You are not wrong, but not quite right either. With very few exceptions, there really is no "nuclear power industry". By that I mean that I can only think of a handful of examples of companies that are focused on making the majority of their income from designing, selling, operating or servicing nuclear power plants. Nearly every company that "does nuclear" actually makes more money selling equipment for coal plants, supporting gas extraction, building wind turbines, or operating a varied fleet of power plants.
I've talked with some of the leaders of those companies and spoken with the leadership at the Nuclear Energy Institute. They have almost invariably said that they cannot and will not market nuclear by comparing it to the alternatives with clear, honest evaluation of the negatives of those alternatives.
In other words, they are not willing to fight by using their most potent weapon, which is to emphasize the superiority of nuclear energy in terms of low emissions, fuel costs that are a tiny fraction of the competition, and inventory security that is unmatched. (What other technology can put several years worth of fuel into storage if they are worried about supply interruptions?)
There is no surprise why "the media" is not interested in telling the positive side of nuclear energy. There is nothing in it for them since there are not any advertisers buying ads that tell the good news. Media companies do not exist to provide free information, they provide information to readers and viewers to attract eyeballs that they can market to advertisers.
Your recommendation to emphasize "safer, more advanced nuclear power" is a risky and somewhat dishonest strategy. It puts existing investments in current nuclear plants into question, and it sides with the opposition by implying, despite all evidence to the contrary, that there is something uniquely hazardous about our existing light water reactor technology. It may not be absolutely perfect, but its record is pretty darned good compared to all other energy alternatives.
The triple play boogiemen of "TMI, Chernobyl and Fukushima" have resulted in about 56 fatalities during the 57 years since the UK's first Magnox reactor entered commercial operations. That is impressive and should not be the subject of handwringing. I am not saying it is not worthwhile to do better, after all, I don't drive a car designed in the 1960s, but it does not make sense to claim there is something terribly wrong with continuing to operate exising plants until they are actually worn out.
Publisher, Atomic Insights