BBC College of Journalism Blog - A vigorous and robust discussion about journalism from every perspective.
- Fiona Fox |
- Tuesday 22 March 2011, 14:35
A week last Friday, in response to the Japanese earthquake and tsunami, the Science Media Centre dropped every other story and started issuing comments from experts on earthquakes and tsunamis, warning them to prepare for days of back-to-back interviews. We forewarned our public health experts that the media interest would soon turn to them and planned to line up our trauma experts and psychologists.
Then there were explosions at the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear power plant. Suddenly, this was the only game in town as far as the media was concerned.
By the following Tuesday, there was only one earthquake expert sitting alongside five nuclear scientists at our emergency briefing - and none of the 40 reporters who crammed into the SMC were interested in him. In just a few days, the main story had changed from the actual catastrophe of Japan to the imminent threat of a nuclear 'apocalypse', 'meltdown' and 'another Chernobyl'.
Most broadcasters had one or two reporters focusing on the earthquake, compared to five or six talking about the threat from the nuclear plant. The personal stories that usually have me in tears for days after a tragedy like this were comparatively rare, as journalists competed to summon the most alarming language possible to describe the nuclear 'meltdown'. Terrifying headlines talked of a deadly radiation cloud descending on Tokyo, before drifting across the oceans to menace the United States.
One tabloid's Japan coverage was typical. Under the title "Japan's Horror: Battle to Stop Nuclear Meltdown", the double-page spread included three articles by different reporters on the nuclear threat: "Now Food's Nuked", "Dangers Might Get a Lot Worse" and "Despair of Victims in Nuke Zone". The only piece about the earthquake itself was the story of a Brit who had a miraculous escape.
Even if the damage done to the Fukushima nuclear power plant had delivered the nightmare scenario of 'Another Chernobyl' predicted by many in the media, I would still have qualms about the speed with which the pending nuclear 'catastrophe' seemed to take over from the actual 'catastrophe'. But what made this focus more unsettling was that an entirely different story was being told at the SMC.
As we obligingly stood down our tsunami experts to find nuclear scientists, we started to gather comments and access the combined expertise of many scientists and engineers who have decades of experience of nuclear accidents, detailed knowledge of how these plants work and an understanding of what radiation can do to the human body and surrounding environment. As with all good scientists and academics, there were differences of emphasis and differences of opinion, but I think a fair reading of the consensus would go something like this:
- This was a very, very serious situation
- The Japanese operators appeared to have done a tremendous job in controlling it
- It was not another Chernobyl
- Almost everything reported to have happened was what experts would have expected to happen in a 40-year-old plant faced with the combined impacts of the earthquake and tsunami
- The Japanese authorities did everything right in relation to protecting the local population, setting the exclusion zone, handing out iodine tablets etc.
- The health risks to anyone in Tokyo from a radiation leak at the plant in Fukushima are really very small indeed.
So why did the best estimates of the best experts give way to another narrative? Why did so many responsible broadcasters and editors not allow the facts to get in the way of a good story? Why did almost every section of our media lead daily reports with 'another Chernobyl' or the coming apocalypse, when none of Britain's leading scientists or the Chief Scientific Adviser were in any way confirming that assessment?
It's tempting to return to my days studying journalism at college and indulge in discussion of 'news values' and 'framing'. But I shall leave that to media studies academics who I hope will look closely at this case study. Instead, I will look at the reasons that matter to the SMC. I think one reason why the more measured and cautious reactions from SMC's experts were disregarded by sections of the media was that they are nuclear experts and therefore seen to be 'pro' nuclear, with a vested interest in playing down the threat.
This hunch was confirmed by a senior BBC reporter who suggested, just as he was about to sit and listen to the nuclear experts we had assembled for him, "Your guys are all nuclear experts so they are bound to play this down."
Now let's be clear here: I do not believe the UK's media should ever arrive at the SMC to get THE word from the scientific priesthood handed down on tablets of stone. Nor do I think science reporters should ever leave their scepticism at the door. When they enter here they are generally getting the view of mainstream science and we are not known for our mavericks or minority voices. But to suggest that all 'nuclear' experts have a vested interest in playing down a nuclear accident is pretty strong stuff and I don't think it stands up to even the mildest enquiry. Let me give you some reasons:
1. Many of the experts we put up have spent much of their working lives sounding the alarm about other nuclear incidents. Only a few years ago, Richard Wakeford, now a visiting professor in epidemiology at the University of Manchester, sat in the SMC alongside John Garland, formerly of the UK Atomic Energy Authority, to report on a new study showing that the fallout from the UK's most serious nuclear accident at Windscale remains with us today.
