Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
General Discussion
In reply to the discussion: So it turns out that nadinbrzezinski was correct re Fukushima [View all]Octafish
(55,745 posts)346. Please do. News coverage of Fukushima disaster has minimized health risks to general population.
Science Daily reported a new analysis finds that U.S. news media coverage of the Fukushima disaster largely minimized health risks to the general population. Researchers analyzed more than 2,000 news articles from four major U.S. outlets.
Here's more:
News Coverage of Fukushima Disaster Found Lacking
American University sociologists new research finds few reports identified health risks to public
By Rebecca Basu
American University, March 10, 2015
Four years after the 2011 Fukushima Daiichi nuclear disaster, the disaster no longer dominates U.S. news headlines, though the disabled plant continues to pour three tons of radioactive water into the ocean each day. Homes, schools and businesses in the Japanese prefecture are uninhabitable, and will likely be so forever. Yet the U.S. media has dropped the story while public risks remain.
A new analysis by American University sociology professor Celine Marie Pascale finds that U.S. news media coverage of the disaster largely minimized health risks to the general population. Pascale analyzed more than 2,000 news articles from four major U.S. outlets following the disaster's occurrence March 11, 2011 through the second anniversary on March 11, 2013. [font color="green"]Only 6 percent of the coverage129 articlesfocused on health risks to the public in Japan or elsewhere. Human risks were framed, instead, in terms of workers in the disabled nuclear plant.[/font color]
Disproportionate access
"It's shocking to see how few articles discussed risk to the general population, and when they did, they typically characterized risk as low," said Pascale, who studies the social construction of risk and meanings of risk in the 21st century. "We see articles in prestigious news outlets claiming that radioactivity from cosmic rays and rocks is more dangerous than the radiation emanating from the collapsing Fukushima Daiichi nuclear plant."
Pascale studied news articles, editorials, and letters from two newspapers, The Washington Postand The New York Times, and two nationally prominent online news sites, Politico and The Huffington Post. These four media outlets are not only among the most prominent in the United States, they are also among the most cited by television news and talk shows, by other newspapers and blogs and are often taken up in social media, Pascale said. In this sense, she added, understanding how risk is constructed in media gives insight into how national concerns and conversations get framed.
Pascale's analysis identified three primary ways in which the news outlets minimized the risk posed by radioactive contamination to the general population. Articles made comparisons to mundane, low-level forms of radiation;defined the risks as unknowable, given the lack of long-term studies; and largely excluded concerns expressed by experts and residents who challenged the dominant narrative.
[font color="green"]The research shows that corporations and government agencies had disproportionate access to framing the event in the media, Pascale says. Even years after the disaster, government and corporate spokespersons constituted the majority of voices published. News accounts about local impactfor example, parents organizing to protect their children from radiation in school luncheswere also scarce. [/font color]
Globalization of risk
Pascale says her findings show the need for the public to be critical consumers of news; expert knowledge can be used to create misinformation and uncertaintyespecially in the information vacuums that arise during disasters.
"The mainstream mediain print and onlinedid little to report on health risks to the general population or to challenge the narratives of public officials and their experts," Pascale said. "Discourses of the risks surrounding disasters are political struggles to control the presence and meaning of events and their consequences. How knowledge about disasters is reported can have more to do with relations of power than it does with the material consequences to people's lives."
While it is clear that the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear meltdown was a consequence of an earthquake and tsunami, like all disasters, it was also the result of political, economic and social choices that created or exacerbated broad-scale risks. In the 21st century, there's an increasing "globalization of risk," Pascale argues. Major disasters have potentially large-scale and long-term consequences for people, environments, and economies.
[font color="green"]"People's understanding of disasters will continue to be constructed by media. How media members frame the presence of risk and the nature of disaster matters," she said.[/font color]
SOURCE with Links: http://www.american.edu/media/news/20150310-Fukushima.cfm
Almost should just bold and make green the entire article, seeing how Rupert Murdoch and the rest of CIABCNNBCBSFixedNoiseNutworks won't do their jobs. That's why I post on DU, you know, to share the news.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10026367729
Please feel free to post all you can on Fukushima, Buzz Clik. I look forward to learning what's missing from the corporate owned news.
Here's more:
News Coverage of Fukushima Disaster Found Lacking
American University sociologists new research finds few reports identified health risks to public
By Rebecca Basu
American University, March 10, 2015
Four years after the 2011 Fukushima Daiichi nuclear disaster, the disaster no longer dominates U.S. news headlines, though the disabled plant continues to pour three tons of radioactive water into the ocean each day. Homes, schools and businesses in the Japanese prefecture are uninhabitable, and will likely be so forever. Yet the U.S. media has dropped the story while public risks remain.
