the new chernobyl? – media literacy in action
*IMPORTANT*
Above all else, there are a huge number of people in Northern Japan who are going to need our help in the coming days, weeks, months, and (dare I say it) years. If you would like to help, from in or outside Japan, there are a number of ways you can do so.
The situation in Japan since March 11th when a massive earthquake struck, followed by a devastating tsunami, which knocked out the systems at a nuclear power plant, has emphasised how important it is to be able to access, filter and decipher media. Events at the Fukushima Dai-Ichi nuclear power plant, in particular, have been difficult to clearly interpret.
How media has changed
You may remember that, even in the pre-internet age, it was possible to read British journalism abroad. It’s not hard to find ‘The Sun’ or ‘The Mirror’ on the Costa Del Sol, and amongst others ‘The Guardian’ and ‘The Telegraph’ produce weekly digest editions for expat audiences. In the last twenty years, however, the number of channels available for the dissemination of ‘news’ stories has exploded. This has had a three-fold effect.
1. The authority of the previously unquestioned ‘establishment’ information sources has been undermined. This is positive, in that it allows the media-literate to gather a broader range of information and assess that information for themselves. It also allows alternative points of view a greater audience, and should (in theory) make it harder for those in power to abuse that power. On the other hand, it enables those with erroneous or misguided views the same platform. Unfortunately, many people are not media literate enough to distinguish between, for example, an English conversation school teacher and the head of the International Atomic Energy Association. Especially when such sources have their words remixed, recast, organised and obfuscated by journalists.
2. With a 24 hour news cycle, the news business needs to find new angles, connect stories to meaningful reference points and generate emotions which will keep consumers watching. Unfortunately, most news organisations will be working from pretty much the same source material, and have to ramp up excitement or fear accordingly.
3. Local and national media spread beyond their appropriate audiences. British newspapers, written for and by the British in Britain, are not necessarily intended to convey accurate and timely information to people living in Japan. One might argue that journalists should recognise that their work has a wider impact, and should act more responsibly accordingly. One might also argue that media consumers should become more media literate, learn how to interpret local media more effectively, and rely less on media from their homelands.
Why are they telling us what they are telling us?
Organisations and individuals who are in a position to disseminate commentary may overstate or understate the seriousness of any given situation. They may do this for benign purposes, or with more sinister intent. Let’s say, for example, that the Tokyo Electric Company and the Japanese government have been understating the level of radiation released from the Fukushima power plant (although I haven’t yet seen evidence which suggests that they are). This could be done to prevent widespread panic, or cover up for corporate irresponsibility – one of which we might accept, the other we should not.
However, we are finding an enormous amount of commentary on this topic by people who should be disinterested, people who have no direct link to Japan, let alone the plant, and people who have previously had little knowledge of the local contexts. So why are they chipping in? Well, some have an agenda to push. I was quite surprised to read what Rush Limbaugh had to say about the story …. until I got halfway down the page and realised that he was using this case to back up his previous comments on the BP oil spill. So not only is this nothing to do with Japan, it is actually nothing to do with nuclear power. At least Representative Ed Markey (D. Mass), of the House Natural Resources Committee, isn’t using a nuclear power plant to talk about oil, although his warnings about ‘a new Chernobyl’ may be influenced by his long-standing opposition to nuclear power. Of course, just because he is against nuclear power, it doesn’t mean we should disregard his words out of hand. Indeed, it is difficult to do so because without extensive research it may be hard to find exactly what he said and in what context. Contrast these two references to his comments – one in The San Francisco Chronicle, and one from The Wall Street Journal. Both are well respected media outlets, but the articles take very different approaches to the same source material.
Now, the president’s call for the government to back a new generation of nuclear power plants as part of his “clean- energy” agenda may be challenged as Japan struggles to control damaged reactors….Workers battled to prevent a nuclear meltdown after a second blast rocked a plant north of Tokyo following an 8.9- magnitude earthquake and tsunami on March 11. The cooling system failed at Fukushima Dai-Ichi station’s No. 1 and No. 3 reactors after the temblor, and it stopped working today at the No. 2 reactor. Fuel rods in the reactors may have melted when water levels fell, according to Japan’s Chief Cabinet Secretary Yukio Edano.
