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.

Cities most affected by Japan earthquake, tsunami and nuclear crisis, in terms of media coverage

Posted on March 31, 2011 by fpujolmri • Posted in Countries, Country - Japan, Disasters, Earthquake, Event - Fukushima, Event - Tsunami Japan, Issue - Nuclear Crisis, Debate, Rep Issue -Media Impact Analysis • Tagged Country - Japan, Earthquake, Event - Fukushima, index of media impact, Ishinomaki, Japan Earthquake, Japan Tsunami, Kesennuma, Media coverage, media impact, media reputation, Misawa, Miyagi, Narita, nuclear crisis, nuclear disaster, Onagawa, Ranking, Reputation, Reputation Crisis, Sendai, Tokai, Tokyo, tragedy, Tsunami, Yokohama • 9 Comments

*** See also our special Japan one year later, with a summary of all our posts about Japan disaster: Earthquake, Tsunami and Fukushima Nuclear Crisis in Japan, One Year After – Media Impact Analysis

In a precedent post we showed the evolution of global media coverage received by cities with more than 100,000 inhabitants in Japan since massive earthquake in March 11, 2011. It referred to news reactions at the very intial stage of Fukushima crisis (news between March 11h and 14th).

We also run an analysis concerning media impact by affected Prefectures, and the relationship between media coverage and actual damages suffered.

Now we focus our analysis in the cities and localities actually affected by the disaster, by the damages reported in personnel and properties directly provoked by the earthquake or the tsunami. Sample also include cities affected by the ongoing nuclear crisis.

In the next figure we show top 20 cities and localities that have received highest levels in terms of international media attention. Data refers to news published till March 27. We have excluded from this table the three cities that have focused media attention during these first three weeks: Fukushima, Tokyo and Sendai. If included, all other cities become almost irrelevant in terms of media impact. Also, as we have seen in a precedent post, in many cases news refer to devastation mentioning regions instead of small localities. Regions in Japan are organized in Prefectures. As we saw, main references are Fukushima Prefecture, followed bt Miyagi and Iwate. Beside the three city outliers, the main reference in the media according to our results is Ishinomaki, with 7.0 points of media value. It means that this locality has received a number of news equivalent to 7 times more than the average of top 100 cities affected by the disaster (excluding big three). Second city by media impact is Kesennuma, with 6.4 points. These two cities have reported 2,700 inhabitants killed by the tsunami, and another 4,160 citizens are accounted missing.

The following table shows the results concerning the 50 cities most affected by the disaster in terms of media value, and factual numbers about deaths and property damages. The list includes top three cities by media coverage: Tokyo, Fukushima and Sendai. Top ranked city is Fukushima, with 235 points of mdia impact. This means that is has received an amount of news 235 times higher than the average of top 100 localities most affected by the earthquake and tsunami (excluding top 3 cities). Second city most present in the news is Tokyo, with 217 points fo media impact. These two cities concentrate all media attention, as Sendai, which comes third, takes a media impact value of 37 points. We can have a reference of how massive is media attention to Fukushima when we realise that media coverage given to Ishinimaki, fourth ranked city, was just 7.0 points.

The sample under analysis concern 463 cities and towns where actual personnel or property damages have been officially reported. The source used is CATDAT and CEDIM (earthquake-report.com). Data is updated by James Daniell. This organization relies in official accounting provided by Police Department. This source was used for the data we presented in the post about Prefectures media impact.

Fukushima reputation will we always linked to the nuclear disaster, even if Fukushima city is situated more than 50 kilometers away from the crippled nuclear site, Daiichi. As it is also kwnown as Fukushima I (against Fukushima II complex, situated some kilometers Noth, in Naraha town), media has labeled the site as Fukushima nuclear plant. The city and the Prefecture of Fukushima will pay the price in terms of negative reputation, even if radioactive contamination does not finally reach all the region or the city.

Present ratio Fukushima/Sendai is also telling about media coverage trend. In our previous post with news between March 11 and March 14, Sendai appeared the media reference just in the aftermath, and in the last measurements Fukushima became yet the media reference, but with a similar media impact value. Now, all tsunami related news are almost disappearing in comparison with the non closed nuclear crisis.

Looking to the ranking of cities, we can appreciate that it exists a close connection between media impact and number of people death and missing. There also some cities in the list that have suffered a limited number of personnel casualties because they were not directly affected by the tsunami as not being coastal cities, but have been severely affected by the earthquake in terms of proprerty and infrastructure destruction. This is probably the case with Koriyama (ranked 23), Mito (36) or Haga (38).

