|
When nuclear weapons make headlines, coverage often focuses on political rhetoric. What important angles or stories are journalists missing?
Terrill: We asked journalists a very similar question in our call for applications for our Hiroshima journalism workshop last year. One journalist answered beautifully by saying, "What draws me to reporting on nuclear weapons is the unparalleled moral, political, and existential weight of the subject. Covering nuclear issues requires exposing hidden architectures of power… Nuclear weapons are not just about policy, they are about people."
Remarkably, the missing angle is often the human story behind these weapons — their costs, consequences, and harms, and the hundreds of thousands of people involved with nuclear infrastructure — as well as the stories, past and present, of those working to reduce risks.
Nuclear policy can be highly technical. What are some practical ways journalists can explain nuclear weapons, deterrence, and arms control clearly for general audiences?
Angyal: When we’ve seen journalists have the kind of “aha!” moments that make them want to do more reporting on nuclear weapons issues, it’s when they recognize the human stakes, or when they start to see the dollar signs.
Maybe they read “Hiroshima” by John Hersey, or they hear a speech by a downwinder or someone from the Marshall Islands. Maybe they start reading about the staggering cost of modernizing America’s nuclear weapons program, which the Congressional Budget Office estimates will cost $946 billion over the next decade.
Or maybe it’s both: They start thinking about the cost of spending that money on nuclear weapons systems and not on programs that promote human flourishing.
Once they have that moment where the issue becomes a human and practical one, and it starts to feel less technical and abstract, they’re better able to convey that relevance to their audiences. It also helps to read great existing reporting to see how other journalists are making the technical details more accessible to audiences (e.g. the New York Times’ “At the Brink” series) and identifying sources that are good at explaining things for general audiences.
Can you share some of the resources, training programs, and other opportunities that the Stanley Center offers to help journalists deepen their reporting on nuclear weapons and global security?
Angyal: The Developing Story Project was created to support journalists who are reporting on nuclear weapons — and we do that in a number of ways.
Last year we took a cohort of two dozen journalists from Europe and Asia to Hiroshima for five days, where they met survivors, local journalists, and city leaders, and learned from each other about best practices for reporting on nuclear weapons issues.
We run workshops where journalists can learn how to effectively and ethically use open source intelligence and analysis in their reporting. And this spring, we’re organizing screenings and discussions of the nuclear-themed PBS documentary “Bombshell” with journalism schools, and we’ll be running a month-long program to support journalists who want a crash course in reporting on nuclear treaties.
As diplomats from around the world gather in New York City to review the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons, we’ll run a series of journalist-led virtual briefings for journalists and students to help them connect with subject matter experts and each other so they can better understand and report on the negotiations at a moment of increasing nuclear risk.
Upcoming event: Join the Stanley Center and the Developing Story Project at the National Press Club at 6 p.m. ET on Tuesday, April 7, for a screening of the documentary "Bombshell." This film examines how the U.S. government shaped and controlled the public narrative surrounding the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki at the National Press Club (register here).
| 
