Your article on the town meeting campaign to replace Vermont Yankee ["Voters in 45 towns statewide to discuss Vermont Yankee decommissioning," The Commons, February] fell far short of the usual standards of thoroughness and accuracy that we have come to expect of The Commons.
While I am the coordinator of the Town Meeting Campaign to Replace Vermont Yankee, the fact that I am also on the board of Vermont Independent Media, the publisher of this paper, should have been reason enough for your reporter to search out other voices to interview from the campaign, instead of only relying on mine. And, while my experience lies in the domain of town meeting campaigns, for this story I unwittingly became the only source of the alternative energy/non-nuclear point of view.
While opposing viewpoints about the relative safety of the plant were presented, when it came to the section subtitled “economics and alternatives,” The Commons blithely parroted the talking points of Vermont Yankee spokesman Rob Williams without a single word reflecting the extensive study and conclusions that are being presented by those who do not support the license extension.
If the reporter had taken the time to read the resolution she was covering, she would have read that “local renewable electricity and efficiency measures, along with the purchase of hydro” electricity are the alternatives being proposed. She could have interviewed any number of local experts on the subject, but instead transcribed nuclear industry poppycock about oil-fired and dirty coal plants being the only viable source of power to replace VY.
Perhaps the most ridiculous passage was this: “Although the nuclear power process produces no carbon emissions - a fact hotly contested by nuclear opponents...” The reporter (incorrectly) presents a shopworn claim by the nuclear industry as a fact and, although mentioning that others dispute this “fact” offers no exposition, no depth, and as a result gives the readers an erroneous impression that could have only given Entergy Nuclear a quiet chuckle of satisfaction.
Perhaps the only positive outcome of this unfortunate bit of reporting is that it should prove to any doubters that there is indeed a firewall between the board of VIM and the news operations of The Commons. I only wish that it didn't take a bad piece of reporting to serve that purpose.