A new analysis by American University sociology professor Celine Marie Pascale finds that U.S. news media coverage of the disaster largely minimized health risks to the general population. Pascale analyzed more than 2,000 news articles from four major U.S. outlets following the disaster's occurrence March 11, 2011 through the second anniversary on March 11, 2013. [font color="green"]Only 6 percent of the coverage129 articlesfocused on health risks to the public in Japan or elsewhere. Human risks were framed, instead, in terms of workers in the disabled nuclear plant.[/font color]
Disproportionate access
"It's shocking to see how few articles discussed risk to the general population, and when they did, they typically characterized risk as low," said Pascale, who studies the social construction of risk and meanings of risk in the 21st century. "We see articles in prestigious news outlets claiming that radioactivity from cosmic rays and rocks is more dangerous than the radiation emanating from the collapsing Fukushima Daiichi nuclear plant."
Pascale studied news articles, editorials, and letters from two newspapers, The Washington Postand The New York Times, and two nationally prominent online news sites, Politico and The Huffington Post. These four media outlets are not only among the most prominent in the United States, they are also among the most cited by television news and talk shows, by other newspapers and blogs and are often taken up in social media, Pascale said. In this sense, she added, understanding how risk is constructed in media gives insight into how national concerns and conversations get framed.
Pascale's analysis identified three primary ways in which the news outlets minimized the risk posed by radioactive contamination to the general population. Articles made comparisons to mundane, low-level forms of radiation;defined the risks as unknowable, given the lack of long-term studies; and largely excluded concerns expressed by experts and residents who challenged the dominant narrative.
[font color="green"]The research shows that corporations and government agencies had disproportionate access to framing the event in the media, Pascale says. Even years after the disaster, government and corporate spokespersons constituted the majority of voices published. News accounts about local impactfor example, parents organizing to protect their children from radiation in school luncheswere also scarce. [/font color]
Globalization of risk
Pascale says her findings show the need for the public to be critical consumers of news; expert knowledge can be used to create misinformation and uncertaintyespecially in the information vacuums that arise during disasters.
"The mainstream mediain print and onlinedid little to report on health risks to the general population or to challenge the narratives of public officials and their experts," Pascale said. "Discourses of the risks surrounding disasters are political struggles to control the presence and meaning of events and their consequences. How knowledge about disasters is reported can have more to do with relations of power than it does with the material consequences to people's lives."
While it is clear that the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear meltdown was a consequence of an earthquake and tsunami, like all disasters, it was also the result of political, economic and social choices that created or exacerbated broad-scale risks. In the 21st century, there's an increasing "globalization of risk," Pascale argues. Major disasters have potentially large-scale and long-term consequences for people, environments, and economies.
[font color="green"]"People's understanding of disasters will continue to be constructed by media. How media members frame the presence of risk and the nature of disaster matters," she said.[/font color]
SOURCE with Links: http://www.american.edu/media/news/20150310-Fukushima.cfm
Almost should just bold and make green the entire article, seeing how Rupert Murdoch and the rest of CIABCNNBCBSFixedNoiseNutworks won't do their jobs. That's why I post on DU, you know, to share the news.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10026367729
Please feel free to post all you can on Fukushima, Buzz Clik. I look forward to learning what's missing from the corporate owned news.
Edit history
Please sign in to view edit histories.
480 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
RecommendedHighlight replies with 5 or more recommendations
There are more than 1,000 articles concerning Fukushima radiation in the scientific literature.
Buzz Clik
Mar 2015
#342
Please do. News coverage of Fukushima disaster has minimized health risks to general population.
Octafish
Mar 2015
#346
If you encountered enough radioactive material in your food to burn your tongue on contact,
AtheistCrusader
Mar 2015
#137
Depending what you mean by "over there" a few hundred miles away its pretty low
stevenleser
Mar 2015
#216
It's in the containment. Because unless it teleported away, it sure hasn't been found
AtheistCrusader
Mar 2015
#138
There was a plan, not too long back, to possibly dispose of radioactive waste by glomming it into a
AtheistCrusader
Mar 2015
#159
In all seriousness, France should decommission that ancient piece of crap.
