Dissatisfied With Coverage

It was May 14, 1989, when another paper reported that a Department of Energy survey found radioactive and chemical contamination at Rockwell’s nuclear facility in the hills west of Chatsworth. Since that time, there has been revelation upon revelation about toxic pits, “accidental” releases of radioactive waste water and federal inspectors stumbling upon unreported areas of contamination.

Yet these stories were reluctantly run in The Times.

Why haven’t you done any serious investigation of the problems and cover-ups at this facility? Why, when others have staffs of reporters on this, does The Times expect only one reporter to be able to cover this whole issue?

Why are Rockwell officials taken at their word--despite numerous lies--and the opposition made to look like a bunch of lunatics? Why is it nearly impossible to get advance notice of upcoming hearings or cleanup oversight committee meetings publicized in The Times? Why were most of these stories, which affect all of Los Angeles, dumped in the Valley Edition or hidden in the barely read Saturday paper?

Why, when there’s finally a report on Rockwell with one remotely positive thing to say (forget the two “notable deficiencies”) does The Times jump to print this one, on a Sunday no less?

Why such behavior from a supposedly impartial newspaper? Could it be because this paper is printed on Rockwell presses? Or is it because Rockwell Chief Executive Officer Donald Beall is also on the Los Angeles Times Board of Directors? Hmmm. . . .

LAURA ZINKAN

Encino