SF Chronicle
Early speculation was that in a case like this the fuel might continue melting right through the steel and perhaps even through the concrete containment structure… But Three Mile Island proved this doesn’t happen. The melted fuel rods simply aren’t hot enough to melt steel or concrete. The decay heat must still be absorbed, however, and as a last-ditch effort the emergency core cooling system can be activated to flood the entire containment structure with water. This will do considerable damage to the reactor but will prevent any further steam releases. The Japanese have now reportedly done this using seawater in at least two of the troubled reactors. These reactors will never be restarted.
WS Journal
Choice of vocabulary (‘struggled’, ‘rocked’, ‘battled’), grammatical structures (the passive forms in the second article are far cooler than the active forms in the former) and even punctuation (note the way that the Chronicle places “clean-energy” in quotation marks) influence our reading of the material. It’s not hard to understand what each writer aims to achieve, and not a great stretch to pick out how they do it. But why? One might speculate that a San Francisco based paper would be particularly nervous about earthquakes, and also about possible contamination drifting across the Pacific, whereas the Wall Street Journal would be more concerned about market than geological stability. That would be speculation, so we can’t be sure. We do know, however, that neither paper is targeting its reports primarily to expats living in Japan.
From the UK, The Daily Mail provides us with a number of interesting examples. If you don’t know, The Daily Mail is fairly ripe for parody – you can generate headlines here, and check the Mail’s ongoing attempts to classify everything as either cancer-causing or cancer-curing here – but nonetheless, I think it is important to look at exactly what they do, how they do it and why they do it.
Consider their readership. The average Mail reader is white, middle-class, middle-aged and conservative. They don’t know any Japanese people, and have never been to Japan – what’s more, they don’t understand it. They have a similar attitude towards nuclear power. Thus the paper is charged with the task of locating this story in a referential landscape which the average reader will be able to grasp. The human face of this tragedy, then, has to be one which the reader can recognise. The Mail achieves this through celebrity, in this story about British Formula One driver Jenson Button’s girlfriend Jessica Michibata, or by finding another middle-Englander, like this young teacher from Wolverhampton.
Likewise, the disaster itself needs to be referenced, hence the frequent references to Chernobyl and Three-Mile Island. This article refers to both in the helpful bullet points laid out below the headline, if the reader is too busy to go any further he or she will not get to the rather underwhelming reality described in the expert quotes. It is not surprising that these two events have been frequently referenced, although a little research shows that neither was especially deadly, nor especially similar to the current situation. But in using each as shorthand, journalists need to be aware of what they are shorthand FOR. Likewise, technical jargon needs to be explained fully rather than tossed away. I wouldn’t condemn anyone for leaving Tokyo at the moment – the aftershocks, especially in conjunction with rolling blackouts, would have anyone’s nerves jangling. But to leave after reading about the increase in microsieverts? Who honestly knew what a microsieveret was last month? I certainly didn’t. And reading this from a blog on the website of Ireland’s national broadcaster I am not sure if this journalist does now – and this perfunctory explanation was not unusual in the early days of the situation. Take another word like ‘meltdown’. What it actually means and what it means to most of us is reflected in the fact that ‘Charlie Sheen meltdown‘ will get you more than three million hits on Google.
If you are living in Japan, but basing your understanding of Japanese issues solely on overseas media, you need to be fully aware of how and why it is being filtered. This is not to say that all foreign media is bad, although there is enough on this wall of shame to suggest so. Neither would I say that the Japanese media was purer than pure, although NHK in particular has been very level-headed – they clearly recognise their responsibility as information providers in a life or death situation (if you have an iPhone, the free English language NHK world app allows you to watch anywhere. If not, you can stream on your desktop pretty easily). Usually, I find The Japan Times painfully dry, but in times like these its rather reassuring.
