This article is based on the author’s BS Development Communication thesis.
Suggested citation:
Auza, Jesame M. (2012). Amplification of risks of nuclear power plants in leading Philippine newspapers. Unpublished BS Development Communication thesis, Visayas State University, Baybay, Leyte, Philippines
__________________________________________________________
Image may be NSFW.
Clik here to view.
by
Jesame M. Auza
BS Development Communication 2012
Visayas State University
Visca, Baybay, Leyte, Philippines
The newspaper, as one of the media channels and as an important transmitter of information, has an important role in communicating risks. How newspapers report risks contribute greatly to the amplification of such risks as perceived by the public. Public perception of risk is important because it is considered to be the central issue (mental process) (Morrow, 2009).
Today, among the significant risks people are confronted with are the risks emanating from nuclear power plants. Schneider, Frogatt and Thomas (2011) report that as of April 2011, there were 437 nuclear power plants operating worldwide. Considering the environmental hazards these plants pose to the public, nuclear plants have become a main concern (Froggatt et al., n.d.).
Throughout history, nuclear power plants have contributed to the occurrence of major disasters. An example is the Chernobyl disaster that has brought enormous damage to the people and the environment. The accident was brought about by the explosion of reactor and fires released at 5% of the radioactive reactor core into the atmosphere and downwind. On the night of the accident, two plant workers died. In the first four months, 28 deaths were reported that was primarily caused by acute radiation poisoning. Meanwhile, lighter radiation material was carried by the wind over Ukraine, Belarus, Russia and to some extent reached Scandinavia and Europe (USNRC, n.d.). The accident resulted in the high numbers of children suffering from thyroid cancer due to the high presence of radioactive iodine in milk products, mutation because of too much exposure to radiation, and environmental damage affecting the staple foods of the affected people (The Chernobyl Forum, 2003-2005).
To help readers understand and cope with risks, the Philippine newspapers have been publishing news and information on various risks. Some of the risks these newspaper cover are on natural hazards, transportation and travel, drugs/medicine/pharmaceutical (Palermo, 2006), climate change risks (Piamonte, 2008), health risks (Nunez & Gravoso, 2007) and melamine contamination in milk (Castellano, 2010). Likewise, triggered by the recent nuclear power plant accident in Fukushima Daiichii, Japan, Philippine newspapers are now also covering risks on nuclear power plants.
Like other risks, reporting of the nuclear power plant risks may be amplified and attenuated. Unfortunately, at this time, no study has been conducted to find out the coverage and amplification of nuclear power plant risks by leading newspapers in the Philippines. This study was, therefore, conducted to fill this gap in the literature.
Aside from adding to the existing body of knowledge on risk communication, this study is important as this can serve as a reference for future studies in the field of environmental risks. According to the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development [OECD], (2010), the concept of nuclear power plant risks is rarely put into the “context” of the whole nuclear industry safety record and is even matched up with the risks posed by other source of energy. Hence, this study could also point out some gaps in the way journalists report nuclear power plant risks.
Objectives
This study generally aimed to determine amplification of the nuclear power plant risks in the three leading Philippine dailies. Specifically, it sought to:
- Determine the coverage, language used in, and space given to stories related to the use of nuclear power plants as source of energy and the risks they pose to the environment in three leading Philippine newspapers;
- Find out how the three leading Philippine newspapers treat the environmental risk messages especially those related to the use of nuclear power plants in energy generation; and
- Find out the environmental risk signals amplified (intensified or attenuated) in the newspapers’ use of negative emotion words.
Theoretical Framework
This study was anchored on the social amplification of risk (SARF) explained by Kasperson and company (1988). SARF is an inter-disciplinary approach because it fuses the study of different social sciences, including psychology, anthropology, communication theory and sociology, to explain why different individuals make different estimations in the degree of risks. By looking at the different corners of this approach, it can easily be found out why risks, as perceived by the public, are amplified, receiving public attention, or attenuated, receiving less public attention.
The framework involves two stages of social amplification of risk. Within the first stage is the focus on the hazard event, the various stations of amplification, and their relationships with public perceptions and initial order behavior characteristics (Pidgeon, et al., 2003). This covers the transfer of information about the risk or risk event. These stations are responsible for generating and in processing signals. The information system and the characteristic of public response that compose social amplification are essential elements in determining the nature and magnitude of risks (Kasperson, et al., 1988).
The second stage bears on the secondary impacts that were generated from the behavioral responses which connect to the interpretation and the response to such information flow. These impacts may then diffuse as what is termed the “ripple effect”, to the different institutions or other parties (e.g. affected persons, local community and concern groups). These secondary effects, thus, lead to different effects (e.g. loss of business, regulatory constraints and social disorders) that could affect the different risk analysis, monitoring and management. As one ripples further, third impacts may develop as it goes outward and thus affecting other social arenas with similar problems (Kasperson, et al., 1988).
