It’s worth remembering, if you look at our coverage three weeks out of this event, that Japanese authorities have counted approximately 12,000 bodies, and I regret to say that number will likely be significantly higher by the time they are done. These bodies are not from the nuclear accident. They’re from the earthquake and tsunami, but the bulk of our coverage is on the nuclear accident.
What about this story has surprised you?
I never thought I’d be covering multiple meltdowns simultaneously or that I would be covering essentially fratricide, where problems at one reactor caused problems at an adjacent reactor. But news is the unpredictable. I admit that at times I get the sense that we’re living in a science fiction movie. At times I get the sense that all of those computer projections—all of those engineering studies about worst cases—are just projections, and now we’re getting a real world data point that is going to mean a lot more going forward.
And I’ve got one other idea to throw in, which is that this could turn out to be a Rorschach test. You look at this inkblot of the Fukushima accident, and we’re going to have people who say, “This shows it’s folly, we should never have split the atom.” We’re going to have people who say, “Look, if this is the worst that can happen, it’s not nearly as bad as some earlier projections.” And we’re going to have people who say, “Yeah, this is bad, there are things they could’ve been done better, but we can learn from this and move on.” The lessons learned will be all across the spectrum.
Did you sleep during the first few days of coverage?
Well, when the explosion of the first reactor happened, it was four in the morning here and our Web editor woke me up, and it’s hard to go back to sleep after something like that. The Web has changed things. The normal operation of the Times is that if you have a good story, it tends to go up on the Web when you have it, and a refined, better-reported, better-edited story tends to appear in the paper the next morning. In this case, there have been times when the newspaper was a snapshot of whatever the Web had at some certain hour in the evening.
Because there wasn’t time to step back and recast it?
Because it was going to keep changing all night anyway.
Editor’s Note: Matt Wald participated in a recent Harvard Kennedy School seminar on “The Seesaw Media Coverage of Japan’s Nuclear Crisis” organized by CJR contributing editor Russell (audio can be found here). The Times also has an excellent backgrounder on the Japan nuclear crisis as well as a searchable archive on its nuclear coverage.

Thanks for proving what many of us suspected, and that is during a breaking new crisis NYT reporters sleep under their desks with the cell phone within arm's reach.
There is a huge gap between top of the line newspapers like the NYT and some grandstanding television news. As a blogger who covers the nuclear energy industry, I was awestruck by CBS and CNN voice overs reporting about Fukushima with images of a burning natural gas tank farm in the background. Casual viewers might assume that the images of the flames meant the reactors were on fire.
There are two lingering issues that were not covered well by anyone when they took place. The first is the scientific basis for the decision by NRC Chairman Gregory Jaczko to tell a congressional committee Americans in Japan should evacuate to 50 miles when the Japanese only moved people 13 miles. Subsequently, the NRC's own reactor safety board has questioned the decision as have members of Congress from both sides of the aisle.
Second the IAEA accident rating scale, which like the Richter scale for earthquakes, is widely used to characterize an accident at nuclear reactors. Mostly, the news media ignored it while trotting out badly formed comparisons to Chernobyl. This shorthand added fear, uncertainty, and doubt to public's perception of the significance of the accident.
I do have one quibble with Wald's comment about "pro-nuclear" advocates. While there are some that have never seen a reactor they don't like, many more of us are realists. See for instance my blog post on decommissioning issues published this week at the blog of the American Nuclear Society.
http://ansnuclearcafe.org/2011/04/07/decommissioning-fukushima/
I don't always agree with the way the NYT approaches a story, but I'd rather have the newspaper's coverage as being among my first reads on events like Fukushima.
#1 Posted by Dan Yurman, CJR on Fri 8 Apr 2011 at 04:52 PM
I was wondering why James Glantz (who has a Ph D in physics) was not reporting from the reactor site. Now I understand it was because you are keeping your reporters more than 50 miles from the site. Is that really necessary?
There was a report several days ago that pieces of spent fuel rods had been found about a mile from the spent fuel pool. My initial reaction was skeptical and I commented that confirmation was needed. The next day an anonymous official sort of confirmed the report and the following day an anonymous official said was not true. If you have to stay 50 miles away you will be forced to put up with this BS.
#2 Posted by John Neff, CJR on Sat 9 Apr 2011 at 11:12 AM
The coverage of the Fukushima accident is truly exceptional. This did not surprise me, however, as for years I have found Matt Wald's writing on nuclear waste disposal issues, nuclear power and airplane accidents to be the most reliable and well written sources of information. I hope that the New York Times will continue to provide such high quality information. I hope science writing does not suffer the same fate as the best cartoons section of the Sunday paper.
#3 Posted by Susanne E. Vandenbosch, CJR on Thu 25 Aug 2011 at 01:13 PM