Realise that it is your responsibility to understand what you are being fed. That everyone who chips in is pushing an agenda, selling advertising space, covering something up or just plain stupid. Unfortunately, there are plenty of people at the moment who aren’t able to take their time, choose their sources and find the ‘truth’…. if you can, don’t waste the luxury.
How to be media-literate
1. Evaluate the author of the text and the editorial policies of the publication in which it appears. This article, for example, is very reassuring. But from the pen of the man who also wrote “Terrestrial Energy: How Nuclear Power Will Lead the Green Revolution and End America’s Energy Odyssey” what do you expect? At least his affiliations are clear, though. Most of The Daily Mail articles cited above are attributed to ‘Daily Mail Reporter’.
2. Evaluate the source quotes. Are quotes attributed clearly to real people with authority and credibility? Anything coming from ‘sources’, ‘experts’ or ‘a spokesperson’ is pretty weak.
3. Evaluate the facts. Are there any? Are they checkable? Pay particular attention to explanations of technical aspects of the story which are beyond the knowledge of the average person in the street. If a reporter uses statistics, numbers or measurements in explaining a situation, are these clearly defined? Are they used to speculate possible outcomes? Are these outcomes plausible based on the evidence?
3. Evaluate the language. Given the same source material, could you write the same story with a completely different tone. Go through and play with verbs, nouns and adjectives. You might notice that throughout this piece I have used the word ‘situation’ rather than ‘catastrophe’, ‘crisis’ or any of the other more dramatic terms which have been bandied about in the last week.
4. Evaluate the organisation. Newspapers need to grab attention in the headline (which usually comes from the sub-editor rather than the reporter who wrote the rest of the story). The less exciting part, often the part with the closest relationship to reality, will probably be buried in the middle somewhere.
Great post, beautifully written. I really enjoyed it. More thoughtful than most stuff in the mass-media you mention!
You’ve made me think about the importance of critical thought in the sharing of media sources online and the choice of media to be used in a classroom. I also recalled a nice higher-level reading activity in which the students compare two or more different news stories on the same subject, like you have in the post. A twist on that is comparing the same story covered in L1 and L2, bringing in an intercultural element.
Best of luck with your situation over in Japan.
Excellent article Darren. Thoroughly enjoyed it. A very detailed analysis that will help all of us navigate the deluge of informtion currently available. Thanks also for posting the links to ways we can donate. This is really important to me too.
I feel privileged to have someone I can trust in Japan and hope you will continue to update us.
Sara, Thessaloniki
Thanks Richard. I can’t help thinking about this from a teaching perspective. I understand that first year university students working in a foreign language find this difficult at first … what has disappointed me recently is how many educated adults working in L1 have the same trouble! I won’t be using this particular material in my class yet – too raw. But it helped me set things straight in my own mind. I’ve amended the piece with some direct advice at the end, which you are welcome to take into the classroom. I think this kind of work lends itself to online media, too…. with hypertext we are able to flit in and out of examples without breaking the thread of the discussion.
A couple of points on social media sharing. Facebook in particular has been an incredible help in finding and sharing information during this difficult time. What social media can do is aggregate information and bring us what we need via trusted contacts. However, it may be that we are being fed what we expect – that social media connections tend to be people who confirm what we already believe and support our self-image. A new book called The Filter Bubble by Eli Pariser looks worth reading, in that regard. Research certainly suggests that our emotional tendencies are clarified by our social networks http://mashable.com/2011/03/15/is-twitter-dividing-the-happy-from-the-unhappy/
Those people I have dropped from my network for being too right wing. Are they, in fact, just the kind of people I should be listening to?
Thanks Sara. Things are pretty grim in parts of Japan, but the panic in certain sections of the media is out of hand. It is, I suppose, ever thus….
Darren hi again. In relation to your reply to Richard. You say “what has disappointed me recently is how many educated adults working in L1 have the same trouble” [deconstructing the 'truth' of media representation about Japan] *bracketed addition my own.
