Chernobyl and Three Mile Island References in News About Fukushima Nuclear Crisis

Posted on April 12, 2011 by fpujolmri • Posted in Countries, Country - Japan, Disasters, Event - Fukushima, Issue - Nuclear Crisis, Debate, Rep Issue - Communication Crisis, Rep Issue - News Content Analysis, Rep Issue -Media Impact Analysis • Tagged Chernobyl, Country - Japan, Earthquake, Event - Fukushima, Fukushima explosion, IAEA, index of media impact, INES, Japan Earthquake, Japan Tsunami, Level 7, Media coverage, media impact, NISA, nuclear crisis, nuclear disaster, Three Mile Island, tragedy • 6 Comments

In one of our initial posts about the Japan massive earthquake and the nuclear crisis in Fukushima nuclear plant we showed to which extent media from different countries used Chernobyl nuclear disaster as reference included in news about the initial stages of Fukushima nuclear crisis. It was posted by March 16, just three days after the explosion in the nuclear facility. The severity of the accident was established as Level 4 by NISA and IAEA. But French nuclear watchdog considered it already as a Level 6 accident. Chernobyl was catalogued as a major accident, Level 7. In that moment, Chernobyl appeared in some 15-20% of all news in Europe (with a maximum of 29% in France). US media converage reached 25% of all news about Fukushima. In Asian countries, average relationship with Chernobyl was higher, between 20 and 34% of all news about Fukushima.

Today, April 12, almost a month later, NISA has raised its evaluation of Fukushima nuclear problems from Level 5 to Level 7. This is the maximum level, the same as Chernobyl. This upgrade of the assessment of the severity of the accident will probably have an incidence of Fukushima storyline media coverage from now on, that we will continue to monitor and analyze. This new evaluation will also have an impact on the ongoing nuclear debate in many countries in the world.

We show in this post the time evolution of the references to Chernobyl disaster when covering the Fukushima nuclear crisis. We compare it to the the references given to Three Mile Island. In this nuclear plant, a nuclear accident in February 28, 1979 provoked a reactor partial meltdown. This accident was catalogued as a Level 5 in INES scale, which was till today the equivalent to Fukushima accident.

Our results show that from the very beginning Chernobyl accident was the main reference used by the media. It took an initial media impact value of some 8 points, againts a value of 3.5 points for Three Mile Island references. Media impact value refers to the relative weight of mentions to Chernobyl and Three Mile Island inside the general news storyline about Fukushima. So, a decreasing path reveals that media tend to use in a relative lower extent Chernobyl as element of news about Fukushima. We observe a sustained decreasing path till the end of March, when Chernobyl presence reaches a minimum of some 5.5 points. We observe a new upward trend since one week. Before today announcement, Chernobyl media impact value was 6.5 points. Right now it in the neraby of 8 points of media impact., becoming a new maximum in the series. Expect logically further increases in at least in the next few days.

Concerning Three Mile Island time evolution, we observe an upward trend since March 18. In that day the Japanese agency upgraded the severity of the accident from level 4 to level 5, makint it equivalent to Three Mile Island. media impact value soared in two days from 3.0 to 4.2. After this peak, a decreasing trend emerges, dropping to a minimum of 2.3 points. Right now it moves in the 3.0 area.

In the following figure we show how media has evolved in using these two past nuclear accidents as references. An upward trend indicates that media use more Chernobyl references than Three Mile Island. In the afthermath of the explosions, and specially when the third blast was suffered by the nuclear facility, fears and references to Chernobyl increased. Paradoxically, when the increase of the nuclear problems was aknowledged, Chernobyl power decreased, as Three Mile Island was the past nuclear accident similar to actual. A sharp increase of the relative presence of Chernobyl news appear at the beginning of May. Evidently, we expect to observe in the coming days a sharp increase of this ratio.