Amplification denotes the process of intensification and attenuation of risk or risk events information. It may also connect to the disagreement between experts’ belief of presenting relatively low in statistical risks while lay public views it as potentially high risks (intensified) and between experts’ belief of presenting high in statistical risks while it received lay publics’ less attention [attenuated] (Hazards Forum: Social Amplification of Risk, 2001).
The intensity of such hazard changes with respect to the amplification process, either risk is being intensified or attenuated. If such risk is perceived to be higher in reverse to what the experts’ assessments are, this would be the time that risk regulators would like to align public’s assessments and its impact with the experts’. This time, de-intensification occurs. On the other side, de-attenuation happens when risk regulators would like to heighten public’s assessment to risks that are considered to be seriously hazardous (Pidgeon, Kasperson, Slovic, 2003). See Figure 1.
Methodology
Coverage and language used
Articles dealing with risks of nuclear power plants were identified in the newspapers. These were subjected to content analysis to analyze the aspects of coverage of risks used. The following variables were measured in the analysis: news attention, news making, access to voice, assignment of responsibility and blame, frequency, space allocation and the treatment of articles.
All articles dealing with risks of nuclear power plants from the month of January to December 2011 were analyzed to get a significant study without leaving important articles uncovered. However, since the newspaper issues were lacking in the two libraries, not all sample were subjected to content analysis. To achieve equivalence of samples, lacking issues were eliminated in all newspapers.
To measure the allotted space for nuclear power plant risk articles, space allocation of an article (SAA) was computed as follows:
SAA= LA (cm.) ×WA (cm.)
Where:
SAA = space allocation of an article
LA = length of article column
WA = width of article column measured in centimeter (cm)
Total space allocation for nuclear power plant risks articles (TSAA) was computed by getting the sum of all the space allocations of articles (SAA).
TSAA=?SAA
Total space allocation of the paper (TSA) was computed and was compared with TSAA.
TSA= column width (cm) × length of the column (cm) × number of standard column × total number of pages
Percentage of space allotted (PSA) for nuclear power plants risk articles was computed.
PSA= TSAA/TSA × 100
To analyze the data, frequency counts and the one-way ANOVA was used to identify the significant differences in space allocation and the number of nuclear power risk articles among the three newspapers.
Intercoder reliability
Intercoder reliability, which is a critical component of a content analysis, was also done so that reliability of the interpretations will be established. It helps in distinguishing if an independent encoder fixes and assesses all variables in a similar way. When all nuclear power plant risk articles were identified, a codebook was developed. A senior Development Communication student was asked to code each article to ensure the validity of content analysis data. The researcher and the coder coded each article independently. A number was coded of the same texts and the results were compared. A cue card was provided listing the different article formats (feature, commentary, news feature, straight news) with their specific definition to serve as the guide.
The Cohen’s Kappa was used to measure the intercoder reliability data with the following formula, where Pr(a) represents the observed percentage of agreement and Pr(e) for the expected percentage of agreement.
K= Pr(a) – Pr(e)
1 – Pr(e)
In this study, the intercorder reliability was 1.00.
Finding the risk signals amplified (intensified or attenuated)
Linguistic Inquiry and Word Count (LIWC), an online version computer-based lexical content analysis designed by James W. Pennebaker, Roger J. Booth, and Martha E. Francis (2001), was used to analyze and calculate a variety of emotional, cognitive, structural and process components or simply, the language used that presents risk messages in the identified articles/samples.
After distinguishing all nuclear power plant risk articles during content analysis, they were subjected to the lexical content analysis. They were encoded as the initial step. They were then processed by LIWC.
Only the data of negative emotion words were included. The univariate ANOVA was used to identify the differences in the number of specific words between newspapers and across time periods.
Results
Frequency and space allocation of nuclear power plant risk articles
The Philippine Daily Inquirer allocated the highest number of nuclear power plant risk articles (PSA) with 36,752.79 cm² (0.69%), followed by the Manila Bulletin with 31,116.84 cm² (0.42 %) while the Philippine Star allotted only 0.31 percent (35,046.22 cm²) of its total newspaper space of 11,311,342.96 cm2. ANOVA showed significant differences among newspapers (F(2, 303)=3.33, p<.05) in terms of space allocation. The post hoc analysis LSD, furthermore, showed that there is a significant difference between PhilStar (M =292.05, SD= 181.36) and Inquirer (M=375.21, SD= 239. 86) at 0.014. In terms of the difference between duration of time, the space allocation among the three newspapers ANOVA showed a significant difference, (F(1, 304)=52.33, p<.05). The post hoc analysis could not determine the difference between periods since there were fewer than three groups.
Out of 306 risk articles, more than four-fifths (83.7%) were located in the inside pages. While one-sixth (12.1%) were placed on the front page, only a small portion (4.2%) landed in the headline. In terms of news format, more than half (58.83%) of the articles were written in news feature. More than one-fourth (27.45%) were found to be in a straight news form.
When it comes to the risk definers, majority of the articles were views from the scientists and experts (47%). Some 5.6 percent had the campaigning groups as sources.
The three newspapers were mostly inclined to base the risk events to scientific activities (65.4%). Only about one-sixth (15.4%) were based on public experiences.