2. Some of the experts we put up cannot even be generalised as 'nuclear experts'. Many are engineers or materials scientists or experts in radiation or nuclear physics who do not work on nuclear power issues but can answer some of the technical questions being asked by the media. You would be hard pushed to find any vested interests in relation to nuclear power.
3. Those experts that can be classified as 'nuclear experts' have often spent their working lives developing new approaches to improving safety at power plants. Unlike other industries where research and development creates new products, R&D in these academic nuclear institutes is aimed at scientifically underpinning safety cases. In terms of vested interests, you could just as easily assume that the SMC's nuclear scientists have an interest in exaggerating the risks of nuclear accidents in order to justify more funding for research on safety. Indeed, I imagine that nuclear safety experts are just about to receive a substantial injection of new funding as many governments, including our own, are calling for additional safety reviews of nuclear new-build.
4. Familiarity with the field does not equate to prejudice. In one sense, the BBC journalist who suggested that all our experts were biased has a point. It would be rare to find an academic who has devoted his life to the study of nuclear power and is 'anti-nuclear' - but only as rare as it would be to find a stem cell expert who is anti stem cell research, a plant scientist who is against genetically modified crops, or a nanotechnology researcher who opposes the use of nanotechnology. These experts know the evidence and especially the risks; they study them. Furthermore, being broadly in favour of nuclear power is very different from setting out to play down a serious incident.
5. I acknowledge my BBC friend's point that some of our nuclear science experts have industry links, but I disagree entirely that this is, by definition, a compromising position. Yes, many of the academics working at the Dalton Institute at Manchester University, or the new National Nuclear Laboratory (NNL), have worked in the nuclear industry at some stage or have close links with the industry now. Indeed, much of the research being done in this area is happening at the request of the industry and government, who need new skills and new expertise to feed into the challenges posed by nuclear new-build. But to say that these links mean that nuclear scientists cannot be trusted is to say that we cannot trust medical scientists and clinicians who work on cures for cancer and heart disease because they rely on big pharma to commercialise their discoveries. If we are going to write off scientists for having links with industry, we would have few scientists left to trust.
There is also a risk that editors only see vested interests on the side of industry. Some media had the good grace to specify that John Large, one of the experts doing back-to-back interviews and predicting a death toll higher than that from Chernobyl, has been appointed by Greenpeace to assess events in Japan. Many others neglected to tell us that - which gave the false impression that nuclear experts were at odds with each other, when actually the level of agreement was striking.
And while, as a press officer, I have nothing but admiration for those anti-nuclear campaigners who have seized on this tragedy to put the case against nuclear power, it would seem that people who have always argued against nuclear power also have a vested interest - in their case, in an overly negative interpretation of events in Japan.
Of course, the media did not need to make up their apocalyptic headlines with politicians around. How can previously unheard of academics from Manchester or Surrey compete with the French government telling its nationals to leave Tokyo and German chancellor Angela Merkel putting German's nuclear programme on hold? Then there was Günther Oettinger, the EU's energy chief, who told the European parliament that the situation was out of control. "We are somewhere between a disaster and a major disaster," he said. "There could be further catastrophic events, which could pose a threat to the lives of people on the island." He said it was impossible to "exclude the worst", adding: "There is talk of an apocalypse and I think the word is particularly well chosen."
Before I conclude, let me establish what I am not saying:
I am not saying that the situation in Fukushima should not have been reported - and indeed given considerable prominence. In the absence of any reliable flow of information from TEPCO and the Japanese authorities, the media's role was to ask the difficult questions about what was actually happening behind the wall of silence.
I am not saying there was no good reporting: there was lots of good reporting, especially from the specialists, though several privately reported unprecedented pressures from their editors for a more alarmist narrative.
Fergus Walsh's reports on the human safety impacts stood out for being measured. Richard Black's coverage for the BBC website went into great depth. The FT's Andrew Jack and Daily Mail's Michael Hanlon wrote pieces on the dangers of over-exaggerating the risks, and Kate Kelland at Reuters emphasised the wider context of the disaster. I could go on. And clearly the fact that the SMC set up over 300 interviews with the best experts shows there was an appetite for good science.
And I am not saying that scientists should be deferred to as the sole voice of truth on these occasions.