Finally, we find some other locations departing from the common trend, as they appear in the top 50 cities by media coverage received in relation with the disaster, but the figures show that they have not suffered directly relevant casualties. These cases require a specific news content analysis. Once the analysis is performed, we come to the conclusion that their presence in the list is justified, but for other grounds. Last column in the table provides some explanation of their presence in the list.

There are some different groups of locations. There is a group of cities receiving media attention simply because they are the main urban agglomerations in the affected area. This is the case for Yokohama (position 6), Fuji (16) or Kawasaki (28). There is a second group of cities present because they host sites of special infrastructures: the international airport (Narita, position 7), a US Air Force base (Misawa, 24). Ichihara appears in the list (position 42) because the oil refinery suffered damages with spectacular burning images. The third group of locations are all related with the nuclear crisis, and are taking increasing media prevalence in comparison with tsunami devastation related locations. Inside this group we find the cities in the relative nearby of the Daiichi damaged nuclear site. They are in the evacuation zone or not: Soma (position 12), Iilate (22), Ono (40), Kawamata and Date. Finally, there are some other locations in the list because they host other nuclear sites. Onagawa (position 9) and Tokai (19) faced some problems in the aftermath of the earthquake, but they are apparently under control. The other sites have not been damaged, but they appear nevertheless among top locations by media coverage: Kashiwasaki (30) and Yokosuka (37).

American Companies Most Affected by Japan Earthquake, Tsunami or Fukushima Nuclear Crisis, by Media Impact

Posted on March 27, 2011 by fpujolmri • Posted in Companies, Corp - AFLAC, Corp - Bank of America, Country - Japan, Country - United States, Disasters, Earthquake, Event - Fukushima, Event - Tsunami Japan, Issue - Nuclear Crisis, Debate, Rep Issue - News Content Analysis, Rep Issue - Newspapers, Rep Issue -Media Impact Analysis • Tagged America, American, American companies, Boeing, Canada, Caterpillar, companies, Corp - AFLAC, Country - Japan, Country - United States, Earthquake, Event - Fukushima, General Electric, General Motors, Goldman Sachs, index of media impact, Japan Earthquake, Japan Tsunami, JP Morgan, media impact, media reputation, Moody's, nuclear crisis, nuclear disaster, Reputation, Reputation Crisis • 7 Comments

In a previous post we showed the list of top 50 companies in Europe most affected by Japan disaster, in terms of media coverage received in relation with the catastrophe. List was dominated by energy companies and insurance and financial institutions.

In this post we show the list concerning the American companies. We show exactly the same approach and ways to establish the list of companies in Europe. You can refer to the post about Europe or the presenting note about our methodology if you need further explanations. We will show in a future post the list of most affected companies in Asia.

The sample for American companies is elaborated with the companies included in the Stoxx Americas 600. It includes companies from United States and Canada. Official site provides information about the 600 components of the index. This sample was also used to estimate the American companies most affected by Wikileaks in the initial stage of revelations and reactions by some US companies.

We use as unit of reference the same applied to the European case, in order to make it comparable. A Media impact value of 1.0 indicates that this firm has received an amount of news related with the Japanese disaster in an equal number than the average of news received by all Stoxx Europe 600. In the graph we also indicate if the company is more associated to news about the earthquake and tsunami or to the nuclear ongiong crisis in Fukushima.

Period monitored includes news published by newspapers all over the world between March 11 and March 21 2011.

According to our data, the company most affected in terms of media attention received is General Electric, with 37.1 points of media value. This media attention is mainly driven by Fukushima nuclear problems. This result shows the potential harm that the present crisis can generate for General Electric reputation and business interests, as its linkage with the crisis is due to the fact that General Electric was the company that designed the reactors, and that are still in use in other nuclear plants elsewhere. Probably we will identify in the future the impact of this crisis for General Electric in terms of media reputation, as we did with Bank of America or Chevron in relation with Wikileaks revelations.

Second firm in the list is Moody’s. In this case, the presence of this rating agency in Japan related news does not reflect a direct exposure of the firm. It is reflecting the media coverage given to the eventual assessment of the impact of the disaster on the quality of Japanese public debt. Third and fifth positions are also for financial institutions: JP Morgan and Goldman Sachs. These financial companies are present in the news in a similar way as Moddy’s is. They appear in Japan related news not basically as a company affected by the disaster, but as analysts and experts consulted to asses the extent of the economic and financial impact of the disaster.

Fourth place is for AFLAC, an insurance company. In this case, media presence is related with business exposure to the economic impact of the tsunami. For this company, this relationship with the tsunami is also a matter for negative reputation, as a substantial amount of media coverage received is not related with the estimation of the damages, but to the impact of unfortunated jokes tweeted by comedian Gilbert Gottfried, the voice of AFLAC trademark duck. Gilbert Gottfried was fired by March 14. Our results show how relevant are mistakes in times of crisis with massive media coverage.

