simard@loral.UUCP (Ray Simard) (06/10/85)
Tonight I, along with innumerable others, watched the ABC television
network's documentary "The Fire Unleashed". What I saw was an opportunity for
responsible journalism collapsing under the weight of its creators'
prejudices, reflecting clearly the origin of the claims of bias frequently
levelled against the network news establishments.
The program did, I grant, include plenty of fact, and clearly a great
deal of painstaking research went into its production. I have little doubt
that the facts and statistics in the program were accurate; at least, I do not
presume to question them here. What I do question is less the product than
the package, and the apparent intent of the program's writers.
What was wrong with "The Fire Unleashed"?
The answer was evident, not only in my own impressions, but also those of
the panel of scientists interviewed on KGTV just after the program, and of the
local family that was also queried. The problem is, the program sought, not to
inform and motivate, but to frighten the viewer. This meretricious play on
fear is not surprising; suspense and terror are great theatre. Morose, often
funereal music, coupled with a liberal sprinkling of such freighted words as
"nightmare", "terror", "failure" and "disaster" and a glut of visuals of
rockets and bomb tests seemed more appropriate to the provocative fictions of
Alfred Hitchcock or Rod Serling than what purports to be an objective
documentary.
In the interviews following the program, allusions to fright dominated
the reactions. And why not, some will say. Why shouldn't we be afraid of the
threats of annihilation that may result from a nuclear catastrophe, accidental
or intentional?
The reason is, solid, effective answers to these threats will come only
from sober, informed and logical thinking, the kind of thinking that is never
prompted by fear, but rather hampered by it. Fear breeds the kind of
frenzied, impulsive reactions that produce, at best, short-term solutions, and
much more often result in damaging policies that, in this area of concern, we
may feel lucky to live to regret.
I was especially bothered by the statement by one of the scientists in
the panel, to paraphrase: "We should be nervous about (these matters)". Come
again? As a person making a profession of science, a discipline of hard fact,
he could not be more incorrect in promoting emotionalism. Yes, we should be
concerned. Yes, we should be informed. And yes, we should act. But not from
fear.
A second weakness of "The Fire Unleashed" is an abundance of of
individual opinion, presented as fact:
The however response: To its credit, ABC did manage to include expert
opinion on both sides of most issues, albeit with some distinct imablance.
Nevertheless, the narrator of the program almost invariably followed any such
testimony that did not reflect the orthodoxy of the anti-nuke cadre with
"however...", the following words rebutting the interview just presented.
Never did I hear the reverse - a fear-provoking statement rebutted by the
narrator.
Sins of omission: In the discussion of the Three Mile Island accident,
no mention was made of the fact that the safety systems at the plant worked
just fine - until the operators, doubting their instruments, deliberately
overrode them. I had the opportunity to chat with one of the physicists who
participated in the decontamination effort that immediately followed the
shutdown of the damaged TMI reactor, and he stated that, had the operators
left the plant en masse and spent the rest of the day watching football at
home, the incident would probably never have advanced to any stage even
remotely dangerous. The accident, therefore, was primarily a human error
problem - one that could have been avoided by better training. Yet, the ABC
program seemed to intimate that the accident was the unavoidable result of
equipment failure.
Another egregious omission is the failure to mention President Reagan's
"zero-zero" option for intermediate-range nuclear weapons in Europe. Surely
this call for the ultimate in arms control, for that category at least, was
deserving of mention.
Unsubstantiated claims: Dour citizens of the community around Three Mile
Island testified to the effect that numerous problems with plants, animals,
and themselves occurred after the accident. Whether or not some of these
aberrations may have resulted from the accident, the fact remains that the
average viewer is left with the distinct impression that they all did, and
that this is established fact. No allowance was made for what certainly must
be a major psychological influence: it is hard to imagine that numerous events
or conditions that would have occurred in the normal course of time would not
be more closely oberved, more noticed, and more likely blamed on the accident.
I find an analogy to this human tendency in my own experience when I first
obtained an amateur radio licence and set up a rather conspicuous antenna in
my yard, some years ago. Suddenly, I was deluged with complaints of radio and
television interference, even though the times I was supposedly interrupting
reception were times during which I was not even home! Another very
questionable item in the documentary was the inclusion of the description,
reminiscent of "The Day After", of a sudden cessation of the wind and a "wave
of heat", at about the time of the accident. I am not a physicist, but it is
my impression that any radiation flux sufficient to be felt as such would
cause serious injury or death far sooner than in the time between the TMI
event and the filming of the interview. This is pure emotionalism.
Political opinion presented as fact: Many believe that the arms race is
simply two equivalent powers building nuclear arms only to counter those being
built by the other side. They do it 'cause we do it, and vice versa, they
say. If we stop, they'll stop. Whether or not one accepts this view, it is
clearly but one opinion. In "The Fire Unleashed", this view was presented as
incontrovertible fact. I don't mind editorials, but I'd appreciate it if ABC
and friends would have the integrity to acknowledge them as such.
The three hours expended on this program could have accomplished much to
help our citizenry become educated and motivated toward reducing the risks
attendant in the presence of nuclear energy and arms in our world. A few
ideas as to how:
Get off the Doomsday bandwagon: Fear is the worst motivator toward
action. Acknowldedge the problem without the tawdry horror-movie tactics.
Offer solutions: This point was raised by one of the scientists on the
panel. Without some discussions of solutions, even if only conjectural or
theoretical, the program degenerates into three hours of prime-time hand-
wringing.
Promote confidence: Nobody attacks a problem with much enthusiasm or
energy when the problem appears insurmountable. Yet, this documentary tended
to present the nuclear threat as just that: a global death sentence without
possibilty of appeal. If the public were presented with a little more faith
in the capacity of dedicated and energetic human beings to find answers, the
program just might help advance that cause. As it is, those who invest their
time and energy in the cause of peace and safety found precious little
encouragement in "The Fire Unleashed".
ABC presented "The Day After", which served to tell us that nuclear war
is horrible, a supreme assertion of the obvious. If anyone expected "The Fire
Unleashed" to be much of an improvement, they, like me, were probably
disappointed.
[ I am not a stranger, but a friend you haven't met yet ]
Ray Simard
Loral Instrumentation, San Diego
{ucbvax, ittvax!dcdwest}!sdcsvax!sdcc6!loral!simard
...Though we may sometimes disagree,
You are still a friend to me!