Comments

Posts

After Fukushima: The Fear Factor (Examining Scaremongering Journalism)

Here is a great work of citizen journalism that really deserves attention (it’s from August, but wasn’t really widely noticed at the time):

The ‘apocalyptic’ media frenzy post Fukushima which displaced the real disaster story and horrific loss of life wrought by the earthquake & tsunami, sickened Japanese born Mari Shibata. Along with WORLDbytes volunteers she investigates the fear factor. Why did a nuclear incident affecting only a small area fuel global meltdown stories? In an interview with the Director of the Science Media Centre we learn of news values shaped by a concern to terrify people, journalists removed from stories for being too measured and scientists accused of lying. Granted unique access to Oldbury, the oldest nuclear power station in the world we learn how seriously safety is taken and due to fears of terrorism post 9/11 its tragic shut down to visitors. Through talking to relatives in Japan we learn of the progress being made to clear up the real mess made by a natural disaster, a story neglected by the Western media.

Todd Kreider at the NBR forums has typed up a transcript of the interview with Fiona Fox of the Science Media Center (starts at 8:55 in the video):

Fox’s job is to have her staff compile a list of top scientists who the BBC and others can interview. She says that she compiled a list for the tsunami and earthquake stories but 24 hours later the only ﾀuestions journalists asked were about the Fukushima reactors.

“It seemed like there was an agenda set by the editors. And later on when I started to reflect on this and talked to journalists off the record and asked ‘Why was there such a massive desire for *that* scare story when you already had a terrible scare story?’ It wasn’t as if we were asking them to cover the good news and not the bad news. There is plenty of bad news. One or two of them were very open with me and said, ‘Fiona, our editors think there is something uniquely terrifying about radiation. There is something unique to that word that has the capacity to terrify people.’ “

“And at that moment you have to pause for a moment and think ‘My goodness, what a strange set of news values: what justifies your – the amount of coverage – is what your editors feels terrifies people.’ There are some more sophisticated explanations for why these news values set in, but I think the one you really have to question is the one that says, ‘Because you couldn’t see it, because it is uniquely terrifying, therefore we felt compelled to cover it.’ And on that, I just beg to differ. I beg to differ that that is morally justifiable as a news value.”

Skipping ahead to about 13:40 in the video:

” what you really, really need at times like this is the *real* experts, the people who really know what they are talking about. And the Science Media Center’s job is to line up people who know about radiation, who know about the effects on humans, the effects on the environment and soils and food, etc. And we lined them all up and without exception there were all giving quite measured…

They said that this is a very, very serious incident but in terms of it being a threat even to people in Tokyo, never mind to people in Glasgow, they were expressing time after time that this threat was very, very, very, very small. And they were all dismayed that the world’s media was focusing on the threat of radiation which they thought was very very small for people outside the exclusion zone…

Fox again from 16:30 adds that many journalists told the Science Media Center that their editors would say, “So what are the apologists (nuclear scientists) saying today?” in response to their daily press conferences. She points out the wide variety of experts were on the list since nuclear includes so many sub areas. Fox adds that no scientist was from the nuclear industry and were scientists writing in top journals.

This is maybe the most damning quote:

Fox:　”The way that this was covered was wrong. I feel confident in saying that because of how many journalists felt uneasy about this. I know of journalists who were taken off this story because what they were writing was too measured and that’s in a really significant, major news room in this country.”

—

Akihabara News – Gadgetry from Japan (Subscribe)
Dannychoo.com – Your portal to Japan (Subscribe)

22 comments - What do you think? Posted by James - November 9, 2011 at 9:04 am

Categories: Anti-Japan, Technology Tags: anti-nuclear, fearmongering, fukushima

KyoushiSam

Good documentary. Definitely will bore anyone who wants to be scared by radiation. =3
Anonymous

What? Commercial news reportage being sensationalist? Surprise, surprise. Is this news to anyone?

flowby

News is a commodity and has intrinsic marketable capital worth – as all commodities have.

The process of “Added Value” enhances the desirability/purchasability and in the case of Fukushima this value is provided by the “fear factor”.

Much of mainstream Media has moved on from the hollow “the whole truth and nothing but the truth” to the simple pursuit of financial gains. ” Scary ” sells well, so dressing up(or down) the product meets backers expectations and demands.

The local media here are quite the masters of it. Even the public broadcaster – NHK- that doesn’t rely heavily on the commercial sponsor merry-go-round, retells News to match it’s own image of what it believes the whole truth is.

If you think news is of real importance, you’d better find some reliable niche sources and use the Main Body as fillers for cracks in our daily pavements.

