Vernacular epistemologies of risk: The crisis in Fukushima

2016 ◽  
Vol 65 (1) ◽  
pp. 3-20 ◽  
Author(s):  
Celine-Marie Pascale

On 11 March 2011, an earthquake of a 9.0 magnitude and the consequent tsunami destroyed Japan’s Fukushima Dai-ichi power plant. Known as 3/11 in Japan, the effects of this triple disaster will continue for decades. How did the media covering the catastrophe articulate issues of risk to the general public? This article is a textual analysis of accounts about the Fukushima disaster published between 11 March 2011 and 11 March 2013 in four of the most prominent media outlets in the United States. In particular, the analysis explores the practices through which these US media constructed the presence and meaning of public health risks resulting from the nuclear meltdown. The article illustrates how systematic media practices minimized the presence of health risks, contributed to misinformation, and exacerbated uncertainties. In the process, the study demonstrates how the media created vernacular epistemologies for understanding and evaluating the health risks posed by nuclear radiation. The article concludes by weighing the implications of the vernacular epistemologies deployed by media.

2013 ◽  
Vol 47 (14) ◽  
pp. 5282-5297 ◽  
Author(s):  
Graham B. McBride ◽  
Rebecca Stott ◽  
Woutrina Miller ◽  
Dustin Bambic ◽  
Stefan Wuertz

2016 ◽  
Vol 12 (1) ◽  
pp. 81-104 ◽  
Author(s):  
Scott L. Greer ◽  
Phillip M. Singer

AbstractThe United States’ experience with the Ebola virus in 2014 provides a window into US public health politics. First, the United States provided a case study in the role of suasion and executive action in the management of public health in a fragmented multi-level system. The variable capacity of different parts of the United States to respond to Ebola on the level of hospitals or state governments, and their different approaches, show the limitations of federal influence, the importance of knowledge and executive energy, and the diversity of both powerful actors and sources of power. Second, the politics of Ebola in the United States is a case study in the politics of partisan blame attribution. The outbreak struck in the run-up to an election that was likely to be good for the Republican party, and the election dominated interest in and opinions of Ebola in both the media and public opinion. Democratic voters and media downplayed Ebola while Republican voters and media focused on the outbreak. The media was a key conduit for this strategic politicization, as shown in the quantity, timing and framing of news about Ebola. Neither fragmentation nor partisanship appears to be going away, so understanding the politics of public health crises will remain important.


PLoS ONE ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 16 (7) ◽  
pp. e0254127
Author(s):  
Sara Kazemian ◽  
Sam Fuller ◽  
Carlos Algara

Pundits and academics across disciplines note that the human toll brought forth by the novel coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic in the United States (U.S.) is fundamentally unequal for communities of color. Standing literature on public health posits that one of the chief predictors of racial disparity in health outcomes is a lack of institutional trust among minority communities. Furthermore, in our own county-level analysis from the U.S., we find that counties with higher percentages of Black and Hispanic residents have had vastly higher cumulative deaths from COVID-19. In light of this standing literature and our own analysis, it is critical to better understand how to mitigate or prevent these unequal outcomes for any future pandemic or public health emergency. Therefore, we assess the claim that raising institutional trust, primarily scientific trust, is key to mitigating these racial inequities. Leveraging a new, pre-pandemic measure of scientific trust, we find that trust in science, unlike trust in politicians or the media, significantly raises support for COVID-19 social distancing policies across racial lines. Our findings suggest that increasing scientific trust is essential to garnering support for public health policies that lessen the severity of the current, and potentially a future, pandemic.


2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Benjamin Lengerich ◽  
Willie Neiswanger ◽  
Eugene J. Lengerich ◽  
Eric P. Xing

AbstractTo design effective disease control strategies, it is critical to understand the incidence of diseases. In the Covid-19 epidemic in the United States (caused by outbreak of the SARS-CoV-2 virus), testing capacity was initially very limited and has been increasing at the same time as the virus has been spreading. When estimating the incidence, it can be difficult to distinguish whether increased numbers of positive tests stem from increases in the spread of the virus or increases in testing. This has made it very difficult to identify locations in which the epidemic poses the largest public health risks. Here, we use a probabilistic model to quantify beliefs about testing strategies and understand implications regarding incidence. We apply this model to estimate the incidence in each state of the United States, and find that: (1) the Covid-19 epidemic is likely to be more widespread than reported by limited testing, (2) the Covid-19 epidemic growth in the summer months is likely smaller than it was during the spring months, and (3) the regions which are at highest risk of Covid-19 epidemic outbreaks are not always those with the largest number of positive test results.


Author(s):  
D. B. Tindall ◽  
Mark C.J. Stoddart ◽  
Candis Callison

This article considers the relationship between news media and the sociopolitical dimensions of climate change. Media can be seen as sites where various actors contend with one another for visibility, for power, and for the opportunity to communicate, as well as where they promote their policy preferences. In the context of climate change, actors include politicians, social movement representatives, scientists, business leaders, and celebrities—to name a few. The general public obtain much of their information about climate change and other environmental issues from the media, either directly or indirectly through sources like social media. Media have their own internal logic, and getting one’s message into the media is not straightforward. A variety of factors influence what gets into the media, including media practices, and research shows that media matter in influencing public opinion. A variety of media practices affect reporting on climate change─one example is the journalistic norm of balance, which directs that actors on both sides of a controversy be given relatively equal attention by media outlets. In the context of global warming and climate change, in the United States, this norm has led to the distortion of the public’s understanding of these processes. Researchers have found that, in the scientific literature, there is a very strong consensus among scientists that human-caused (anthropogenic) climate change is happening. Yet media in the United States often portray the issue as a heated debate between two equal sides. Subscription to, and readership of, print newspapers have declined among the general public; nevertheless, particular newspapers continue to be important. Despite the decline of traditional media, politicians, academics, NGO leaders, business leaders, policymakers, and other opinion leaders continue to consume the media. Furthermore, articles from particular outlets have significant readership via new media access points, such as Facebook and Twitter. An important concept in the communication literature is the notion of framing. “Frames” are the interpretive schemas individuals use to perceive, identify, and label events in the world. Social movements have been important actors in discourse about climate change policy and in mobilizing the public to pressure governments to act. Social movements play a particularly important role in framing issues and in influencing public opinion. In the United States, the climate change denial countermovement, which has strong links to conservative think tanks, has been particularly influential. This countermovement is much more influential in the United States than in other countries. The power of the movement has been a barrier to the federal government taking significant policy action on climate change in the United States and has had consequences for international agreements and processes.


2021 ◽  
pp. 1-6
Author(s):  
Steven Greene ◽  
Marc Hetherington ◽  
Rahsaan Maxwell ◽  
Timothy J. Ryan

ABSTRACT Wearing face masks to combat the spread of COVID-19 became a politicized and contested practice in the United States, largely due to misinformation and partisan cues from masking opponents. This article examines whether Public Service Announcements (PSAs) can encourage the use of face masks. We designed two PSAs: one describes the benefits of using face masks; the other uses a novel messenger (i.e., a retired US general) to advocate for them. We conducted two studies. First, we aired our PSAs on television and surveyed residents of the media market to determine if they saw the PSA and how they felt about wearing face masks. Second, we conducted a randomized experiment on a diverse national sample. Both studies suggest that exposure to our PSAs increased support for face masks and induced greater compliance with public health advice. These findings have implications for how governments might fight pandemics.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document