What I am saying is that, when almost all of the scientists who have worked on nuclear for decades are saying something that conflicts with alarmist statements by world leaders, the media should ensure that the scientists' words are a prominent part of the story. On several days last week, it was almost impossible to find this important caveat in any of the headlines and amongst the acres of reporting on the 'deepening crisis' - even on Wednesday after journalists had packed into the Centre to listen to the cautious message of the experts.
Of course the worst case scenario could still happen at Fukushima and, given that our scientists were happy to elaborate on that to eager journalists, I know just how grim that would be for the people of Japan. If it did, the SMC would continue to make the best experts available, but it would not change my view about the reporting. Terrifying people who have just been subjected to the most terrifying events they will ever face needs to be justified by compelling evidence.
Luckily, those caught up in the real catastrophe were mostly able to keep the perspective that our media's editors seemed to have lost. Thus, a friend in Japan emailed to say:
"Of course the fact that the tsunami damage in general has been so catastrophic helps keep Fukushima in some kind of perspective."
Fiona Fox is Director of the Science Media Centre, an independent press office working on the front line between national news media and science on controversial issues.
- Post categories:
- Editorial
About Discussion on CoJo
A vigorous and robust discussion about journalism from every perspective.
Recent Posts
- BBC College of Journalism on social media
- #bbcsms: Please join us at the BBC Social Media Summit
- #bbcsms: News, a new technology business
- #bbcsms: What the audience expects from journalists
- #bbcsms: How should journalists treat what they learn on social media?
- #bbcsms: Changing journalists' social media mindset
- #Guilty? Getting a handle on contempt in tweets
- Mandelson v Robbie: battle of the interviews
- Personal branding is key for would-be journalists
- Social Media Summit agenda
- One man and his blog: Iain Dale on creating a monster
- Chinese TV: latest from the crankshaft factory
- John Humphrys gets his man (or mongoose)
- BBC Social Media Summit
- Who's pressing your 'Like' button?
- BBC to remember the cost of news in human lives
- When Jeremy asked Gordon about Gillian
- YouTube channel gives daily reports from Misrata
- Back to the future in the school for announcers
- George Martin and his celebrity interviewers
© MMXI
Comments
Sign in or register to comment.
Why no comments on such a throughtful contribution to the discussion?
Note to all journalists, please show this to your nearest news editor.
Complain about this comment
As you say, the actual catastrophe of the tsunami was shoved aside by the threat of a nuclear catastrophe. Does that make sense? It would be interesting to hear from the people on the front line the reasons for that.
And yes, a lot of the coverage was alarmist. Where I part company with you is over the idea that the media were wrong to forsake the scientists as their trusted guides to what was going on.
The core question was - and is - all about risk. What are the chances of a catastrophic event such as - just one example of many - "re-criticality" in one of the fuel ponds?
Risk is supposed to be a big deal for science and science journalists. But what did we get here? From the official science-based agencies such as the IAEA and the Japanese authorities, a big fat zero and attempts to stifle discussion with the risk-free INES ratings (devised by nuclear scientists) (see http://exquisitelife.researchresearch.com/exquisite_life/2011/03/ines-a-scale-of-disaster-tilted-against-japans-citizens-by-the-nuclear-industry-.html).
This miasma of confusion was not clarified by the scientists I saw popping up in the media (admittedly far from all of them) and you sort of repeat the problems yourself. Saying this is not going to be another Chernobyl - as the UK's chief scientist did - is a very flawed reassurance. It tells us nothing about the distinct risks of Fukushima. OK, yes, any plume probably won't go miles into the sky as it did in the Ukraine. Instead, it will likely dump all its radioactivity in one relatively small area. Is that really something that should make the Japanese people happier?
The commitment of scientists to nuclear power goes far beyond those employed by the industry. It's in the DNA of the science establishment. Science and scientists like to see themselves as on the side of the good guys. But they made the Bomb. "Atoms for Peace" and all the rest of it are - amongst other worthier things - an attempt to detoxify science and erase that stain.
To stave off global warming I think we're going to need more of both renewables and nuclear power - and even then it probably won't be enough. But that doesn't mean reporters should, for scientists, put to one side the scepticism they retain for everyone else.
Complain about this comment
This is great, the balance of coverage was totally absurd.
I loved the quote - "Your guys are all nuclear experts so they are bound to play this down." It's just like with David Nutt - of course he/they has/have links to industry, but it doesn't make them biased.
Complain about this comment
You write: "It would be rare to find an academic who has devoted his life to the study of nuclear power and is 'anti-nuclear' - but only as rare as it would be to find a stem cell expert who is anti stem cell research, a plant scientist who is against genetically modified crops, or a nanotechnology researcher who opposes the use of nanotechnology." Here is the problem for many, and it can't be skated over as easily as you do here.