AtheistCrusader
Mar 2015
#174
So you conclude that since "they can't find it" it's has to be still in the containment?
rhett o rick
Mar 2015
#472
If it melted into the ground under the plant, even 20 feet, the radioactive steam plume would
AtheistCrusader
Mar 2015
#475
I agree there is no proof that it's left the containment. I would like to find
rhett o rick
Mar 2015
#476
Another one for the reviled "conspiracy theorists"--IT's a Conspiracy (fact), not a theory!
Demeter
Mar 2015
#5
Snark and mockery are how you help transform an "underground" into a site....
villager
Mar 2015
#115
"Chernobyl was one reactor, Fukushima was at least three and numerous old fuel pools."
AtheistCrusader
Mar 2015
#177
He/she knows full well that sometimes juries are vindictive assholes and will hide because they
PeaceNikki
Mar 2015
#91
Sincerely, are you talking about Nadin? She is still active, her last post was March 6th.
freshwest
Mar 2015
#173
Indeed I did. Bully DUers, who apparently can't take what they dish out. Oh, and btw, I
ChisolmTrailDem
Mar 2015
#206
It's clear you're my #1 fan. I wasn't back from suspension for 2 seconds before you
ChisolmTrailDem
Mar 2015
#209
Where did I say I was trying to bully you? Are you part of the crew I was referring to? Also,
ChisolmTrailDem
Mar 2015
#213
There seem to be a LOT of people who think it's cool to cry bully while bullying themselves.
PeaceNikki
Mar 2015
#217
Yes the rationalization to blame the victim. Even if you are right and I don't
rhett o rick
Mar 2015
#294
Well lets see, the article said "most likely by robots" so I lean towards "not yet".
cstanleytech
Mar 2015
#16
No idea on the time period it could be a year or it could be ten years from now
cstanleytech
Mar 2015
#55
An 'octopus' robot with eight limbs developed to clear rubble in Fukushima, Japan
herding cats
Mar 2015
#90
As I recall, the debate was whether or not the core melted THROUGH the containment vessel
NickB79
Mar 2015
#23
No, the idiot pro-nukes kept claiming a meltdown was impossible, even after it already happened.
bananas
Mar 2015
#28
In other words, no cover up, and Nadin was repeating readily available information
stevenleser
Mar 2015
#198
Unfortunately, those that really need to take this in and internalize it will not do so.
stevenleser
Mar 2015
#241
Many now conflate facts with official propaganda from industry and the state entities
TheKentuckian
Mar 2015
#26
Right. The denier's try to bully discussions but screeming conspiracy theory
rhett o rick
Mar 2015
#474
And you are dissatisfied that the possibility that she may have been correct may create a large ego?
lonestarnot
Mar 2015
#39
See #24. She was repeating readily available information that was not covered up. nt
stevenleser
Mar 2015
#199
So in your response you refer to a ball, she had 1 ball, but it wasn't hers, so what the fuck is
lonestarnot
Mar 2015
#364
As a yellow fucking dog democratic, some refer to me as my way or the highway here, and lock or mock
lonestarnot
Mar 2015
#365
I was not close to her, and I have no allegiances to anyone in this ridiculous battle...
ScreamingMeemie
Mar 2015
#38
The notebook keepers are really creepy, keeping tabs on posters and then pulling out links
ChisolmTrailDem
Mar 2015
#461
Most, if not all, of the bullies are right here in this thread, doing their thang and
ChisolmTrailDem
Mar 2015
#463
Exactly. We live in a bully culture. It's everywhere and there is always the justification
rhett o rick
Mar 2015
#231
The is a message board for "politically liberal" posters. "Wild claims", IMO, are not only
rhett o rick
Mar 2015
#330
Of course disagreements are appropriate, and maybe criticism of someone's stand on an issue,
rhett o rick
Mar 2015
#232
"It's never appropriate to gang up on someone and ridicule them" - Define that for me...
stevenleser
Mar 2015
#240
"Is it OK to gang up on and ridicule someone if they post racism or homophobia or sexism? "
rhett o rick
Mar 2015
#259
Oh she was bullied. Every damn post of hers was sent to the hosts forum
Warren Stupidity
Mar 2015
#179
And they're all right here in this thread, attracted no doubt by the sweet
ChisolmTrailDem
Mar 2015
#464
It's not bullying to say 'you're wrong' when you're wrong, or 'you're blowing this out of proportion
AtheistCrusader
Mar 2015
#134
It's not a strawman. That is what happened. People disagreed with her and her interpretations.
stevenleser
Mar 2015
#296
I guess you think that rationalization is the key to happiness. Many of us saw what happened.
rhett o rick
Mar 2015
#299
Nope. My opinion is backed up by the person who can see all posts/alerts/etc.
stevenleser
Mar 2015
#302
Good grief. "My opinion is backed up by the person who can see all posts/alerts/etc."
rhett o rick
Mar 2015
#306
And you see that as vindication for her treatment. You missed the point by a mile.
rhett o rick
Mar 2015
#331
That is my "thing" with these things. Like the continuation of "used car salesman" stuff.
