Andrew Woolner’s Yokohama residence was left without power shortly after the recent major earthquake struck Japan. But his laptop and cell phone still had juice, and he managed to get online and read about what had happened.
“We’re used to getting earthquakes—we live in Japan,” he said when we spoke earlier this week.
He knew something was different this time, though, because his elderly neighbors seemed shaken by the intensity of the quake—even though the epicenter was far from Yokohama.
“But there was no panic,” he said of people in his neighborhood.
Woolner looked to traditional media and his Twitter stream to get a sense of the severity of the quake, and the resulting damage.
“I went to the BBC and I started watching the coverage there, and as it progressed I was shocked because I always thought the BBC was a fairly straightforward news organization—but it was starting to not match what I could see was going on,” said Woolner, a thirty-five-year-old theatre artist born in Canada. He moved to Japan close to eight years ago.
“At the same time, I was on Twitter—and this is the first time Twitter has ever proved itself to be useful to me—and all my friends in Tokyo and the environs were tweeting in and we were starting to piece together what had happened,” he said. “At that point there was really no speculation; it was just people reporting what had happened to them.”
That was two weeks ago. As time passed, Woolner said the gap between the reality he and others in Japan were experiencing and what international media was reporting seem to widen. He’s not alone in that assessment.
As of today, the biggest media error in terms of virality is Fox News’s misidentification of a Tokyo nightclub as a power plant. That’s good for a chuckle, but it also speaks to a larger complaint that the media is spreading misinformation about the situation at Japan’s nuclear facilities. For an extreme example of ignorance, watch Nancy Grace spread irrational fear in the face of expert analysis (it begins around the forty second mark):
No, Grace is not a journalist. But she isn’t alone in stoking fears and spreading misinformation. Writing for TechCrunch, Jon Evans, a journalist and programmer I know personally, said the problem is a lack of understanding on the part of journalists:
… the basic problem is that most journalists simply don’t have a clue when it comes to science and engineering. They don’t understand what they’re writing about; they don’t know which questions to ask; they don’t understand that science, unlike the arts, is ultimately about provability and falsifiability, not interpretation and opinion; they don’t know when government advice is reasonable and when it’s terrified CYA boilerplate; and they don’t know when to call bullshit on whatever source they have dredged up to provide “balance,” which they worship beyond all explanation.
Writing for Scientific American, David Ropeik made similar points about the poor quality of reporting about radiation, as did Andrew C. Revkin in The New York Times. Fiona Fox, director of the U.K.’s Science Media Centre, wrote a piece for the BBC College of Journalism Blog suggesting the that the views of nuclear 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.”
Woolner made the point that international media had trouble gathering detailed information in the first few days after the quake. “It was the kind of speculation you get on the twenty-four news networks when the camera is pointed at something and they feel they have to talk,” he said.
As the days passed after the quake, friends back in North America—people consuming those same reports and others much worse—began sending Woolner panicked messages pleading with him to get out of Japan as soon as possible. Radiation levels were akin to Chernobyl, they told him. The food supply is unsafe. People are panicking in the streets. Come home now!
I never heard of Nancy Grace before reading this item - I don't watch TV and get almost all news via Internet, much of that from AlJazeera and BBC - but I am in semi-shock that this is a person who is heavily viewed and regarded as a valid source of information. If this type of news reader - and I use that word instead of journalist - is what most TV news viewers seek to watch, then no wonder so many USers are ill informed about most everything.
#1 Posted by Kitty Antonik Wakfer, CJR on Sat 26 Mar 2011 at 09:17 PM
I have lived here in Tokyo 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. Same on CNN. The female reporter who lives in Tokyo was reporting accurately, but the anchors in the studio went on to sensationalize.
The worst about the media sensationalism is it destroys trust in the outlet doing the reporting. I have detailed many misrepresentations made in the media about Fukushima.
If you have a moment, please take a look at this article I wrote March 25 that explains why people in Japan are wearing masks, why the water is safe in Tokyo, when the power is off in the region, why Cup Noodle wasn't available for about 24 hours, and more.
This article provides corrections to a number of the erroneous reports by the world media.
Op-Ed: Tokyo OK, foreign media’s sensational coverage shameful
http://www.digitaljournal.com/article/305051
#2 Posted by Mark, CJR on Sun 27 Mar 2011 at 03:24 AM
Unfortunately, we're only aware of how warped media reporting can be when we know firsthand the events they refer to. The 1998 ice storm in Quebec is a typical case. While the weather conditions here in Quebec were spectacular, people watching the news elsewhere in the world though we would all perish in the onset of the next Ice Age...