Anonymous

Are you suggesting the Japanese media are scare-mongering? If so, I find that bizarre. Please, provide even a single example of NHK or any other mainstream news source “scare-mongering” the risks of radiation.

flowby

Suckra – thank you.

Actually my reference was at the notion of “the whole truth and nothing but the truth” and how media – yes even in good ol’ Japan – report how they feel fit to.

No where did I suggest scaremongering radiation was a tactic of the Japanese media. Altho I have read/seen
many stories depicting the “scared” nature of citizens re Fukushima.

And as far as bizzare goes – look no further than the general mainstream media. I won’t provide any links – but feel free to browse what’s on offer anytime, anywhere.
Ap

I don’t think they were scaring people too much with the radiation issues.
But there are other issues (immigration, immigrants etc.) where they are baselessly scaring the people.

http://theinconvenienttruthonwhaling.blogspot.com/ kujirakira

I find Japanese media still checks facts and gives both sides of a story a chance.
When was the last time an Australian news source interviewed a Japanese scientist in Japanese on whaling?
Never.

All news organizations stretch the truth, but I find very little comparison between even Asahi (the worst offender in Japan) with CNN (supposed to be the most legit source in America). Let alone something as egregious as Fox News. CNN’s reporting on all things Japan make Asahi look like Joe Friday.

flowby

How exactly do you find that the Japanese media checks facts? We all want to know that one. Is it because of the thoroughness of the investigative reporting or the kisha club or the back-rubbing system or the … please tell us.

Asahi the worst offender in Japan??????

CNN the most legit in America???????

And my comments were obviously not playing the ” one country’s media is better than anothers ” card. Geez!

Whaling? eh??? Ground control come in , come in.

http://theinconvenienttruthonwhaling.blogspot.com/ kujirakira

I already gave you an example.
The way media handles the whaling debate in Japan vs other countries is indicative of who checks facts, who sensationalizes, and who gives time to both sides of a story.

It’s a pity when already given an example that you try to swiftboat and instead attack my character.
But it’s not unexpected from you, in fact it’s very typical.

flowby

Example?

You didn’t answer my question re “facts”.

And your comments re best & worst lend themselves to open questioning.

And if you re-read my posts carefully from the beginning you will find I have merely commented on the current depressing nature of News Services – everywhere, except for a few dedicated sources.

We are in Japan so I mentioned even here the media is not free from the ailments afflicting the worldwide news industry.

Actually I feel insulted (a little) that you have misconstrued, intentionally or not, to match your own agenda.

Now about answering those questions…!
http://theinconvenienttruthonwhaling.blogspot.com/ kujirakira

I already did answer those questions.
“The way media handles the whaling debate in Japan vs other countries is
indicative of who checks facts, who sensationalizes, and who gives time
to both sides of a story.”

You can dismiss or ignore the example all you like; but it won’t change anything.
And yes, Japanese media is not immune to this trend in sensationalizing, but it’s my contention that Japan is also “far behind the West” on this matter — and for the better. It’s one of the things I think Japan still does decently well, or at least better than counterparts in Australia, America, and England.

Now, if you could return the favor and provide your own examples.
I offered examples and statements in my first post.
Your replies thus far have merely been “I don’t like your example”, “I’m insulted”, and “Everything you say is questionable but I have nothing to offer as a counterpoint”

If you don’t like my assertion on which tv news stations are regarded as most credible (CNN) and least credible (Asahi, Fox) then I suggest rather than simply whining that you actually respond with some content.
flowby

Kujira – thank you for your response.

My question was “How exactly do you find that the Japanese media checks facts”?

I wasn’t asking for a comparison or an example of a report – whaling or whatever – I just simply wanted to know what methods the media here utilise to check the facts, because you said they do. That’s all.

And if you want an example – perhaps the poorly reported – until this week – Olympus debacle.
But as I said again and again, I’m not interested in playing the “weez betta than you game”.

And yes I confess, I’m guilty of excessive wining, especially a full bodied shiraz.
http://theinconvenienttruthonwhaling.blogspot.com/ kujirakira

Do you have any actual content to add, or just semantics?

You keep asking for examples when one has already been provided.
More telling is that you have no refutations of my points.
If you truly weren’t interested in the “x > y” debate, you wouldn’t have responded in the first place.
Thus far your statements are textbook for an apologist drawing lines in the sand.

17 If your opponent presses you with a counter-proof, you will often
be able to save yourself by advancing some subtle distinction.
Try to find a second meaning or an ambiguous sense for your opponent’s idea.
flowby

Sorry – I’m actually not being hard headed here.

If you can’t answer the question “How……?” then so be it.

An example of whaling reporting doesn’t disclose the HOW (ie methods, means & procedures) the Japanese media use to procure the facts.