It is no use suggesting that those who work on safety in the nuclear industry might have an interest in over-playing the risks - they need the industry to exist to have a job in it whatever role they play. There's no point in saying that it would be like as if someone suggested you "cannot trust medical scientists and clinicians who work on cures for cancer and heart disease because they rely on big pharma to commercialise their discoveries" - all too many people do feel like this. And there may not be any point in saying that some of the scientists interviewed are not directly linked to the nuclear industry for these reasons:
1) As William says many scientists feel it is vital to emphasise the safety of nuclear energy. Not necessarily because they are atoning for nuclear bombs, but because they believe it is safer and cleaner than fossil fuels and, especially, because they believe the public perception is so wrong that it needs to be strenuously countered. Undoubtedly this can lead to bias, even from the purest motives.
2) Those who are commenting from without directly relevant experience or knowledge will, necessarily, be relying on work published by those who are much closer to the nuclear industry (who have a financial, intellectual and perhaps emotional stake in its success), or they will be relying on the consensus produced by such work.
3) They have not necessarily been given any useful data on which to comment or, at least, people may be suspicious regarding what information has been made available.
There are no easy answers here, but journalists are right to report on how governments, locals, industry, science and other commentators have reacted. I think that, overall, the coverage available has been reasonably balanced. Clear explanations of the risk involved would certainly be helpful, but comments on science from outside science must also be given space.
Complain about this comment
beckyfh, you should (and probably do) realise the flip side of your remarks 2 & 3 applies even more strongly to the public faces of the anti-nuclear movement. The position is highly asymmetric. They base their interpretations of events on speculation and paranoia to a degree that would be impossible to duplicate on the expert side of the equation. I see this very strongly west of the Atlantic, where "nuclear expert" is almost a press synonym for someone willing to talk up danger and disaster to a wholly fictional level. The Fukushima accident has been a time to wait out the storm and simply laugh (or cry) at the absurd level of hyperbole offered as the anit-nuclear argument.
Complain about this comment
Jon - I certainly realise that many of these issues apply to both sides of the argument. My point, thought, was really about perception, and about the need for scientists to take these issues seriously. There are good reasons why the public might be suspicious of what 'the scientific consensus' says, which are not to do with them being stupid or particularly misinformed. Failing to appreciate this, and failing to understand that within science there are biases and (un/conscious) need to protect personal and collective interests, will only exacerbate the problem.
Complain about this comment
I consider this blog rather unscientific for one that purports to deal with science, and also quite over the top in the same manner that it accuses journalists of reporting:
"Then there were explosions at the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear power plant. Suddenly, this was the only game in town as far as the media was concerned."
1. Looking just at the last week, Google News logs this many stories for these keywords. The minus indicates the term does not appear among results:
earthquake japan -nuclear 49,500
japan nuclear 67,500
japan tsnuami 88,000
2. At a science center, why would you not expect to see more inquiries from journalists about a developing nuclear disaster involving explosions, complex and hotly debated scientific matters and potential threat to human life than you would about an earthquake and tsunami that have already happened and are not expected to imminently occur again on that scale? Yes there are public health questions to do with those and there has so far been a greater loss of life, but the central aspect of the nuclear disaster is much more science-oriented.
3. On sites such as the live, public-comment blog Reuters ran for many days, many of the complaints I saw were that the other media were not covering Fukushima enough - they'd moved on to Libya.
"In just a few days, the main story had changed from the actual catastrophe of Japan to the imminent threat of a nuclear 'apocalypse', 'meltdown' and 'another Chernobyl'."
Plenty was still being reported about the effects of the tsunami. And on the topic of "meltdown" this is a legitimate word. See:
http://www.iaea.org/Publications/Magazines/Bulletin/Bull492/49202796668.html
And on the topic of "another Chernobyl" this event already qualifies as a level 6, one below Chernobyl, according to Asahi's calculations (though the last official classification I have personally seen is level 5): http://www.asahi.com/english/TKY201103250204.html ... That cites the INES scale:
http://www.iaea.org/ns/tutorials/regcontrol/appendix/app96.htm ... and it notes "calculations made by experts place the level of soil contamination in some locations at levels comparable to those found after the Chernobyl accident in 1986."
"Terrifying headlines talked of a deadly radiation cloud descending on Tokyo, before drifting across the oceans to menace the United States."