I fell into that trap as you well know. I saw a link about some people who travelled to Japan wanting to help and assist who were turned away by the UK foreign office due to red tape. You posted on my FB wall that this was inaccurate so I took it down. I consider myself to be an educated adult who usually sees the bias in most texts whether written, visual or otherwise as you know from all the work I do on this topic. The link did come from a trusted source and fits with other accounts I have come across in disaster situations. I accept because it was from the BBC there is every reason to question it but it didn’t automatically strike me as inaccurate. So I posted it on my FB wall as I thought it interesting and relevant.
I feel you are being a little harsh with regard to the agency an individual has over the media structures in society in your reply above. You know the situation in Japan because you have intimate knowledge of the environment and we are very lucky to have your word from the ground there as I say above. So you are less likely to get it wrong. However, all of us, including you, might make such “mistakes” when commenting on environments we are not part of. I felt the same as you in relation to the woeful inaccuracies I saw circulating about Greece and the economic crisis. I commented on links that were IMHO biased but I didn’t reflect that the individual is lacking in critical judgement on texts that seem to be presenting a valid version of the situation. It’s not their fault or at least it is not entirely their fault. The media is a powerful giant as you so rightly point out. I think a different set of scales needs to be applied in how you are apportioning responsibility there.
Of course our social networks reflect (to an extent) who we are. And we are more likely to post things that confirm our own sense of identity and political/social outlook. For me this is obvious. However, what we want to be careful of is too much finger pointing at individuals (not helpful, can lead to people feeling a bit stupid for not knowing better) and going so far in our attempt at neutrality that we actually end up embracing ideas that are reactionary and distasteful to us. I take your point that listening to a variety of ideas is essential in reaching balance, but there is (for me at least) is a very thin dividing line on controversial issues. Depending on whom you mean when you refer to right wing people in your network, I am confident that I do not wish to listen to commentary which is racist or elistist and would have no compunction dropping such ideas from my networks if I encounter them. I don’t need convincing they are wrong. Maybe you can clarify what you mean there as if it were for e.g. the UK independence party or the like, what do you feel you have to learn? But perhaps its not so please enlighten me.
Your guidelines are extremely pertinant and well written. They are an extension of ideas from the areas of critical discourse analysis and critical literacy, as well as critical media studies which have been in circulation for a long time. Reading texts against the grain is encouraged in all these settings. I agree we should be using these ideas in the clasroom and beyond, but I caution that we don’t want to make those who don’t get it right every time feel guilty.
Thanks again for an interesting discussion.
All best
Sara
Darren – This is the best piece of writing I’ve read all day. Thank you so much for it. I don’t have much to add that hasn’t already been said except that I really appreciate your careful, balanced, insightful writing.
Best
Chuck
Thanks for coming back Sara. I hope this piece doesn’t come across as too harsh, as it is certainly not my intention to make anyone feel stupid. Least of all you! The article you mentioned, about UK based rescue workers being turned back, stands up to scrutiny and I don’t think it is necessarily inaccurate or meant to mislead. I just question whether the (clearly very well-intentioned) leader of the expedition was fully aware of the situation (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-12756366).
I certainly feel that, although I have always considered myself a critical thinker, looking at the media this past week has highlighted that perhaps I haven’t always been. When a story which one has some understanding of hits the international media cycle (as you experienced in relation to Greece and the economic crisis) it is frustrating to see the misrepresentation, and frustrating to realise one has probably been hoodwinked on other stories in the past. So while I stand by my assertion that we have a responsibility to be as well informed as possible, I concede your point that ‘big’ media should take the blame for the lack of well-balanced and intelligent commentary.
As for social networks, I know that the answer to the question I posed is ‘No’. On the odd occasion a contact has revealed themselves to be a racist (for example), I have taken the advice of ‘The Specials’ and dropped them like a hot brick. I suppose that it is useful to read papers like ‘The Daily Mail’ from time to time just to remind yourself what you are up against….