#3 Posted by Jean-François Garneau, CJR on Mon 28 Mar 2011 at 10:25 AM
I can't speak for anyone else, but I can say as a person who lives in Japan now that the situation in eastern Honshu is not safe, nor will it be until the reactor emissions are controlled, the containers are resealed tight, and proper pump equipment is powered and operational again.
I've lived in Japan for under a decade and ran a language business in Chiba. I closed shop when I saw the government raise the legal limits to radiation exposure for workers and elevate the level of the disaster to above TMI. Frequent power outages were impairing my business and the government seemed slow to take interest in the situation with the Fukushima plant, leaving it too long under TEPCO's jurisdiction which has been conflicted by its need to protect its assets versus its need to protect the people of Japan. The Guardian has been reporting well on this:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/mar/21/nuclear-samurai-fukushima-japan-reactor
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/mar/22/japan-nuclear-power-plant-checks-missed
"The revelations will add to pressure on Tepco to explain why, under its cost-cutting chief executive Masataka Shimizu, it opted to save money by storing the spent fuel on site rather than invest in safer storage options.
The firm already faces scrutiny over why it waited so long to pump seawater into the stricken reactors and, according to a report in the Yomiuri Shimbun newspaper last week, turned down US offers of help to cool the reactors shortly after the disaster.
Critics of Japan's nuclear power programme say the industry's patchy safety record and close ties to regulating authorities will have to change if it is to regain public trust."
The government does not want to panic one of the world's most populated cities and it does not want to cripple one of its most important energy producers but we are facing a real crisis here and the government and the energy company are trying to maintain face and the pretense that they have control. They don't, not really, and their pretense is interfering with the globe's ability to work out a solution. The pretense needs to be torn down and we need to bring the full resources of the world to bear on these problems. We also need to inform the public of the danger they may be in, without exaggeration, but also with regard to possible from best case scenarios based on the information available.
The media can be a part of that. Right now I see media reporting things such as how water is supposed to bring down radiation levels or how boiling water is supposed to reduce the toxicity of radioactive iodine. Basic science issues are not being explained in a away that demonstrates reason and causality to the reader. We are being told in Japan "this will do that" without proof or understanding which is, to me, folk medicine approaches to the issues of an nuclear age.
The media in Japan must do better to inform the people of the risks, the media in the west needs to inform people about some basic issues of geography (there's no need for panic and extra iodine in Fukuoka. Look at the wind patterns and measure the risk based on that) and what the real worst case scenarios actually are (highly radioactive contamination of Fukushima and neighboring prefectures, possible lighter contamination exposure through air and water beyond, high levels of ocean contamination in the local east honshu sea, little effects in North America and the globe).
I don't have any answers but the press needs to realize that TEPCO is corrupt, the government is embarrassed, that nuclear contaminants have had effects in the past that government and UN science agencies are loath to study (because nuclear power is an important part of their power
#4 Posted by Thimbles, CJR on Mon 28 Mar 2011 at 02:02 PM
Thimbles-san, your story could also be read as an example of real harm caused by alarmist headlines, paper-selling style of "journalism".
#5 Posted by sensevisual, CJR on Mon 28 Mar 2011 at 05:38 PM
My story is more a reflection of bad nuclear reporting in the past, the effects of lax industry regulation in the past, the tendency for government and corporations to circle their wagons and deceive their populations in to maintain public relations control and minimized liability in the past, and my tendency not to look at one environmental disaster as a discrete event but as one with many parallels to the past.
For instance one could read this WSJ story
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704608504576207912642629904.html
and see parallels to the Macondo Well:
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/12/26/us/26spill.html
"Nearly 400 feet long, the Horizon had formidable and redundant defenses against even the worst blowout. It was equipped to divert surging oil and gas safely away from the rig. It had devices to quickly seal off a well blowout or to break free from it. It had systems to prevent gas from exploding and sophisticated alarms that would quickly warn the crew at the slightest trace of gas. The crew itself routinely practiced responding to alarms, fires and blowouts, and it was blessed with experienced leaders who clearly cared about safety.
On paper, experts and investigators agree, the Deepwater Horizon should have weathered this blowout.
This is the story of how and why it didn’t...
At critical moments that night, members of the crew hesitated and did not take the decisive steps needed. Communications fell apart, warning signs were missed and crew members in critical areas failed to coordinate a response.
The result, the interviews and records show, was paralysis. For nine long minutes, as the drilling crew battled the blowout and gas alarms eventually sounded on the bridge, no warning was given to the rest of the crew. For many, the first hint of crisis came in the form of a blast wave.