ScreamingMeemie
Mar 2015
#297
If a female wears a mini-skirt and goes into a bar in a bad neighborhood and gets harassed,
rhett o rick
Mar 2015
#307
Thanks for bringing honest, evidence based perspective to this topic and to DU.
HuckleB
Mar 2015
#43
I don't have to be a seismologist because there are seismologists already on the
Cleita
Mar 2015
#261
No. Thank you for proving my point that none of you Nuke jocks are interested in
Cleita
Mar 2015
#273
Never mind. Mobile device changes the spelling of words, but you know what I mean.
Cleita
Mar 2015
#293
And if you see post #24 above, crediting her with getting this "right" is laughable. nt
stevenleser
Mar 2015
#201
Same people now pat themselves on the back saying that she was not bullied, or only one certain
darkangel218
Mar 2015
#63
"well, they admitted it, therefore there can be no coverups because they inevitably fail"
MisterP
Mar 2015
#65
But they are trying. It is illegal to report anything related to it without government approval.
newthinking
Mar 2015
#71
And yet, here we are in Dec 2011, talking about how TEPCO stated all the fuel melted from
AtheistCrusader
Mar 2015
#142
It's not as if nadin was the only one saying it. All you had to do was read/listen to some real
cui bono
Mar 2015
#148
This is what I have been arguing regarding Iraq and WMD as it pertains to Democrats who voted
stevenleser
Mar 2015
#207
See post #24. It was reported right away. Nadin didn't reveal any new info. nt
stevenleser
Mar 2015
#203
Two points, first, see #24. No cover up in terms of melt down. Second, there is an answer to
stevenleser
Mar 2015
#212
On balance, I would prefer people to believe you. But it's a terrible dilemma.
Joe Chi Minh
Mar 2015
#334
"previous asumptions of a meltdown"---really???? Tepco was proclaiming no meltdown
wordpix
Mar 2015
#280
TEPCO and the Japanese government said a meltdown was likely two days after the event.
stevenleser
Mar 2015
#338
"Just because you say so, even if you use CAPS, doesn't change what TEPCO said."
FBaggins
Mar 2015
#437
Yep. We've got posts with links with proof. Doesn't matter. That person will never admit they are
stevenleser
Mar 2015
#379
''Be ready for the inevitable alert.'' That's the mark of a shitheel, SidDithers of DU.
Octafish
Mar 2015
#386
Seeing how you fail to actually show any of that, I want this to be in the record...
Octafish
Mar 2015
#387
I notice you're goading me on by repeating the same falsehoods, SidDithers of DU.
Octafish
Mar 2015
#410
Show where I ''promote anti-Semitic, or homophobic, or racist writers at DU.''
Octafish
Mar 2015
#419
He's okay with posting them as long as they back up whatever theory he's promoting.
tammywammy
Mar 2015
#442
Disagree. While I've spent a lot of time defending myself from your baseless accusations...
Octafish
Mar 2015
#413
Tag team? I'm not allowed to sleep, and if I do, and someone else answers, it's a "tag team"?
stevenleser
Mar 2015
#406
I'm losing track of the discussion you have changed the subject and moved the goalposts so many
stevenleser
Mar 2015
#414
Correct. You don't admit it. You fall back to accusations of bullying/tag teaming or you change the
stevenleser
Mar 2015
#418
Where you failed to comprehend TEPCO said PLUTONIUM ''is not a health risk to humans''?
Octafish
Mar 2015
#448
I wish it were more uncommon that nonsense is celebrated here by a certain group.
stevenleser
Mar 2015
#332
You are trying to prove she deserved being bullied. Really? Granted a large number
rhett o rick
Mar 2015
#348
I am fully aware of what "bullying" is and a number of other posters have commented on the
rhett o rick
Mar 2015
#373
Correct. "Bullying" to them means a lot of people disagreeing with them or one of their friends.
stevenleser
Mar 2015
#378
I am glad she is doing well and pursuing her career and hobbies with vivigor.
hrmjustin
Mar 2015
#468
It appears I was mostly right about what was happening, Baggins, and you got it wrong.
leveymg
Mar 2015
#470