In the following graph we show how we monitor a similar information. In this case we show the evolution of the direct references of the INES values concerning the evaluation of Fukushima nuclear accident. We show here the weight of references of top INES levels since the beginning of the problems. Initial media references were marginal. They multiplied when NISA decided to raise the nuclear problem from Level 4 to Level 5. Media refer logically to both switching measures. By comparison, there is almost no references to an upgrade of the severity of the nuclear problem to Level 6 or 7. References to INES scale tend to lose weight till 22-23 March. We observe a dramatic drop at the beginning of April. This is due to the fact that we show three weeks moving-average values. The collapse shows thta reference to INES scale were concentrated around the day when the upgrade was made (March 18), and thereafter references are just marginal.

Of course, today we experience a new era concerning these series, as references to Level 7 explode, counting just with news few hours after the announcement. This initial reaction suggest that media presence of Level 7 news will be much higher than previous references to Level 5 references in the news.

New York Times and Wall Street Journal Coverage of Japan Earthquake and Fukushima Nuclear Crisis (I)

Posted on March 22, 2011 by fpujolmri • Posted in Companies, Corp - New York Times, Corp - Wall Street Journal, Countries, Country - Japan, Country - United States, Disasters, Event - Fukushima, Event - Tsunami Japan, Issue - Nuclear Crisis, Debate, Political Leaders, Rep Issue - Media Bias, Rep Issue - News Content Analysis, Rep Issue - Newspapers, Rep Issue - Storyline Analysis • Tagged BP, Chernobyl, companies, Corp - New York Times, Corp - Wall Street Journal, Country - Japan, Country - United States, Earthquake, Edano, Event - Fukushima, explosion, Fukushima explosion, Gallup, Hiroshima, IAEA, Japan Earthquake, Japan Tsunami, Kobe, Media coverage, media impact, media reputation, meltdown, nuclear crisis, nuclear disaster, NYT, Obama, Pakistan Newspapers, Political Leaders, radioactive, Rep Issue - Media Bias, Rep Issue - Newspapers, Reputation, TEPCO, Three Mile Island, Tokyo Electric Power, Tsunami, WSJ • 10 Comments

We continue our analysis of the initial media storyline of Japan earthquake and tsunami, and the related Fukushima nuclear crisis. In a previous post we have shown how the Fukushima crisis is portrayed by media from United States, United Kingdom, Australia and India. National results are elaborated by the sum of the contributions of all local newspapers.

If an event receives a relevant and sustained media impact, content storyline analysis can also be performen for singular newspapers. For instance, in precedent research projects we have measured how top US newspapers by circulation were following Republican and Democrat candidates, and to which extent they presented bias in terms of total media coverage. As the current media attention to Japan disasters is global and massive, we can study the specific behaviour of any particular newspaper.

We have chosen in this blog to show the storyline profile of two leading and influential American newspapers: The New York Times and The Wall Street Journal. As these two newspapers are new content generators, they become content providers for other newspapers when cited by. As WJS is a business oriented journal, we expect to find a specific focus on the economic consequences of the earthquake and the tsunami concerning local and international companies, and this should be reflected in the storyline. Those effect are of main importance for Japan’s economy and business, but less relevant for the global economy.

But in contrast with all other big natural disasters, Tohoku earthquake captures media attention with a clear local interests interpellation, as the Fukushima nuclear crisis may seriously open the debate about the future of nuclear energy use. United States uses profusely nuclear power. According to Gallup, in year 2010, 62% of respondents were favorable to nuclear power use for generating electricity, and 33% were opposed. Approval rates are partisan: using 2009 data it appears that 71% Republicans approve nuclear energy, while the approval rate for Democrats drops to 52%. Approval rates right now are respectively 62% and 32%. As it could be expected, approval rating are falling substantially in the context of the Japanese nuclear crisis: 39% of all respondents feel a lot more concerned about a nuclear disaster occurring in the United States after events in Japan, and an additional 31% are a little more concerned.