Where did you see the headline about the "deadly" radiation cloud drifting to "menace" the U.S.? I've seen many legitimate reports discussing that radiation was expected to spread around much of the globe in very low levels, in which the reporters stressed that the levels are far below those believed to pose risk. And this week tap water in Tokyo briefly became unsafe for infants (in the long run), amid what is an ongoing crisis at the plant. (By the way, information and context about Fukushima, and what could happen if the situation is not stabilized soon, is one of the things Japan's news consumers are clamoring for, beyond the data bursts they're getting from authorities and complaining about because it isn't giving them the full story.)
"The health risks to anyone in Tokyo from a radiation leak at the plant in Fukushima are really very small indeed."
See above.
"So why did the best estimates of the best experts give way to another narrative? Why did so many responsible broadcasters and editors not allow the facts to get in the way of a good story?"
In your opinion. That is not at all what I saw in the vast majority of media.
"I think one reason why the more measured and cautious reactions from SMC's experts were disregarded by sections of the media was that they are nuclear experts and therefore seen to be 'pro' nuclear, with a vested interest in playing down the threat."
I don't think that's really it at all in most cases. Your veteran journalists are familiar with fast-moving disasters, wars and crises, where official word can change at the drop of a hat. They recognize the value of polling differing voices, to arrive at what is useful information for the public. (By the way, SciAm did a great piece on the what-ifs: http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=fukushima-core)
Some of the most conservative scientists quoted early on in this disaster quickly found it developing into exactly what they'd said it couldn't. Even for the physicists with direct knowledge about this plant's configurations, the situation has been a rough one to fully grasp and make predictions about, certainly. I've seen this first-hand following the events - lots of disagreement among specialists, even if the folks in your room were homogenous on the topic. What are they saying now, since the situation has progressed?
"How can previously unheard of academics from Manchester or Surrey compete with the French government telling its nationals to leave Tokyo and German chancellor Angela Merkel putting German's nuclear programme on hold? Then there was Günther Oettinger, the EU's energy chief, who told the European parliament that the situation was out of control."
I doubt Merkel or the French government made decisions in the absence of consultations with their own scientists. By the way, you left out Britain:
"Due to the evolving situation at the Fukushima nuclear facility and potential disruptions to the supply of goods, transport, communications, power and other infrastructure, British nationals currently in Tokyo and to the north of Tokyo should consider leaving the area," the Foreign Office said."
http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/03/16/japan-britain-idUSHOC00222520110316
Also, the operator of the Fukushima plant and Japan's prime minister keep talking about how they are trying to bring Fukushima Daiichi under control. It is not "under control." That it's not the kind of tragedy yielding a mushroom cloud does not mean it's no worry, especially for those in proximity and especially for the future. I certainly hope the situation can be quelled as quickly as possible, but I'm not confident it can be. And neither are the authorities in Japan. [Unsuitable/Broken URL removed by Moderator]
Complain about this comment
While I agree that the quake itself is a tragedy that deserves attention and the relief efforts do as well, just about every other conclusion this author makes is incorrect.
1.) This was a very, very serious situation
This REMAINS a very serious situation as of today (3/26) as a possible breach is reported in Reactor 3's containment wall, and cooling systems have yet to be restored to any of the reactors. There is also the possibility that build-up of crusts of sea-salt on the fuel rods will lead to renewed heating/meltdown risk.
2.) The Japanese operators appeared to have done a tremendous job in controlling it
Heroic efforts have been made by the workers on the ground. However, there are other unavoidable conclusions as well. TEPCO had been warned about its cooling systems by govt. regulators in the years running up to the accident and did nothing. There are also reports that the pumping of seawater into the reactors was delayed in the hopes that they could be saved. (Seawater trashes them permanently.) This delay led to several of the reactors overheating, with the resulting explosions and leaks of radioactivity.
3.) It was not another Chernobyl
Another way to put this is to say it is worse than every nuclear accident so far EXCEPT Chernobyl.
4.) Almost everything reported to have happened was what experts would have expected to happen in a 40-year-old plant faced with the combined impacts of the earthquake and tsunami - The Japanese authorities did everything right in relation to protecting the local population - setting the exclusion zone, handing out iodine tablets etc.
