The environmental journalism Sydney-(out)sider
In this ABC News Article, Carl Curtain discusses the push for nuclear power in order to support the uranium mining business. The article discusses how costly it has been to mine uranium in recent years. At the ERA annual general meeting, chairman Peter Mansell proposed that a national discussion is necessary for possible use of nuclear power for these uranium mines. Mansell goes on to say that “Uranium is reliable, it is secure, it is free from emissions and on that basis, it certainly deserves to have a place in the mix.” Curtain then ends the article by briefly mentioning chief executive Andrea Sutton’s POV on the issue and her announced resignation from ERA earlier this year.
I chose this article because I believe this article is far from being an informative and effective piece. Curtain begins the article by saying, “A Northern Territory uranium miner has called for rational thinking regarding the country’s future energy supply, suggesting nuclear power be seriously considered.” As one of the students pointed out during the class discussion, the use of the term “rational thinking” is ambiguous and misleading. Without providing further information on why nuclear power is more seriously considered compared to opposing resources, Curtain delivers a subjective POV on the issue. By giving very little information, the use of the term “rational thinking” can be seen as questionable and unreliable.
Furthermore, his mention of Chief executive Andrea Sutton was also inconclusive. While he does mention Sutton, Curtain fails to go explain the reason behind Andrea Sutton’s announced resignation from earlier this year. While he does state that a replacement is yet to be finalised, it makes the readers question why she is leaving the ERA.
Overall, I believe that there were a lot of sources that he ommitted that could’ve made the article more substantial in terms of facts/statistics/data. Sources such as The Minerals council, Resources Minister, Uranium Association of Australia, Traditional Owners, Anti-Uranium Mining Organizations, Nuclear energy companies, etc are all sources he could’ve used to make his article better. Another factor that I thought this article he could imrpove in is to include more background knowledge on uranium mining. A lot of the readers and especially the students in the class, don’t have full knowledge on uranium mining, so he could’ve briefly talked about it and explained the “pits” mentioned in the article. The last factor that I thought was the most crucial thing he failed to include in the article, is the potential environmental effects of uranium mining AND use of nuclear power. Without any of those facts, it is hard for the reader to understand the purpose of this article.