Introduction
Through the ages, nuclear emergencies have scared us several times, and during these
emergencies risks were often communicated through media. Sometimes, news would get
distorted, amplified and cause confusion or other undesirable effects, which in turn might
affect how people perceive the risks. The aim of this study was to analyze how media
portrayed and communicated risks in Japan during the Fukushima nuclear power plant
accident in 2011, compared to Sweden, a country out of reach of direct risks.
Methods
Discourse analysis was considered the most suitable method for this study, since it can be
used to reveal myths that are implicated in speech and other actions. A discourse analysis is
not meant to clarify an objective reality, but how a reality is created. The analysis was
conducted on articles published in newspapers in each country during the accident, 15 articles
from The Japan Times (Japan) and 19 from Aftonbladet (Sweden).
Results
The results showed that the communication of risks was more instructive in The Japan Times,
even if some of the information was changing and could be considered confusing. When it
comes to feelings, The Japan Times mostly stayed away from vidid and dramatic messages,
while this was more common in Aftonbladet.
Discussion and conclusions
In the discussion, it was found that the most prominent resemblance was lacking information
as a result of potential lack of knowledge among journalists. The way the newspapers
presented the risks differed, The Japan Times had a quite composed approach while
Aftonbladet dramatized the event more extensively. Both newspapers used statements from
officials and authorities, which might have contributed to framing. For further research on
media’s role during a nuclear disaster, it might be of interest to look at solutions for how
experts and journalists can work closer together to communicate the risks accurately, as well
as taking the political stance aspect into consideration.