Blatantly false. The reactor was deemed earthquake proof and with safety control systems up to any challenge. As it turns out, the reactor was not even designed to withstand such a powerful quake (8.2 being the max it was designed to handle) and the cooling systems were hopelessly vulnerable to the resulting tsunami. Remember, the arguments made when convincing locals to allow a nuclear plant in their midst was that it would indeed be safe even from an earthquake. Also, as stated above, we now learn that TEPCO cheated on safety inspections, and ignored warnings from the regulators re. their cooling systems. As for the evacuation zones, it's good they did this, but recall how many times we were assured that there were no risks if you were outside that 20 km zone. Now we see water, produce, and air affected over a range extending out to 200 km, with several very dangerous hot spots lying outside that 20km zone. This is all public information.
4.) The health risks to anyone in Tokyo from a radiation leak at the plant in Fukushima are really very small indeed.
Gotta love the pro-nuke crowd. They're so big on spewing this crap when they don't have to live in the affected area. We have not received full info concerning how much radiation has passed through Tokyo, or landed through rainfall. We do know that the water was seriously compromised, and now vegetables grown within the city (Edogawa-ku) are showing high levels of contamination, not mention the many provinces already affected. There remains the possibility of further leaks --even the govt. is worried about a breach in reactor 3, possibly involving the MOX fuel -- so it is too early to even say whether exposure will be light or otherwise. A wise analysis would be to recommend caution, since any health risks will arise several years down the road.
Complain about this comment
Fiona Fox’s allegations about the media coverage of Fukushima
Fiona’s article about the lack of scientific perspective in the reporting of the Japanese nuclear crisis is interesting but odd. It’s about science but seems to be largely impressionistic and lacking in hard facts and figures. Has she got any proper evidence to support it?
Here at The Sunday Times we tried to cover both issues very fully – as did most media. I also watched rolling news, on and off, and read the papers right through the days after the quake and it was all there, quake and nukes. I didn’t count or compare the minutes or column inches devoted to each but both got lots of space. The Saturday after the quake, our live news day, had seen the first explosion at Fukushima and no-one could tell what would happen but it was plainly very serious and rightly attracted many of the headlines.
I think Fiona quoted the Express in support of her argument – but this is just one paper and not exactly a representative one. What about the broadsheets? The implication is that they are guilty too so why not be clear about this? Did they overdo it? Where’s the evidence?
She needs that evidence to support prove statements like: “Most broadcasters had one or two reporters focusing on the earthquake, compared to five or six talking about the threat from the nuclear plant.” Which broadcasters? Which reporters? Did she call Sky or the BBC to check this suggested fact?
Similarly, Fiona wrote: “Why did so many responsible broadcasters and editors not allow the facts to get in the way of a good story?” This is a really strong attack on newspapers and broadcasters – effectively accusing them of collectively misleading the public. So where are the supporting facts, figures and examples? Has she counted the column inches or words, or pagination devoted to these two linked stores? There aren’t any figures in her article so are these serious criticisms based on evidence or just on impressions gathered at the SMC?
She also wrote: “What I am saying is that, when almost all of the scientists who have worked on nuclear for decades are saying something that conflicts with alarmist statements by world leaders, the media should ensure that the scientists' words are a prominent part of the story. On several days last week, it was almost impossible to find this important caveat in any of the headlines and amongst the acres of reporting on the 'deepening crisis' - even on Wednesday after journalists had packed into the Centre to listen to the cautious message of the experts.”
But if you look on Factiva for scientists quoted in the week after the crisis they are actually there in large numbers, giving all kinds of perspectives. The Times quoted three in one article and others did the same. I saw a raft of nuclear scientists on TV over this period . So this assertion seems hard to support. Again – where are the numbers? In how many papers/broadcast media was it “almost impossible” to find scientists quoted? Which ones? Has Fiona got any quotes from the scientists themselves to support her assertion?
I looked on Factiva and found that people like Robin Grimes of Imperial and Tony Roulstone of Cambridge have been quoted more than 20 times each, as has John Beddington, since the earthquake. There were many others. It should have been easy for Fiona to run similar checks on the many other nuclear experts who spoke to the press at the SMC and elsewhere and get real numbers.
