8,835
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
:[[Keith Parker]], chief executive of the NIA, confirms that the industry carefully co-ordinated and exploited the build-up to the election. "We discussed these things a lot," he said, "and we did see the election as an opportunity. There were several other things coming at the same time, such as the government's review of renewables [due out in June]. It gave us a good chance to raise the profile of nuclear power." The campaign co-ordinated by the NIA was designed to focus not on the historically dubious benefits of nuclear power but on the shortcomings of all the alternatives. [http://afr.com/articles/2005/05/26/1116950813750.html]
Parker's statement appears at odds with comments made a few months earlier by an NIA spokeswoman. [[Chris Grimshaw]] of [[Corporate Watch]] reported that:
:They [the NIA] denied conducting any proactive media relations work at all. They claim that their PR strategy is purely reactive, simply handling inquiries from journalists. Spokeswoman Ruth Stanway insisted that there is “no dark machiavellian conspiracy” pushing for new nuclear power stations. She attributed the high media profile of the issue to rising oil prices, Russia's signing of the Kyoto Protocol and Lovelock's public utterances. She said she did not know what inspired the timing of Dr Lovelock's article. [http://archive.corporatewatch.org/newsletter/issue21/issue21_part2.htm]
==Staff==