As many people consider NYT more liberal than WSJ, or WSJ more conservative than NYT, we want to check using our approach to which extent we find a different storyline profile about Fukushima nuclear crisis between these two leading newspapers. We will compare their behaviour to the storyline resulting from all newspapers from United States in our sample.

The analysis of this post is based in the content analysis of more than 200 different articles published by NYT and some 1,300 by WSJ directly related to Japan earthquake. Even if the range of the sample is wide enough, caution is required concerning the interpretation of individual results. When the media impact of an specific storyline component of NYT or WSJ is bigger than 1.0 points, we consider that results are quite reliable, as reflect an important amount of prevalence in different news. For issues obtaining lower scores as they are less frequently in the news, individual results are not directly reliable. In this case we consider that the relevant information appears if all single storyline components pertaining to similar issues behave following a common trend.

First figure just refer to the extension given to the main events suffered by Japan. First reference is still the earthquake, specially present in WSJ news. Fukushima related news receive a similar amount of news.

The following figures refer all to the Fukushima storyline.

The first one of them refers to main global issues in relation with Fukushima. While global attention to Fukushima is similar in both newspapers, we find that NY Times insists more than WSJ concerning “radioactive”, “contamination” and somewhat also “meltdown”. If we compare both to average US newspapers, we find that is WSJ which is underscoring these issues. It follows a clear different pattern concerning media coverage to “radioactive” and “contamination”.

In the following figure we show to which extent the newspapers use the reference to past nuclear disasters as a piece of the present Fukushima crisis storyline. We find a clear differenciated pattern between both newspapers. In comparison to US media coverage average, Wall Street Journal underuse references to past nuclear accidents. The underuse ratio is higher concerning the most severe past nuclear accident (Chernobyl, Level 7 accident) than concerning references to Three Mile Island, which did not provoke direct human casualties. The opposite happens with New York Times coverage: it stresses the media references to past nuclear accidents, in ha higher extent than US newspapers. Similar results concerning references to past disasters from other nature. References to the A-bomb suffered by Japan in Hiroshima and Nagasaki. References to BP oil spill disaster in Gulf of Mexico in the context of Japan disaster are marginal in US media and WSJ, by they play a certain role in the NYT storyline. Finally, the reference to the precedent big earthquake suffered by Japan, Kobe 1995 quake is reported in a similar way both by WSJ and NYT. In this case, the reference to past Japanese tragedy is unrelated with the nuclear debate.

There is a crucial choice that influences the whole profiling of the storyline: the basic labeling of the event. In the newxt figure we show the weight given by the newspapers to different wording of what is happening in Fukushima nuclear plant I Daiichi.

According to our results, the most used labeling is to refer to Fukushima as a “nuclear crisis”. This labeling takes 4.7 points of media impact in the storyline of news about the Japan disaster. In relative terms, this is also a preferred way to present the events by Wall Street Journal journalists. Other naming are “nuclear disaster”, by far less present, with 1.1 points of media impact. This is again a preferred option for WSJ. Third used option is “nuclear accident” (0.4 points), and is the chosen formula by NYT in relative terms to other media (in absolute terms, the main reference is to consider it as a “nuclear crisis”. Final used option is “nuclear emergency” (0.2 points), most widely used by WSJ. We can appreciate that the reference to an objective event, which is the explosion, is refelcted in the news in the same way by noth newspapers.

We echoed in a precedent post the controversial description by a top official from the European Union of Fukushima as an apocalyptic event. Our results show that only marginal media attention is given by US newspapers, and that NYT tends to use is in a higher proportion. Similar result concerning the use of “nightmare”.