Following places are taken by industrial companies, like General Motors and Caterpillar. Caterpillar appears as one of the potentila beneficiaries of the disaster, as this construction oriented firm.

Some US companies receive some of their media coverage associated to the tsunami as corportate donors through corporate foundations.

The presence of US automotive and technological (Intel, Apple, National Semiconductor) firms in the media with relation with the Japanese disaster is mainly associated to the problems that the earthquake can produce in terms of production shortages, as some damaged factories in Japan produce key components in the supply chain of these industries.

We find also in the list some US companies highly exposed to the Japanese economy, as this market is responsible for a relevant share of revenues and profits. Examples are Tiffany (position 25), Wal-Mart (position 11) or Starbucks (position 23).

If we compare this list with companies from Europe, we find that the most affected companies in Europe were mainly electric and energy companies and reinsurance firms.

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

Posted on March 24, 2011 by fpujolmri • Posted in Corp - New York Times, Corp - Wall Street Journal, Countries, Country - Japan, Country - United States, Disasters, Event - Fukushima, Event - Tsunami Japan, Issue - Nuclear Crisis, Debate, Rep Issue - Media Bias, Rep Issue - News Content Analysis, Rep Issue - Newspapers, Rep Issue - Storyline Analysis • Tagged Associated Press, cancer, Contamination, Corp - New York Times, Corp - Wall Street Journal, Country - Japan, Country - United States, Death Toll, Debt, Dollar, Earthquake, Event - Fukushima, Fears, health, Health risk, Investments, Iodine, Japan Earthquake, Japan Tsunami, Media coverage, media impact, media reputation, Missing, Nikkey, nuclear crisis, nuclear disaster, NYT, Oil Prices, Panic, radioactive, Rep Issue - Newspapers, sicentists, Tokyo, Tokyo Electric Power, tragedy, Tsunami, WSJ • 6 Comments

This post is the continuation of the previous one. It analyzes how New York Times and Wall Street Journal are portraying the news about the Japanese disaster and the Fukushima nuclear crisis. We can pursue an individual analysis of each newspaper storyline, as it refers to an event with massive media coverage. New York Times results are based in the content analysis of more than 200 news published till March 21, 2011, and some 1,300 news by Wall Street Journal.

We continue to show in this post the empirical results concerning the storyline profile of each newspaper. We use also as term of comparison the results concerning the average media coverage given by all US newspapers in our sample. Please refer to the precedent post for additional explanations about metholodogy and interpretation of the results.

The first figure we show in this post is revealing. It refers to the use of adjectives concerning the evolution of Fukushima nuclear crisis. We have monitored the couples improve/worsen, improving/worsening and optimism/pessimism. The results are striking. There is no different use concerning “improve”, but there is a consistent bias in using all other terms. Things “worsen” or are “worsening” much more for NYT than for WST. And things are “improving” much more for WSJ than for NYT. Also in the same line, “optimism” is much more present in WSJ articles than in NYT.

If we comapre the two leading newspapers against the US newspapers average, results tend to suggest that “worsening” and “improving” are keywords for the modelling of the storyline. Things are “improving” much more if we read WSJ in comparison to US newspapers, things are “worsening” much more if we rely on NYT articles in comparison to all US newspapers.

In the precedent post we showed in figure 4 how Fukushima is defined as event. “Nuclear crisis” predominates, with 4.5 points of media impact. In relative terms, NYT preferred the to use “nuclear accident”, while WSJ privileged “nuclear disaster” and “nuclear emergency”.

We add new content analysis about the media coverage given concerning the impact of damages of Fukushima nuclear crisis on human health. Main US newspapers reference is a generic “health risks”, with 1.8 points. But both NYT and WSJ prefer to use a more aseptic terminology: “health effects”, and this is specially the case in WSJ articles. If we look at media coverage of specific risks for health linked to nuclear radiation, we find again that WSJ departs clearly from common US newspapers trend. WSJ systematically underreportss media references to specific issues on nuclear and heath, like cancer, iodine, the milk and spinach from Fukushima Prefecture farms reported as contaminated or the radioactive iodine found in tap water in Tokyo. By contrast, NYT tends to follow the same rate of media coverage than other US newspapers, sharing the same storyline in this chapter.

Next figure is again focused in the storyline chapter referring to the impact of Fukushima nuclear crisis. Previous figure referred to effects on human health. Next one looks at media coverage to the seriousness of the radioactive emissions and about the evaluation of how harmful could they be.