Always good to engage in discussion with you Sara!
Thanks Darren! I think this is the most powerful piece you have ever written and it’s the best thing I’ve read in ages. And yes, I do read pieces from the Daily Mail every now and then if only to know what those I disagree with are thinking. Like you I apply the rule of thumb of the Specials for individuals in my networks, virtual or otherwise. Of course I also believe that we have a responsibility to get informed, but the counter-media is sometimes hard to access unless you really look for it, esp. in these days of media giants who control so much of what is in circulation. So I try to remember what it was like when I didn’t have the networks I have and to understand that everyone ‘realises’ what the media is like at different times and paces. Once upon a time, I remember a group of people showing me the other side of the Ireland conflict (when I was about 12) and being shocked that what I’d been taught at school was not the ‘truth’. What I remember most was the patience and understanding shown to me as I struggled to reconstruct a world without the safety of mainstream truths. It seems like ages ago, but its something I’ve always remembered. I look forward to reading your next post Darren. x
Excellent piece! Reminds me of Sarah Benesch’s paper ‘Critical Media Awareness: teaching resistance to interpellation’.
Thanks Chuck and Sara.
And thanks Sebastian, I have a book of hers on my shelf which I’ve yet to read. Looks like I should get it down. Have you got a reference for the article? I’d like to have a look at it.
Good article Darren.
The nuclear disaster at Fukushima has been a case study in understanding media bias. The reporting as you point out has been very emotive and doom fueled in more liberal anti-nuclear media circles while business and pro-nuclear lobbies have painted a very different picture, undermining the risks.
I agree that it’s very positive that we now how access to so many more media sources that 20 years ago. Also schools and teachers should do more to help students understand the media and why we are served up different opinions on the same story. Nothing is ever just black or white.
Regards, Jon.
Let’s say, for example, that the Tokyo Electric Company and the Japanese government have been understating the level of radiation released from the Fukushima power plant (although I haven’t yet seen evidence which suggests that they are).
What is your evidence that they are not? The corporate world is very powerful in Japan and the relationship with gov’t generally far too close. In Japan too it is not only what is said but what is NOT – i.e. don’t read any High School text books if you want any kind of ‘objective’ history – esp. about issues like comfort women.
Thanks Murvin. I have no evidence either way. But if you continue the quote above, I stated that there may be reasons for not revealing the full extent of the problems, some I consider acceptable, some not. I am no corporate apologist, and TEPCO has a history of sweeping things under the carpet. However, most reasoned independent analysis suggests that this is a problem that can be managed. As I type, Japanese television has been explaining which vegetables from which areas have shown elevated levels of radiation, and the Tokyo water supply has been affected at levels potentially harmful to infants. It appears that the government have been as open as possible whilst trying to avoid unecessary panic. My guess is that the situation at the plant hasn’t been managed perfectly, but I’ll say two things. Firstly, this is an unprecedented disaster that has devastated hundreds of kilometres of the Northern coast. In the circumstances, I think just about any other country would have had it even worse. Secondly, I think this obsession with honesty and transparency is naive. Yes, after the event there should be accountability. But sometimes it is more important to keep society functioning than to keep people informed, and I think right now is one of those times.
As for the history books issue – I am no expert, and I don’t know how this is related directly. I will say that as far as I can tell there are certain outdated ideas attached by some to what constitutes Japanese history education. Certainly, the Japanese collectively haven’t quite faced up to the more shameful aspects of their past, but I’d love you to telll me who has. How are the Australians getting on with correcting the wrongs heaped on their native people, for example? China, in particular, is often affronted by Japanese reluctance to be as open and contrite about the past as it should be. But in another analysis, it is fairly clear that the Chinese use this kind of righteous nationalist anger to distract from it’s own wrongs. As this article points out, http://spice.stanford.edu/docs/134 there are a number of textbooks approved for use in Japan. Although the right-wingers managed to get their own champion on the list, it has actually been taken up by almost no one for use.
