their client is complying. They're likely to offer all kinds of evidence to bolster their case — and maybe, for some past period, it'll hold up. But if LANL isn't given the money its own bosses say it needs for the fiscal year starting next fall, they'll have a long future in federal courtrooms.

Sens. Domenici and Jeff Bingaman, along with Rep Tom Udall of the House Appropriations Committee, should insist on all the dollars it will take to clean LANL's fouled nest.

[Read the full editorial here.]


Anonymous said...

Who knew Chris Mechels was writing for the New Mexican????

Anonymous said...

That is certainly a biased article.

Without actually saying so, but by the emphasis it gives, the article implies that the environmentalist accusers' claims are valid. For example, the phrase "... water is being contaminated to one degree or another from high-risk operations up on Pajarito Mesa", as if todays operations were high risk and contaminating (they are not).

It uses all kinds of inflammatory language, e.g, "even if there are big stretches where environmentally blithe scientists didn't dump leftover concoctions of chemicals, heavy metals and who-knows-what-all ingredients of diabolical weapons...", and "clean LANL's fouled nest".

It implies that legacy waste is mobile and, if not dealt with quickly, is an urgent matter.

There are no statements about LANL's positions on the need for cleanup. Only implications drawn from the environmentalist / anti-nuclear positions.

I think it would be great to get special funding for environmental remediation if it did not interfere with LANL's other programs. I think it is fine to pressure the government for such cleanup. But can't this be done collaboratively, without making LANL out to be the enemy and the devil?

I am ashamed to admit that I live in a town where such rubbish is published by the local rag. Without a signature even. So, which "editor" wrote this garbage? Did the other editors review it?

Anonymous said...

Hello! It's an EDITORIAL. You know: a newspaper or magazine article that gives the OPINIONS of the editors or publishers.

Anonymous said...

Hello! It's an EDITORIAL. You know: a newspaper or magazine article that gives the OPINIONS of the editors or publishers.


There is no need to point out the obvious. Whether you call it an editorial, a piece, or an article, is still unbalanced and biased. You know: an emotional opinion that is not based on critical analysis of the facts. It is basic demagoguery. It is unsigned. We don't know if this is the opinion of one person, the publisher, or the entire staff. I would like to know.

Anonymous said...

Yep - being designated an "editorial" doesn't excuse the kind of biased crap that appears in this writing (whatever you call it). There is no requirement for "balanced" publishing or even for a counterbalancing piece. However, there is obviously a need for critical reading and thinking on the part of the public. Unfortunately, most people, if they even read a newspaper or online news source, will miss entirely the distinction between news and editorial, which many news sources now blur or ignore anyway. Just when an educated public is most needed...(sigh)

Anonymous said...

And since it's in the SFNM, you know where heir bias lies...and it 'ain't in balanced journalism.