Wall Street Journal and New York Times focus massively on “radioactive contamination” by comparison to US newspapers. As for the keywords referring to the extent of the damages, we find here the mirror of the previous figure. Now is WSJ that follows common US newspapers trend on these issues, while WSJ journalists depart and create a specific storyline profile: they insists much more than WSJ and average US newspapers on risks and damages associated to Fukushima and, again, in a systematic way. This applies to “danger zone”, “extemely high”, “lethal radiation” or “fission”.

Both figures 7 and 8 show us a clear biased interpretation and explanation of the events occurring in Fukushima nuclear plant.

The following figure shows the external references and sources cited by NYT and WSJ. This ongoing crisis contains a strong technical component, as the evaluation of nuclear damages requires to know and explain the functioning of a nuclear power and the implications of radioactivity in human health. Thus, Fukushima storyline requires the contribution of external sources. Main reference used is the category of “experts”, with a US media impact of 3.7 points. Then come the “scientists”, with 1.7 points. There is also reference to “technicians” (0.4 points), but it mainly refers to in the field technicians trying to solve and stop the radiation emissions. We find that NYT follows common pattern, while WSJ clearly deviates in this area, and refers to a much lower extent to such external references when constructing its Fukushima storyline.

Both NYT and specially WSJ refer in a lower extent than US newspapers average to news and information provided by Associated Press. A similar but less pronounced path is followed concerning the use of Reuters references. This is not a susprising result if we assume the initial hypothesis in the previous post that even if NYT and WSJ are not news agencies, they play in fact a similar role as news content provider to other newspapers because of their nature of leading influential newspapers. If this is the case, they should rely more on own sources than in information provided by agencies than the average US newspapers, as it actually happens.

Figure 10 refers to storyline keywords showing feelings and reactions to the disaster and crisis. Many of them refer mainly to Fukushima nuclear crisis. Main reference used is “concerns”, followed by “fears”. In both cases NYT uses this terminology in a lower extent than US newspapers and WSJ. Less used terms like “panic” and “dramatic” tend to be introduced more profusely in WSJ articles than in other media.

Figure 11 refers mainly to wording about the damages produced by the Tohoku earthquake and the subsequent tsunami in coastal areas. Main individual references are to consider it as a “disaster” and refer to “damages”. We observe that all sources give basically the same weight to these main defining components associated to the Japan earthquake.

The difference in media coverage profile appears concerning all other issues related with physical and personnel damages linked to the catastrophe. In a very systematic way, average US newspapers provide a wider media coverage to each single issue in comparison to NYT, and NYT covers in a wider extent all these issues than WSJ. Our interpretation of this result, which appears to be consistent all the way is not that NYT and WSJ are not as sensitive to casualties, tragedy and destruction than other US newspapers. To our understanding, this result tends to confirm our initial assumption that both NYT and WSJ assume their role as leading and influential newspapers. They understand that their mission is not just to inform and descrive the events in their most direct consequences (victims, death toll, missing people, debris). In consequence, they add to this basic storyline new description analysis and interpretation of the implications and effects of both the disaster and the nuclear crisis. They play a role in providing insights to public opinion. According to our judgement, this result also reflects that the different media coverage given by NYT and WSJ to Fukushima nuclear crisis is not simply a factual result, but it reflects two different positions in the US nuclear energy debate.

We interpret the lower weight given by WSJ in comparison to NYT in the media coverage of the direct personnel and property damages to the fact that WSJ is obliged to cover in a wider extent than NYT the analysis of the economic consequences of the the earthquake and tsunami. This different profile is clearly reflected in figure 12.

The content of figure 12 is all related to economic and business issues. If our storyline technique made sense, we should observe here that WSJ focus on these issues in a much wider extent than NYT and average US newspapers. Empirical results are in line with expected results. This is with no doubt the specific field developed within WSJ news. In comparison to all US newspapers and NYT, the specific issues more sensitive to WSJ analysis are the dollar, the impact on investments and the problems with the huge amounts of Japanese debt. Nikkey and oil prices are also elements of special preoccupation for WSJ.

Concerning issues that receive lower levels of media attention, we find that WSJ is specially concerned or sensitive to taxes, the role of Bank of Japan and the implications of the destruction in supply chain outside Japan.

Last two figures of this post are oriented to show the newspapers position about the debate on nuclear energy opened by the Fukushima nuclear crisis. Taking into account the information gathered from all precedent figures in this and previous post, it can be stated that New York Times and Wall Stree Journal defend and present well defined different positions about nuclear power, in the way the present the storyline of disaster in Japan.