More than four-fifths (85.6%) of the total risk articles blamed the scientific/technical failure.
Intercoder reliability test was also employed to ensure the reliability of analysis and interpretation of the articles. Another senior Development Communication student was asked to be the other coder. Result of the intercoder reliability test using Cohen’s Kappa showed a 1.00 reliability score indicating that the interpretations of both researcher and the coder did not differ significantly.
When it comes to time periods of the nuke risk issues, no pre-peak period was facilitated since no issues were found in the months of January and February, the peak period was from March to April while the post-peak period was from May to December. Based on the assumptions that the intensive use of these negative emotion words would be in the peak period, PhilStar and Inquirer showed the opposite.
Data also showed that negative emotion words were present in all the three newspapers. Results showed that PhilStar and Inquirer seemed to intensify the risk issues as shown in the increased use of these words from the peak period to the post-peak period. On the other hand, the Bulletin showed attenuation as the use of negative emotion words were reduced in the post-peak period. This means that each newspaper amplifies nuclear power plant risk stories at different time in a different way. The ANOVA test, however, showed no significant difference among the three newspapers in terms of the number of negative words used (F (2, 303) =2.28, p>.05). The post hoc analysis LSD showed, though, that Inquirer (M= 1.68, SD= 0.93) and Bulletin (M= 1.40, SD= 2.36) had a significant difference at 0.037. However, the three newspapers did not significantly differ between time periods in relation to the language used when subjected to ANOVA, (F (1, 304) =0.005, p>.05). Post hoc analysis using LSD cannot be performed to show the differences between periods since there were only two periods (fewer than three).
Implications and Recommendations
Results of the content analysis showed that the nuclear risk communication in the country is quite unsatisfactory because most of the articles were placed in the inside pages of the newspapers which indicates that these articles were less appealing. It can be assumed also that the subject is not a typical topic among newspapers unless worse things happened brought by these technologies like the March 11, 2011 accident in Japan.
When it comes to the risk definers of the news event, experts were the most cited ones. This is understandable since they can give real and wide backgrounds on the nature and extensiveness of the nuclear power plant risk issues (Davies, 1996). They can provide better knowledge that leads to the understanding of the situation through a series of explanations. The three newspapers also provided glossary about the technical terms and explanations from the interview presented by the experts for the basic understanding of the issue.
Along with the scientists/experts, opinions and views of politicians and members of the government are also being quoted and published. As an important player in the society, it is good to know their sides. However, most of them direct individuals to focus on government plans and political hunger (e.g. the revival of the mothballed BNPP [Bataan Nuclear Power Plant]), thus lessening the scientific side of the risk story. Thus, the media should not depend too much on government as source as there is a tendency that their opinions will have a mixture of political stance and biases.
Moreover, based on the content analysis, it was interesting to note that experts and politicians and members of the government gave different estimations about the extensiveness of the situation in Japan’s nuclear plant. While the government proclaimed that the place is out of danger, some concerned groups said otherwise based on their observations that those evacuated were not yet allowed to return to the so called danger zone, thus confusing the public. That is why the media should come in as society’s watchdog and should try to get the truth to satisfy the public’s thirst for a more precise and untainted information.
On the other hand, only a small portion was from the members of the public. The report of Petts and company (2001) suggested that rather than seeing them (lay public) as simply receiver of information, it is good to consider them as “potential news actors”, reflecting their stance and situation as victims to develop a “common-sense action”. As they are the direct victims of the accident, it would be right to give them also emphasis as definers of risk stories.
When it comes to where blame and responsibility be credited, scientific/technical failures were usually assigned to it. This study has similar result. The blame was credited to scientific/technical failures. The continuing dependency of some countries on nuclear power plants despite the nuke tragedy in Japan, lead to the growing questions on the credibility and safety of the technology. After several months that the government and the operator, TEPCO, had struggled to decommission the nuke plant (Fukushima Daiichi), members of the public, campaigning groups and even experts blamed the technology and the scientists or officials for taking too much time in containing the possible “meltdown.” The Japanese government, though, according to the news articles have allowed experts and even the media to visit the area to see for themselves the real situation. Meanwhile, in the Philippines, the proponents of the possible operation of the BNPP remain silent. In other words, no news can be attributed to them within the period of this study, that is, in 2011.
When it comes to the format used, most of the articles were presented in a news feature format indicating in-depth analysis of the topic since the topic requires an extensive background.
In terms of placement, majority of the articles were located in the inside page. This reflects that the issue is given less prominence. This could be because of “proximity,” an important element of the news which is one of the factors to consider. The magnitude and severity of coverage of possible damage are usually factors in the treatment of news articles.
On the other hand, the presence of negative emotion words among the three newspapers is a good indicator that such risk issue was given importance by intensifying it. As what White and company (2003) stressed, negative languages were perceived to be more contagious and were trusted more than the “ambiguous” ones (affirmative languages). But, a control over the extreme use of these languages should be done to prevent the occurrence of “restless public”.
Image may be NSFW.
Clik here to view.
Image may be NSFW.Clik here to view.
