Because it is on his interest to present the facts (that can be checked) the support nuclear power. Just like an anti nuclear article will present facts ( that can be checked) against it.
By reading these two sources I can get both sides of the story and see the arguments for and against.
It's admittedly how show debates work, taking two extreme viewpoints and pitting them against each other. But in questions like this it's not a good way - clear propaganda does not present facts, it manipulates them. This only confuses and makes it impossible to get the proper arguments. It's better to work with sources that have no inherent motivation to lie.
A tangent, but this mindset of "there are always two valid sides at the extremes and we need to present both" is said to be a huge burden on the reporting about politics in the US, it makes the most extreme viewpoints visible and supported the rise of the fascists in the GOP. I agree.
By reading these two sources I can get both sides of the story and see the arguments for and against.
This is how debates usually work.