Final figures refer directly about nuclear debate and about the possible sustitutive role of renewable energies. It is clear that this set of issues relates to local US interests. If results about nuclear debate are coherent with the rest of the storyline, we should expect to find a partisan approach, with WSJ defending the nuclear power and NYT considering renewable energy.

Figure 13 shows primarily the presence given to two opposed camps. “Nuclear energy” and “nuclear industry” are present in a wider extent in NYT articles. Presence in WSJ is in line with US average. But remember that WSJ is a business oriented journal. The natural result if this was a neutral business issue should be to find that media coverage by WSJ about the nuclear industry would higher than average (as it happended with neutral economic issues related to the tsunami and earthquake, as shown in figure 12). Actual result should then be considered as underreporting about the nuclear industry.

Concerning the other party in the debate, we find that WSJ use to refer to opponents as “protesters”. NYT writes about “opponents”, “anti-nuclear” or “activists”, and this in a higher proportion than US newspapers. NYT gives more space to nuclear opponents in the storyline than average. Use of these terms is marginal in WSJ news.

Another element showing a partisan position against nuclear power by NYT is that it refers in a substantial higher extent than all other newspapers to BP oil spill, in relation with Fukushima news.

Figure 14 shows to which extent the newspapers refer to alternative sources of energy in the context of Fukushima crisis. Once again, there is a systematic broken pattern. New York Times refers much more extensively than Wall Street Journal to renewable related energies. We find that WSJ refer to alternative sources in a wider extent than US newspapers but, as for its nature of economic driven paper and creator of content analysis, a really neutral coverage to these items would probably imply a much higher media coverage than actual.

Global picture emerging from all graphs is that Fukushima has actully become a national US debate about the future of the nuclear power in the United States. New York Times assumes a leading role in considering a more aggressive energy policy based in renewable sources, by the way if covers Fukushima nuclear crisis news. Wall Street Journal appears clearly positioned as favorable to the nuclear industry, and the media strategy followed is not to enter into the nuclear debate, presenting instead a passive and low-profile attitude, by minimizing coverage to content related with risks and dangers of Fukushima events, and by using a “no news” approach about renewable energy.

Other posts

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)

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

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

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

Posted on March 20, 2011 by fpujolmri • Posted in Companies, Country - Japan, Disasters, Earthquake, Event - Fukushima, Event - Tsunami Japan, Issue - Nuclear Crisis, Debate, Rep Issue - News Content Analysis, Rep Issue -Media Impact Analysis • Tagged Allianz, Barclays, BNP, Credit Suisse, Earthquake, EDF, Europe, European companies, Event - Fukushima, Fukushima explosion, index of media impact, Japan Earthquake, Japan Tsunami, Lufthansa, Media coverage, media impact, media reputation, nuclear crisis, nuclear disaster, Nuclear Energy, Org - Wikileaks, Royal Dutch, RWE, Swiss Re, Tsunami • 9 Comments

Update March 27: the list with the American companies most affectd by the Japanese disaster and the nuclear crisis has been published in a new post.

This blog is mainly oriented to provide empirical results concerning the impact of Wikileaks in terms of media reputation. In precedent posts we showed which where the companies most exposed to Wikileaks crisis in terms of media impact in America and Europe.

Now we use a similar technique to show to the readers of this post which are the companies most affected by the Japanese disaster. This first post in this business oriented series refers to companies from Europe. Companies monitored are those included in Europe Stoxx 600 Index. Future posts will refer to American and Asian companies.

Our European Companies Media Impact about Japan disaster is calculated with news worldwide referring to Japan earthquake or Fukushima nuclear crisis up to March 20 2011. A media impact value 1.0 means that this company has received an amount of news linked to Japan disaster in an equal number that the average 600 companies listed in the Stoxx 600 Index.

Some companies are most affected by the tsunami, and others by the nuclear crisis and its implications. We show in column 4 and 5 in the table if media coverage refers mostly to one event or the other. Three stars indicate that in comparison to average, this company is strongly associated to one of the events. Two stars also reflect a high bias to one of the events, but lower than the first case.

According to our results, the company from Europe most afected, at least in terms of media coverage is Royal Dutch-Shell, with 43.2 points of media value. This means that Royal Dutch has appeared in the media in news related to Japanese disasters 43 times more than the average of all companies checked. Second company in the list is French EDF (34.3 points), followed by Lufthansa (34.1 points).

First companies in the list are mailny affected by the nuclear crisis and operate in the energy industry. As the crisis is still open, their media exposure will continue to grow. We find many financial and insurance companies between position 5 and 20. They are all oriented to earthquake and tsunami news.

Other references

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 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.