One of the frequently repeated comments about the way that the ad supported media choses its coverage is that the media tends to focus on “if it bleeds it leads” and on telling dramatic stories. If that was true, why are stories about deadly, dramatic fossil fuel accidents told once and then forgotten while brief hydrogen pops at nuclear plants that did not kill anyone played thousand of times on major world wide networks over a sustained period?
I believe that the difference is that the nuclear industry does not buy enough advertising on a regular basis to be able to influence the editorial directors to lay off and move on. Instead, there is no one in the nuclear industry who can pick up a phone and get the network business people to find other focus areas if there is anything at all happening at a nuclear energy facility. At nuclear plants, even a leak of 99.99999% pure water where the remainder happens to be a minuscule amount of tritium, cesium or other radioactive material becomes a major news item.