Representation of the Fukushima nuclear disaster in media opinion pieces
-
Samuel Reid
Samuel Reid has a PhD in Applied Linguistics from the University of Birmingham. He is an Associate Professor in the Department of English Communication at Kasei University, Tokyo. His research interests include linguistic representations of agency, the Fukushima nuclear disaster, and critical thinking in a second language.
Abstract
The Fukushima nuclear power plant meltdown is the second worst accident in the history of nuclear power. As nuclear power is a controversial policy option, interpreting the significance of the disaster is important in the struggle over the legitimacy of nuclear power. This article compares the representation of Fukushima between a corpus of five pro-nuclear and five anti-nuclear media opinion pieces published in English-language online newspapers. It uses systemic functional linguistics to examine the verbal process types and clausal positioning of Fukushima, focusing on themes in the data and how these representations construct competing arguments about the disaster. In pro-nuclear articles Fukushima has more frequent Relational and Mental process types and has more foregrounded clausal positioning, which reflects the need to emphasise alternative interpretations to the narrative of Fukushima as an unacceptable disaster. In anti-nuclear articles there are more frequent Material processes and backgrounded clausal positioning, which reflects a focus on the physical damage of the disaster and an assumption that Fukushima is evidence of the fallibility of nuclear power. Discursive differences over three specific aspects are identified – the lesson to be taken from Fukushima, the assessment of damage caused, and the performance of the nuclear plant.
About the author
Samuel Reid has a PhD in Applied Linguistics from the University of Birmingham. He is an Associate Professor in the Department of English Communication at Kasei University, Tokyo. His research interests include linguistic representations of agency, the Fukushima nuclear disaster, and critical thinking in a second language.
Appendix: Opinion articles
Pro-nuclear opinion articles
Freer, M. (2012, March 11) The Fukushima syndrome. Al Jazeera. http://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/opinion/2012/03/201238115746998458.html (accessed 20 May 2018).
Hastings, M. (2011, March 16). Yes, nuclear power plants are dangerous. But for Britain, the alternative is to start hoarding candles. The Mail. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1366274/Japan-tsunami-earthquake-Nuclear-power-plants-dangerous.html (accessed 20 May 2018).
Myhrvold, N. (2011, December 2). After Fukushima: Now, more than ever. The New York Times. http://www.nytimes.com/2011/12/02/opinion/magazine-global-agenda-now-more-than-ever.html?ref=opinion (accessed 20 May 2018).
Nuclear Support: Fukushima accident should not prompt a hasty retreat [Editorial]. (2011, March 19). The Financial Times. https://www.ft.com/content/a47805a8-5198-11e0-888e-00144feab49a (accessed 20 May 2018).
Windridge, M. (2011, April 4). Fear of nuclear power is out of all proportion to the actual risks. The Guardian. https://www.theguardian.com/science/blog/2011/apr/04/fear-nuclear-power-fukushima-risks (accessed 20 May 2018).
Anti-nuclear opinion articles
Hiltzik, M. (2014, March 10). Three years later, the lessons of Fukushima are uglier than ever. Los Angeles Times. http://www.latimes.com/business/hiltzik/la-fi-mh-fukushima-20140310-story.html (accessed 20 May 2018).
Naidoo, K. (2011, March 22). Nuclear energy isn’t needed. The New York Times. http://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/23/opinion/23iht-ednaidoo23.html (accessed 20 May 2018).
Naidoo, K. (2013, March 11). Fukushima disaster: holding the nuclear industry liable. The Guardian. https://www.theguardian.com/sustainable-business/fukushima-nuclear-industry-disaster-liable (accessed 20 May 2018).
O’Connor, R. (2012, June 13). Breaking up the nuclear family. Al Jazeera. http://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/opinion/2012/06/2012612103055289384.html (accessed 20 May 2018).
Fukushima has revealed the dangers of the nuclear road [Editorial]. (2011, March 18). The Independent. http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/editorials/leading-article-fukushima-has-revealed-the-dangers-of-the-nuclear-road-2245011.html (accessed 20 May 2018).
