COVERAGE OF THE FUKUSHIMA CRISIS IN THE TWO MAJOR ENGLISH-LANGUAGE NEWSPAPERS IN JAPAN: A CRITICAL ANALYSIS by CAREY FINN-MAEDA submitted in accordance with the requirements for the degree of MASTER OF ARTS in the subject COMMUNICATION at the UNIVERSITY OF SOUTH AFRICA SUPERVISOR: Dr Hannelie Marx Knoetze November 2016 Declaration Finn-Maeda DECLARATION Name: Carey Finn-Maeda Student number: 51933608 Degree: Master of Arts in Communication COVERAGE OF THE FUKUSHIMA CRISIS IN THE TWO MAJOR ENGLISH-LANGUAGE NEWSPAPERS IN JAPAN: A CRITICAL ANALYSIS I declare that the above dissertation is my own work and that all the sources that I have used or quoted have been indicated and acknowledged by means of complete references. I further declare that I have not previously submitted this work, or part of it, for examination at Unisa for another qualification or at any other higher education institution. ________________________ _________ SIGNATURE DATE Dedication and Acknowledgements Finn-Maeda DEDICATION AND ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS This dissertation is dedicated to the best K. I would like to express my gratitude to the following people and institutions for their contributions to this study: • My supervisor, Dr Hannelie Marx Knoetze, for her expert guidance, mentorship, support and patience. • Unisa and NSFAS, for the bursaries without which I would not have been able to complete this study. I would also like to express my appreciation to: • Nao Maeda, for the tea, snacks and moral support. • Scott Ross and Yifeng Hong, for the coding assistance. • My friends, family and colleagues for the kind avoidance of my dissertation as a conversation topic. Abstract Finn-Maeda ABSTRACT This study uses a mixed-method approach to analyse the coverage of the 2011 Fukushima nuclear crisis in Japan’s two major English-language newspapers – The Japan Times and The Daily Yomiuri. Quantitative coding is combined with critical discourse analysis to determine whether the coverage was, overall, predominantly alarming, reassuring, or relatively balanced and neutral. This is done to ascertain whether the newspapers were sensationalising the crisis, echoing the official government and industry communication thereof, or reporting in a critical, responsible manner as the fourth estate. To answer the research question, key aspects of the coverage like foci, framing, sources, narratives, actors and agency, and criticisms are closely examined. It is revealed that the coverage was neither predominantly alarming nor reassuring, but was problematic in other ways. The implications of the complex findings, both for the Japanese media industry and international disaster reporting, are discussed. The study is situated in a broad literature framework that draws on agenda setting theory, research about the roles and responsibilities of the media, the field of risk communication and the reporting of radiation events in history. KEYWORDS: Fukushima, content analysis, critical discourse analysis, The Japan Times, The Daily Yomiuri, radiation, risk communication, disaster reporting, fourth estate, media. Table of Contents Finn-Maeda TABLE OF CONTENTS CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION ......................................................................... 1 1.1 Background information ................................................................................... 3 1.2 Research objectives ......................................................................................... 9 1.2.1 Research question ..................................................................................... 12 1.2.2 Sub-problems ............................................................................................. 14 1.3 Research methodology................................................................................... 15 1.4 Key terms ........................................................................................................ 16 1.5 Overview of chapters ...................................................................................... 19 1.6 Conclusion ...................................................................................................... 20 CHAPTER 2: REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE ............................................... 22 2.1 News media: role and influence in society .................................................... 23 2.2 Risk communication in the nuclear context: overview and issues ............. 36 2.3. News media: roles and responsibilities in risk communication and perception ............................................................................................................. 43 2.4 The Japanese media: background and criticisms ........................................ 49 2.5 Coverage of Three Mile Island and Chernobyl: criticisms and lessons ...... 59 2.6 Fukushima: insight, communication and coverage ..................................... 66 2.7 Conclusion ...................................................................................................... 84 CHAPTER 3: METHODOLOGY ...................................................................... 86 3.1 Media content analysis: an overview ............................................................. 87 3.2 Media content analysis: quantitative aspects ............................................... 89 3.3 Critical discourse analysis: an overview ....................................................... 90 3.4 Critical discourse analysis: concerns and credibility .................................. 98 3.5 Examples of mixed method research .......................................................... 100 3.6 Newspaper profiles ....................................................................................... 105 3.6.1 The Japan Times ..................................................................................... 105 3.6.2 The Japan News (The Daily Yomiuri) ....................................................... 107 3.7 Methodology used ........................................................................................ 109 3.8 Trustworthiness ............................................................................................ 113 3.9 Conclusion .................................................................................................... 114 CHAPTER 4: QUANTITATIVE ANALYSIS ................................................... 116 4.1 Basic meta-data ............................................................................................ 117 4.2 Geographic and issue foci ........................................................................... 119 4.3 Keywords used ............................................................................................. 125 4.4 Reporting of radiation ................................................................................... 129 4.5 Depiction of risk ............................................................................................ 134 4.6 Sources used in the newspapers ................................................................. 136 4.7 Criticism in the newspapers ......................................................................... 140 4.8 Conclusion .................................................................................................... 141 CHAPTER 5: CRITICAL DISCOURSE ANALYSIS ....................................... 143 5.1 Framing of the nuclear crisis ....................................................................... 144 5.1.1 Framing in articles and opinion pieces...................................................... 144 5.1.2 Analysis of headlines ................................................................................ 151 5.2 Reporting of radiation ................................................................................... 158 5.3 Criticism of authorities ................................................................................. 163 Table of Contents Finn-Maeda 5.4 Conclusion .................................................................................................... 168 CHAPTER 6: IMPLICATIONS OF FINDINGS ............................................... 170 6.1 Summary of main differences in coverage .................................................. 170 6.2 Answering the research question: Alarming, reassuring or balanced?.... 172 6.3 Implications ................................................................................................... 175 6.3.1 The Japan Times ..................................................................................... 176 6.3.2 The Daily Yomiuri ..................................................................................... 178 6.4 Impact for Japanese media .......................................................................... 180 6.5 Relevance for nuclear disaster reporting .................................................... 185 6.6 Conclusion .................................................................................................... 186 CHAPTER 7: CONCLUSION ......................................................................... 188 7.1 Summary of research process ..................................................................... 189 7.1.1 Introduction .............................................................................................. 189 7.1.2 Review of the literature ............................................................................. 190 7.1.3 Methodology ............................................................................................. 191