That’s all.
http://theinconvenienttruthonwhaling.blogspot.com/ kujirakira

I never claimed to know “how”, I claimed their reporting demonstrates that they do and provided examples.

I’m sorry you can’t come up with any examples to support your claims, or offer any substantive material whatsoever except to try these lame games with semantics.
flowby

Thank you.

OK – I’l accept your statement that Asahi is the worst news service here and CNN the most legit there.

OK – I’ll accept that the balanced reporting of the whale issue by the Japanese media is far fairer than the lopsided presentations of the OS media.

And thank you for acknowledging “I never claimed to know how”. An earlier simple reply to the effect – “I don’t know how they do it, but they just do it.” would have been enough.

And I did give one example – the decidedly hush hush approach of the mainstream media here for weeks to the Olympus affair.

And no semantic games here – just cut and dried – not drawn and quartered.

Cheers.
ponta

”I just simply wanted to know what methods the media here utilise to check the facts, because you said they do. That’s all.”I guess it depends on the incidents they are reporting.Here are some recent articles how the media　gather information　you might be interested in.朝日震災と原発事故、その時朝日新聞は「大本営発表」と逆転の発想http://astand.asahi.com/webshinsho/asahi/asahishimbun/product/2011102400008.html産経
阪神・淡路大震災（６）絆生んだバケツリレー　
2011.11.10 http://sankei.jp.msn.com/west/west_affairs/news/111110/waf11111010000006-n1.htm

Anonymous

Fiona Fox talks about how she thinks it was disproportionate of the British media to switch the main focus of their coverage to Fukushima rather than the other effects the quake had, but what has to be realized is that houses being carried away by the tsunami is just as much an effect of the quake as the whole Fukushima situation was. From what I saw of British coverage, the tsunami victim angle was also covered, though the Fukushima thing was of course on top of the page. Blaming the media for this is bizarre though, it’s not about them setting the agenda as much as people asking for this to be the agenda. People are naturally much more interested in a nuclear disaster than yet another earthquake which was, in terms of casualties, peanuts compared to say Haiti or Thailand or Cyclone Nargis, and only saw about a 1/4 as many casualties/people missing as the 2008 Sichuan earthquake. The nuclear accident on the other hand was almost unprecedented, the scale of it was hard to grasp and predict even for members of the scientific community, making it much, much more captivating and interesting.

http://theinconvenienttruthonwhaling.blogspot.com/ kujirakira

“the scale of it was hard to grasp and predict even for members of the scientific community”

Not really.
MIT’s blog on the matter has stood the test of time.
It’s perfectly right to blame the media. They’re supposed to research and do fact-checking — if we expected the public to do all of that on their own, we wouldn’t have any need for a media.
The Western media instead threw all the facts and information to the wind for the benefit of their ratings, and the political benefit of their sponsors (oil and coal). The media had all the facts and experts at their disposal, they deliberately chose to ignore those and print outright lies and bullshit.

hasamihands

This chick has everyright to be upset at this illtreatment but she should know that Westerners take what they see on the news with a grain of salt AT BEST.
Would have loved to see these two head to Japan and to the fukushima reactor!!
http://maxhodges.com Max Hodges

nuclear disaster is much more rare than earthquake and tsunami, and the potential fallout much more broad. that’s the story I would have focused on and continue to focus on.
Spoon Link

The real tragedy is how the government forced the people of Fukushima to evacuate their hometown, where they were forced to abandon pets and livestock and were forbidden by the government from saving them for months.

Even after that, lives were ruined when the sale of Fukushima’s precious crops were banned without compensation, ruining the lives of people much like the British Petroleum incident. Sadly this did not get nearly enough international publicity.

In the end, it was not the radiation itself that made this event so horrible.

After Fukushima: The Fear Factor (Examining Scaremongering Journalism)

Recent Comments

Further Reading

Bikini Atoll: Lessons For Fukushima?

Complaints From Loony Parents Cancel Event: Okinawan Children Not Allowed to Play With “Radioactive” Aomori Snow

Remembering the International Media’s Post-Fukushima Hysteria: Radiation Scare Stories Ignored Real Victims of 3/11

A Look Inside Osaka Prison

Dead Shark Found in Yoyogi Park

Japanese Fart Battle Scroll

Dinosaurs Wear Traditional Japanese Clothing

Canada Rejects Refugee Application From Japanese Who Feared Radiation

Ishinomaki: Then & Now

Radioactive Seafood? Miyagi Fishing Industry Works to Prove Safety of Their Fish

Categories

Archives

Subscribe

Japan Blogs

Korea Blogs

Linkroll

Other Asia Blogs