Not even thinly veiled anti nuclear article with a blatantly anti nuclear propaganda video in it where the only mention of the possible upside is where they use an upside as a lead in to a supposedly more compelling downside where they tell you how to think about it.
The worst part is that this sort of media works. It really does shape what the average person thinks at some deep level to the point where they just get uncomfortable discussing a topic that the media has given them their opinion on because it becomes part of a persons world view and challenging your world view if you don't have a contrarian mindset is apparently very uncomfortable, possibly feeling similar to a feeling that you are in an imminent threat of being physically attacked.
To me nuclear as part of the solution to excessive CO2 emissions and actually more importantly the direct pollution from coal (coal dust and the toxic elements it contains) is super obvious. You just have to ask whether or not all the investment in renewables over the last 30 years has resulted in any reduction of fossil fuel use:

Renewables just fail at displacing fossil fuels and will continue to fail indefinitely.
The thing I wonder about is why environmentalists are so hostile to even allowing nuclear to be part of the solution when the threat is supposedly so great and the solutions they are pushing so ineffective and the arguments against nuclear so divorced from reality.
The propaganda video suggested that nuclear is part of some conspiracy to delay the transition away from fossil fuels. Its at that point I stopped watching. How can you look at the lack of progress renewables have made and think its the banned and handicapped technology that is standing in the way of progress...