References
Binder, Andrew R. 2012. Figuring out #Fukushima: An initial look at functions and content of US Twitter commentary about nuclear risk. Environmental Communication 6(2). 268–277. https://doi.org/10.1080/17524032.2012.672442.Suche in Google Scholar
Blommaert, Jan & Chris Bulcaen. 2000. Critical discourse analysis. Annual Review of Anthropology 29. 447–466.10.1146/annurev.anthro.29.1.447Suche in Google Scholar
Butler, Catherine, Karen Parkhill & Nicholas Pidgeon. 2011. Nuclear power after Japan: The social dimensions.. Environment: Science and Policy for Sustainable Development, 53(6). 3–14. https://doi.org/10.1080/00139157.2011.623051.Suche in Google Scholar
Chilton, Paul. 1988. Critical discourse moments and critical discourse analysis: Towards a methodology. In Paper presented at the first international conference on discourse, peace, security, and international society. https://escholarship.org/uc/item/5383t78x (accessed 3 July 2015).Suche in Google Scholar
Desai, Danika. 2012. Discursive narratives about nuclear power in the aftermath of Fukushima: A media analysis on the New York Times and the Wall Street Journal. http://nature.berkeley.edu/classes/es196/projects/2012final/DesaiD_2012.pdf (accessed 12 May 2020).Suche in Google Scholar
Douglas, Mary & Aaron Wildavsky. 1983. Risk and culture: An essay on the selection of technological and environmental dangers. Berkely, California: University of California Press.10.1525/9780520907393Suche in Google Scholar
Downer, John. 2013. Rationalising the meltdown. In Peter Bernard Ladkin, Christpoh Goeker & Bernd Sieker (eds.), The Fukushima Dai-ichi accident, 79–102. Münster: Lit Verlag Fresnostr.Suche in Google Scholar
Fairclough, Norman. 2001. Critical discourse analysis as a method in social scientific research. In Ruth Wodak & Michael Meyer (eds.), Methods of critical discourse analysis, 121–138. London: Sage.10.4135/9780857028020.n6Suche in Google Scholar
Fujigaki, Yuko. 2015. Lessons from Fukushima. London: Springer International Publishing.10.1007/978-3-319-15353-7Suche in Google Scholar
Halliday, Michael A. K. & Christian Matthiessen. 2004. An introduction to functional grammar, 4nd edn. London: Routledge.Suche in Google Scholar
Hamblin, Jacob D. 2012. Fukushima and the motifs of nuclear history. Environmental History 17(2). 285–299. https://doi.org/10.1093/envhis/ems001.Suche in Google Scholar
Jessop, Bob. 2012. Economic and ecological crises: Green new deals and no-growth economies. Development 55(1). 17–24. https://doi.org/10.1057/dev.2011.104.Suche in Google Scholar
Jorant, Caroline. 2011. The implications of Fukushima. Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists 67(4). 14–17. https://doi.org/10.1177/0096340211414842.Suche in Google Scholar
Joskow, Paul L. & John E. Parsons. 2012. The future of nuclear power after Fukushima. Economics of Energy & Environmental Policy 1(2). 99–113. https://doi.org/10.5547/2160-5890.1.2.7.Suche in Google Scholar
Kubota, Yuichi. 2012. Facing a crisis with calmness? The global response to the Fukushima nuclear disaster. Japanese Journal of Political Science 13(3). 441–466. https://doi.org/10.1017/s1468109912000187.Suche in Google Scholar
Machin, David & Andrea Mayr. 2012. How to do critical discourse analysis. London: Sage.Suche in Google Scholar
Oktar, Lutfiye. 2001. The ideological organization of representational processes in the presentation of us and them. Discourse & Society 12(3). 313–346. https://doi.org/10.1177/0957926501012003003.Suche in Google Scholar
Pizziconi, Barbara. 2015. Japanese discourses on nuclear power in the aftermath of the Fukushima disaster. In Paolo Calvetti & Mariotti Mariott (eds.), Contemporary Japan: Challenges for a world economic power in transition, 161–189. Edizioni Ca’ Foscari – Digital Publishing.Suche in Google Scholar
Pollock, Phillip H., Stuart A. Lilie & M. Elliot Vittes. 1993. Hard issues, core values and vertical constraint: The case of nuclear power. British Journal of Political Science 23(1). 29–50. https://doi.org/10.1017/s0007123400006554.Suche in Google Scholar
Rosa, Eugene A. & Riley Dunlap. 1994. Nuclear power: Three decades of public opinion. The Public Opinion Quarterly 58(2). 295–324. https://doi.org/10.1086/269425.Suche in Google Scholar
Silverstone, Roger. 1999. Why study the media? London: Sage.10.4135/9781446219461Suche in Google Scholar
Sood, Rahul, Geoffrey Stockdale & Everett M. Rogers. 1987. How the news media operate in natural disasters. Journal of Communication 37. 27–41. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1460-2466.1987.tb00992.x.Suche in Google Scholar
Stoett, Peter. 2003. Toward renewed legitimacy: Nuclear power, global warming, and security. Global Environmental Politics 3(1). 99–116. https://doi.org/10.1162/152638003763336400.Suche in Google Scholar
Stoutenborough, James, Shelbi Sturgess & Arnold Vedlitz. 2013. Knowledge, risk, and policy support: Public perceptions of nuclear power. Energy Policy 62. 176–184. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2013.06.098.Suche in Google Scholar
Taylor, Bob. 2013. Thinking about nuclear power. Polity 45(2). 297–311. https://doi.org/10.1057/pol.2013.3.Suche in Google Scholar
Windisch, Uli. 2008. Daily political communication and argumentation in direct democracy: Advocates and opponents of nuclear energy. Discourse and Society 19(1). 85–98. https://doi.org/10.1177/0957926507083690.Suche in Google Scholar
World Health Organization. 2016. Radiation: Health consequences of the Fukushima nuclear accident. https://www.who.int/news-room/questions-and-answers/item/health-consequences-of-fukushima-nuclearaccident#:∼:text=Based%20on%20this%20survey%20and,for%201%2Dyear%20old%20infants (accessed 22 November 2018).Suche in Google Scholar
© 2025 Walter de Gruyter GmbH, Berlin/Boston