There are actually some very good examples of mistakes or exaggerations, some of which are listed on this Wiki.
http://jpquake.wikispaces.com/Journalist+Wall+of+Shame
I think the weirdest and most offensive is the D Mail column where Richard Littlejohn conflates the earthquake and tsunami with Japanese war crimes to suggest we should think twice about trying to assist Japan. You have to read it to believe it.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-1368594/Japanese-earthquake-tsunami-My-wifes-PoW-grandad-wouldnt-mark-minutes-silence.html
Ditto for the CNN TV news clip embedded in this blog post.
http://techcrunch.com/2011/03/24/media-nuclear-hysteria/
The Sun went overboard on this one. http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/news/3473142/My-nightmare-trapped-in-post-tsunami-Tokyo-City-of-Ghosts.html?OTC-RSS&ATTR=News
And the Mirror got it badly wrong when it suggested radiation clouds could head for Britain. http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/top-stories/2011/03/19/japan-raises-nuclear-threat-level-as-radiation-cloud-heads-for-britain-115875-22999795/
However, if you look through this Wiki, which claims to have assembled a broad cross-section of bad media coverage of the quake, there are only about 16 examples cited from the UK media – and at least two of these are repeats. If you look at the actual stories most of them are quite well balanced. It’s quite likely there are overstatements or errors in them but this was a fast moving story – that’s always going to happen when you have a fast moving event with multiple and often contradictory sources.
It’s easy to focus on these mistakes but more helpful to compare them with the overall coverage. If you look on Factiva and search the British national newspapers for the number of articles written about the Japanese earthquake it comes to 1,635, as on midday on March 26. That’s huge in proportion to those which have attracted complaints. No doubt it would be possible to raise queries over many more stories too but even if the number found with serious errors rose several fold it would still be a relatively small number.
What’s more, a simple search on the earthquake but excluding stories about Fukushima suggests that 942 were about the earthquake alone (not Fukushima) which implies the coverage given to the earthquake was actually greater than to the nuclear crisis that followed, which is as it should be given the relative numbers of casualties. (I accept this is a simple analysis, but it gives an idea at least).
I’ve posted links to all the UK stories in the Wiki below. What’s notable also is that several titles don’t appear to have been criticised at all, such as The Times and FT. The Guardian’s citation is pretty dubious too.
The Fukushima crisis was a very fast-moving event and, in the days after the quake, no-one knew just how it might develop. It was also unprecedented to have several reactors and cooling ponds in trouble at the same time. And in Britain it all has a great deal of extra relevancy (and newsworthiness) because of the debate over how we will get our future energy, with the proposal to build new nuclear stations at the heart of that debate. So it was always going to be a big story here because it has such immediate political implications.
It’s always good to look back on these big events and work out what we got right or wrong but it’s much more helpful if criticisms and comments (especially of science journalism) are based on facts and not just impressions. Fiona may be right in her criticisms but she needs to give us the evidence, ideally backed by numbers and examples, based on reviewing a range of media, to support her very serious allegation that so many UK science reporters and news outlets deliberately refused “to allow the facts to get in the way of a good story”.
Perhaps those attending future briefings at the Science Media Centre will be asking her just who she means.
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
These are the UK media articles criticised on the JP Quake (Journalist Wall of Shame) wiki
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/asia/japans-nuclear-accident-beyond-belief-2248107.html
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/asia/thousands-flee-tokyo-as-experts-try-to-calm-contamination-fears-2242992.html
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1368357/Radiation-poisoning-food-supply-Japan-lot-feared-eggs-milk-danger-list.html?ito=feeds-newsxml
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1368716/Japan-nuclear-crisis-Britain-radiation-risk-Fukushima-heats-AGAIN.html
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1369216/Japan-nuclear-crisis-Fukushima-Fifty-pictures-inside-nuclear-power-plant.html
http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/top-stories/2011/03/19/japan-raises-nuclear-threat-level-as-radiation-cloud-heads-for-britain-115875-22999795/
http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/top-stories/2011/03/20/food-and-water-poisoned-by-japanese-nuclear-leak-as-expert-warns-more-could-die-than-in-chernobyl-115875-23001856/
http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/news/3473142/My-nightmare-trapped-in-post-tsunami-Tokyo-City-of-Ghosts.html?OTC-RSS&ATTR=News
http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/news/3461899/Did-supermoon-spark-quake-Extreme-supermoon-said-to-set-Earth-up-for-weather-chaos.html
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/asia/japan/8387051/Japan-nuclear-plant-Just-48-hours-to-avoid-another-Chernobyl.html
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/asia/japan/8382504/Japan-earthquake-panic-in-Tokyo-as-radiation-spreads.html
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/mar/14/japan-radiation-leak-cover-up
http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/uk-world-news/2011/03/16/japanese-tsunami-thousands-flee-tokyop-as-radiation-levels-reach-danger-levels-and-fears-of-meltdown-at-nulcear-plant-grow-86908-22993048/
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-pacific-12839485
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-pacific-12798799
http://www.channel4.com/news/japanese-nuclear-crisis-an-issue-of-trust
http://news.sky.com/skynews/Home/World-News/Fukushima-Nuclear-Plant-Workers-Are-Heroes-After-Risking-Own-Lives-To-Avert-Meltdown-In-Japan/Article/201103315954904?lpos=World_News_First_Home_Article_Teaser_Region_1&lid=ARTICLE_15954904_Fukushima_Nuclear_Plant_Workers_Are_Heroes_After_Risking_Own_Lives_To_Avert_Meltdown_In_Japan_
Complain about this comment
I'm in Tokyo. Have lived here for almost 18 years. I only trust BBC World reporting, and then only the reports by Chris Hogge, who lives in Tokyo. His BBC colleagues dropped in and proceeded to mangle the facts. One of the BBC reporters who parachuted in, stood in a Tokyo train station and exclaimed "People are rushing to catch trains!", implying there was a "rush" to "flee" Tokyo. Is there a subway system in London? Do some folks rush to catch a train? And some walk, right? Same here.
