I recently wrote a short post on how I felt about the media discussing the Fukushima Nuclear Plant. I would like to continue on another note but it will be brief. You see, I use GoogleNews to get my updates on the nuclear energy world...I keep it simple by typing "nuclear energy" into the news search and reading usually the first ten stories. Before Japan's latest earthquake and tsunami, results were generally positive or neutral to the nuclear movement (don't think I don't read the negative ones though...they are usually the most interesting). Following the disaster however, things took a big turn. For example, if you were to type in "nuclear energy" into GoogleNews today the first few stories that pop up are:
1. Nuclear Energy Isn't Needed
2. Catholic Expert: Japan disaster raises ethical questions about energy
---(seriously, I know right?)
3. Why nuclear and fossil fuels are disasters waiting to happen.
I'm not trying to discuss the obvious I know that it's clear to everyone that this is an opportune time for those who stand against nuclear to try to get the public to hear what they have to say, it just amazes me at how fast the media can change uh how should I put this...the way the media changes "how things seem". If I was someone who had no idea about the pros and cons of nuclear energy and looked it up a month ago...boy it would just about seem that everyone was on the nuclear bandwagon and so should I. Look it up now...are there seriously governments that allow such things to be built in their country?
It's sad but it's the way things are and the way they've always been.
Sorry for the rant.
“All media exist to invest our lives with artificial perceptions and arbitrary values” Marshall McLuhan
Do you think that this flaw in the media is something that could be solved through better science communication? Like taking out the middleman which is the media and having communication straight from scientist to the public? Or are we doomed to listening to the media?
ReplyDeleteThis is something of a rant, and I don't think I understand your point. Are you bothered by the change in opinion after Fukushima? Because that seems unreasonable. Of course people would be asking more questions now (as they should). And it makes sense that those who were somewhat anti-nuclear before feel ever more anti-nuclear now. What doesn't make sense to me is nuclear scientists and engineers being so personally surprised at such shifts in public view. This is the nature of the business, isn't it?
ReplyDeleteI think it is a mistake to point to the media as some sort of smoking gun. They are certainly powerful (I study the media because they are powerful) but remember our complex media models, right? It's not just about the messenger and the message. Scientists and engineers also communicate, the public brings a variety of values and interpretations to the news, etc.
For me, the interesting lesson right now is the reminder that nuclear power--for better or worse--is seen as a global energy source. What happens abroad will impact what happens here. Which is why we must pay attention to what happens in Iran, in Lithuania, in Hungary, in Japan. Yours is not an isolated industry.