Next figure refers to the appeareance of main local Japanese and international actors and authorities related with the crisis. Main reference for US media is Tokyo Electric Power, the company managing the Fukushima nuclear plant. We have splitted mentions to full name and those referring to it as TEPCO. WSJ shows references to the comapny in line with US average, and apparently prefers to use TEPCO instead of full name, in relative terms. This absence of divergent pattern is paradoxically an unexpected result. As WSJ is a business oriented newspaper, we should expect to find a special focus and media attention to Tokyo Electric Power concerning all different aspects when covering this nuclear crisis. This does not happen actually, and we will see later that this absence of interest on TEPCO is in sharp contrast with the media interest shown by WSJ in all other economic and business impact derived from the Japan earthquake and tsunami.

Concerning Japanese authorities, we find that WSJ and NYT insist more than US average when talking about them as a group (“Japanese Government”, “Japanese authorities”), but in a lower extent when referring to persons (Prime Minister Edano, Chief Cabinet Kan). Finally, the reference to the International Atimic Energy Agency is lower than average for NYT and specially for WSJ. The ratio Japanese Government/IAEA is 1.2 for average US media, 1.9 for NYT and 3.6 for WSJ. The way reference to local and international authorities is made is probably also a key factor in designing the storyline.

Other references

News Corp Scandal Media Coverage in US Newspapers

How Harmful Is News of the World Scandal for News Corp Reputation?

Movimiento 15-M, Democracia Real Ya: Perception by Local Newspapers El Mundo, El País, Intereconomía, Público

Bin Laden Killing News Storyline 1. Pakistan Media Coverage versus International Media (Ex USA)

New York Times and Wall Street Journal Coverage of Japan Earthquake and Fukushima Nuclear Crisis (II) About The Nuclear Debate

Japan XIV. New York Times and Wall Street Journal Coverage of Japan Earthquake and Fukushima Nuclear Crisis (II)

Japan XIII. New York Times and Wall Street Journal Coverage of Japan Earthquake and Fukushima Nuclear Crisis (I)

Japan XII. Japan Prefectures Media Coverage. Relationship with Personnel and Property Casualties by Earthquake and Tsunami

Japan XI. Companies in Europe Most Affected by Japan Earthquake, Tsunami, Fukushima Nuclear Crisis, by Media Impact

Japan IX. Fukushima Nuclear Crisis Media Views in United States, United Kindgom, Australia and India.

Japan VIII. Wikileaks on Fukushima and the Japan Nuclear Crisis. Measurement of the Initial Media Storyline.

Japan VII. Fukushima as a Chernobyl Nuclear Disaster: Media References by Countries

Fukushima Nuclear Crisis Media Storyline: The Actors (TEPCO, the Workers, IAEA), The Nuclear Debate, The Economy

Posted on March 19, 2011 by fpujolmri • Posted in Companies, Countries, Country - Australia, Country - India, Country - Japan, Country - United Kingdom, Country - United States, Disasters, Event - Fukushima, Issue - Nuclear Crisis, Debate, Political Leaders, Rep Issue - News Content Analysis, Rep Issue - Newspapers, Rep Issue - Storyline Analysis • Tagged Akihito, Amano, companies, Country - Japan, Country - United States, Earthquake, Edano, Event - Fukushima, Greenpeace, IAEA, International Atomic Energy Agency, Jaczko, Japan Earthquake, Japan Tsunami, Media coverage, media impact, media reputation, Merkel, Naoto Kan, nuclear crisis, nuclear disaster, Obama, Political Leaders, Rep Issue - Newspapers, Reputation, TEPCO, Tokyo Electric Power, tragedy • 1 Comment

This post follows the precedent one (Japan IX). Please check it for explanations about how data is gathered and calculated.

In this second part we show some additional storyline components. They deal mainly with the actors of the crisis, as portrayed by newspapers from the United States, United Kingdom, Australia and India. We will refer also the how media is giving media coverage to other implication of this disaster: about the nuclear debate, and about the economic consequences.

First two figures refer to public institutions and personalities directly or indirectly affected by the Fukushima nuclear problem in terms of decisions, competencies or responsibilites.