If you have any feedback on either issue, though, with more information about why you believe what you believe (and why we should listen to you) please come by again. Always good to intearct with new commenters.
Personally I can not trust Japanese government when they are still hiding the truth about the history what they did during the world war II. For example, they still haven’t apologize officially against the wrong doing they did against other Asian countries. And they don’t teach that kind of things to their children exactly.
Especially when the nuclear issue is not resolved yet and seems it takes many times to solve it, we can not believe what they say as it is.
I think, the world should keep an eye on Japanese government and put pressure to provide real information and resolve it as soon as possible even though it cost a lot…
Hi Darren,
I found your article really useful. You demonstrate how important it is to be media-literate, and how media-literacy is a 21st century literature that we need to help our students develop.
Best wishes,
Kieran
Thanks Murvin. I have no evidence either way. But if you continue the quote above, I stated that there may be reasons for not revealing the full extent of the problems, some I consider acceptable, some not. I am no corporate apologist, and TEPCO has a history of sweeping things under the carpet. However, most reasoned independent analysis suggests that this is a problem that can be managed.
Hi Darren thanks for your response. I am not so sure it can be managed, jury might still be out i think. Once radiation gets in the water it is very disturbing.
As I type, Japanese television has been explaining which vegetables from which areas have shown elevated levels of radiation, and the Tokyo water supply has been affected at levels potentially harmful to infants. It appears that the government have been as open as possible whilst trying to avoid unecessary panic.
Well yes, that’s right, and so should any half decent government!
My guess is that the situation at the plant hasn’t been managed perfectly, but I’ll say two things. Firstly, this is an unprecedented disaster that has devastated hundreds of kilometres of the Northern coast. In the circumstances, I think just about any other country would have had it even worse. Secondly, I think this obsession with honesty and transparency is naive. Yes, after the event there should be accountability. But sometimes it is more important to keep society functioning than to keep people informed, and I think right now is one of those times.
Mmmm, not so sure about that, if I was living anywhere near there, for myself and my family I would like ALL the facts, it would be very scary, esp. as they have now widened the exclusion zone.
As for the history books issue – I am no expert, and I don’t know how this is related directly.
I think it is directly related. You cannot be media literate if you don’t know all the facts. That’s why I think your useful list is good but imcomplete. A vital thing to ask is what HAS NOT been said, ignored or evaded. Especially in Japan where the level of political engagement seems very low and only one party has pretty much had a grip on power since the war – it’s time to give the ‘sho ga nai’ ethic the heave ho! And teachers can play a part, ensuring their students don’t just ‘believe the hype’ otherwise it can be a nation as a democracy in name only.
I will say that as far as I can tell there are certain outdated ideas attached by some to what constitutes Japanese history education. Certainly, the Japanese collectively haven’t quite faced up to the more shameful aspects of their past, but I’d love you to telll me who has. How are the Australians getting on with correcting the wrongs heaped on their native people, for example?
Not brilliant that is for sure but the Aborigines did finally get an official apology a few years back from the then Rudd Labor Government something that the comfort women and the countries that suffered from Japanese imperialism are still waiting for. Moreover in schools Aborignal rights, women’s rights and multiculturalism can be openly discussed while I am not sure the same is true for Japan either at secondary or tertiary level but I am happy to be corrected on that one.
China, in particular, is often affronted by Japanese reluctance to be as open and contrite about the past as it should be. But in another analysis, it is fairly clear that the Chinese use this kind of righteous nationalist anger to distract from it’s own wrongs.
For sure, but China is a communist dictatorship, Japan is at least nominally a liberal democracy.
Anyway, just throwing a few things out there to think about,
all the best
The big M
Belated but very sincere applause for this posting. I’m in awe. It’s so balanced, informative and both thoughtful and thought provoking. I also think it carries a timeless message – developing media literacy has to be one of the biggest challenges educators face and will continue to face more and more urgently.
On a personal note Darren, hoping all is well with you and yours, and warm wishes and sympathies to all in the midst of this terrible tragedy.