The reporters and anchors in Japan deliver the news – the facts. Stories do not begin with opinion. E.g "The crisis continues", "Another setback", "A bad day at Fukushima", and so on.
That’s not to say the Japanese broadcasters don’t know how to dramatize. They can hype as well as anyone abroad. But the hype is reserved for the magazine-style programs, gossipy "investigative reports" and the like. The poignant music, the contrived emotion.
I have written a detailed account of how badly misrepresented the media coverage has been about Fukushima, the reaction
of the Japanese and the blatant lack of knowledge of Japan in general.
Please have a look.
Op-Ed: Tokyo OK, foreign media’s sensational coverage shameful
http://www.digitaljournal.com/article/305051
Complain about this comment
Jonathan Leake is quite right to say that I have not done any kind of scientific study including counting articles or measuring column inches. However I think my impressions are still quite significant given how close we have been to this story. I have just been looking at an SMC coverage report that Jonathan may think proves his point - including 100s and 100s of comments issued by us from great scientists, interviews set etc - it comes to 130 pages! It also demonstrates that the opinion stated in my blog is one forged on the front line of dealing with 100s of media requests. So impressionistic it may be, but an informed impression based on lots and lots of dealings with the media.
I do go out of my way in the blog to state that given we had already set up over 300 interviews with experts there was clearly an appetite in the media for great science and I explicitly say there was lots of good coverage. So the quotes and interviews that Jonathan mentions (Robin Grimes, Tony Roulstone, etc - many of which we set up!) do not contradict my piece. I also say that there was loads of great journalism – I mention some by name and add ‘I could go on’.
However one of my main points was about perspective - so the fact that there were 100s of interviews on the threat posed by the nuclear incident supports my opinion that there was a loss of perspective in many news rooms. Again I plead guilty to not having facts and figures to prove this but it is an impression that was widely felt by the scientists being interviewed, many of the science journalists i spoke to and other commentators. For example i think if you read the 130 page SMC report you will see that the demand for interviews with nuclear experts far outstripped those with seismologists, geologists, tsunami experts etc
One thing that is difficult for me to prove (because of conversations held in private for obvious reasons) is how many science journalists who use the centre were telling us that their Editors were putting unprecedented pressure on them to deliver a more sensationalist line or reporting news editors who see our nuclear experts as ‘apologists’. You make the point that science reporters coming to the next SMC briefing should be asking me who I mean, but it is these regulars who were telling us of the pressures from their News Desks and I have had several calls since my blog confirming this.
Finally I would just add that I do hope my reputation goes before me just a little. In the 9 years I have done this job I have done more than anyone in the scientific community to sing the praises of science reporters - not to cosy up to science reporters but because I believe passionately that science journalism in the UK is the best in the world and that the specialists are the best allies of science. So this article was a very rare expression of concern.
All that said Jonathan I do agree that someone needs to do some proper research on this and I will approach my journalism academic friends at City, Cardiff and Oxford to see if i can persuade some keen PHD student to do this.
Complain about this comment
"How many science journalists who use the centre were telling us that their Editors were putting unprecedented pressure on them to deliver a more sensationalist line"
What were the words that came out of their mouths, exactly? This sounds like a very unprofessional thing to be saying about an editor, and for an editor to request. Yet you have these individuals at the BBC you say? Why is that? What happened to BBC hiring standards?
Or is it the case that they did not say that at all ... that they said something entirely different that the blog author construed to mean this?
Absent actual quotes, this part of the blog sounds as fanciful as much of the other unfounded conjecture it contains.
Complain about this comment
View these comments in RSS