Main media reference is TEPCO, Tokyo Electric Power, the company that manages the troubled nuclear plant. It is the main reference in all countries. The company is scrutinized apparently by the media as the main responsible for managing the crisis and limiting the nuclear damages. In future posts we will show results about media reputation analysis about TEPCO.

The following prominent public figures are the Japanese Government as an entity, the Prime Minister Naoto Kan and the Chief Cabinet Secretary Yukio Edano. They al share a very similar media exposure. Mr Kan prevails are reference for Australian media, while Yukio Edano is the reference for US and UK media.

The International Atomic Energy Agency is the third actor in importance in terms of media impact in the Fukushima crisis storyline. For American media they play a minor role (1.5 points of media impact) in comparison with Mr. Edano (3.0 points). By contrast, Australia offers a wide coverage to IAEA, similar to weight given to local Japanese authorities. Also Indian media gives a major role than US and UK colleagues.

At this point, US President Barack Obama plays a significative role in this crisis only for US media.

Other actors with a relevent role according to media are presented in the following figure. Yukiya Amano, from Japan, is the current Director of the IAEA. His media coverage profile by countries is quite in line with that given to IAEA. The following person in importance by media coverage in relation to Fukushima is Gregory JaczKo. He is the chairman of the US Nuclear Regulatory Commission. His remarks in front of the US Congress depicting a somber evaluation of the Fukushima crisis has had not only a national impact in US media, but also in the other countries monitored.

Emperor Akihito offered a public appearance and declaration about how “deeply worried” he was with the earthquake and tsunami disaster. His presence hs been portrayed mainly by British newspapers. At this moment (with news up to March 18), Greenpeace is playing a marginal role, as it captures merely 0.1-0.2 points of media impact by the media of our selected countries. World Health Organization is not being used as reference up to now.

In the following figure we show some elements concerning how the Japanese nuclear crisis is opening the nuclear debate in each country. Remember that only Australia does not use nuclear power. We will probably show in the future a deeper analysis on this issue.

We find that Australia media refers less than the other countries to these issues, specially concerning nuclear industry, protesters, activists and nuclear lobby. Apparently at this point it is a more sensitive issue for media in India. There is ongoing media coverage about the nuclear industry in United States and United Kingdom.

Next figure refers to storyline content directly related to business and the economy. It give some insights of the weight of economic considerations against the other ongoing issues, and suggest which economic issues are considered most relevant right now. The impact of the nuclear crisis, and of the Tohohu tsunami on exchange rates between Yen and Dollar appear to be a leading issue in terms of media coverage. The impact on Yen valuation is highly covered by US media. Media from India is specially sensitive to the economic impact and the impact on oil prices. The concern about the impact of the Japanese disaster on the stock markets come as a second lin issue. According to our results, there is only a marginal mention in the media about possible impact in the financial crisis and economic crisis. This is currently not a major concern for media in all four countries monitored.

Final figure considers other actors related to the crisis in a very direct and dramatic way in some cases, like the workers and the emergency workers, and others in an indirect way, like scientists and experts. Our approach allows to provide answers concerning the media coverage provided to each group in each country.

The role of workers in Fukushima nuclear crisis is the main reference group for media. Media from US insist more than others. This pattern is repeated when referring more specifically to emergency workers. The group of authorities comes second, are more favoured by media from Australia and India.

The nuclear crisis is special in its media coverage as it requires explanations about technical issues to be understood by public opinion, and the severity of the events ask for innovative measures and solutions, and opens forecasts to unchartered ways. This is why specialists acquire a substantial role in the storyline of the Fukushima news coverage. According to our results, main media reference group is the so called “experts”, with a high media impact value of 4-5 points. They are specially used as source or reference by media from India and Australia. Then follows the group of scientists, with a media impact value around 1 point. They are most widely used by US media. Finally, the group of technicians take some 0.5 points of media impact, and again is US media the ones more focussing on theyr role and contribution.