The paralysis had two main sources, the examination by The Times shows. The first was a failure to train for the worst. The Horizon was like a Gulf Coast town that regularly rehearsed for Category 1 hurricanes but never contemplated the hundred-year storm. The crew members, though expert in responding to the usual range of well problems, were unprepared for a major blowout followed by explosions, fires and a total loss of power.
They were also frozen by the sheer complexity of the Horizon’s defenses, and by the policies that explained when they were to be deployed. One emergency system alone was controlled by 30 buttons.
The Horizon’s owner, Transocean, the world’s largest operator of offshore oil rigs, had provided the crew with a detailed handbook on how to respond to signs of a blowout. Yet its emergency protocols often urged rapid action while also warning against overreaction. Fred Bartlit, chief counsel for the presidential commission that is looking into the Horizon disaster, said Transocean’s handbook was “a safety expert’s dream,” and yet after reading it cover to cover he struggled to answer a basic question:
“How do you know it’s bad enough to act fast?”"
In my time in Japan there have been several nuclear accidents, one in Niigata involving an earthquake at a tepco plant as recent as 2007. This is an area ripe for further investigation in places such as Hamaoka and others where stations are built without regard to tectonic risk and without protections from the possible tsunamis that arise.
My story is not an example of sensationalism. It's an example of someone with a child who is reacting to unknown risks managed by untrusted actors.
#6 Posted by Thimbles, CJR on Mon 28 Mar 2011 at 07:55 PM
Nancy Grace is not a news reader or journalist of any kind, nor does she really pretend to be. She is a highly successful tabloid crime story hostesss. Why she decided to do the Japan story for a couple of wildly disastrous days is beyond me, but from listening to her, I think she really is this stupid (as are her producers) and is this panicked about it.
You left out the part where she said over and over again that "civilians" were being treated for radiation sickness-- and this was before we even heard about the couple of workers at the plant. She and her producers apparently read about some people being "decontaminated" (by being hosed down) and literally didn't know what the word meant.
One of the most disturbing things about it, though, is that the numerous good CNN journalists she had as guests never even attempted to set her straight on any of it. The Accuweather guy was the only one who attempted to counteract her hysterical garbage directly. Really an incredible disgrace for the network.
#7 Posted by gyrfalcon, CJR on Tue 29 Mar 2011 at 12:46 AM
I can relate to the post by Thimbles.
What is reported as "safe" isn't always safe. It is frustrating to be tagged as an "alarmist" when what you have experienced is reality, not just for yourself, but for thousands of people dealing with pappilary thyroid cancer, only known cause exposure to radiation. My experiences with radiation are with one of the easiest treated types of cancer caused by radioactive materials.
As uncomfortable as the science and energy communities are that cases like mine exist, it does not change my situation or my child's and there are probably many more cases just like mine. I hope not; but the possibility certainly exist.
I don't have articles to reference. What I learned from my research over 20 years ago when my child developed pappilary thyroid cancer is that's it is caused from exposure to radiation. My first reaction was: "What? (actually wtf?) Radiation? Where in the world was my child exposed to radiation?"
Twenty years before the diagnosis, during my 5th month of pregnancy, I had a collapsed lung, (x-rays for diagnosis), tube placed in chest (x-rays prior to procedure, x-rays after inserted to confirm position, x-rays day after to determine if it was working, x-rays after tube removed to confirm lung still inflated). The multiple doctors involved were reputable, following the guidelines of the time. For all these x-rays a lead blanket was placed on my tummy to protect my developing child. I was assured no harm would come to my child or me from this medical procedure. Then, the birth of my child was frank breach (no c-sections for this back then). Doctors again assured me no harm would come to me or my child if they x-rayed the baby's position with no lead blanket (of course) to assist with the birth.
According to some figures I have seen it would take thousands of x-rays to cause this result; nonetheless, it happened.
The point I want to make is that there is no shame in exercising caution. How does one share a story like this without panicking the public? I've dealt with this situation for over 20 years and the panic I felt in the beginning left a long time ago, but I am left with grave concerns. I think my concerns are legitimate. And I believe the public has a right to know that cases like this exist.
As a mother and grandmother, if I remain silent; I, in effect, betray my child ... make light of their condition. I cannot do that. I do not have the knowhow or stamina to do much more than state my reservations, and go on the record. It is not easy for me do. I don't even like thinking about all of this, let alone commenting on it. To me, there are too many unknowns.
#8 Posted by Coffey, CJR on Tue 29 Mar 2011 at 08:47 AM