We continue with this series of special posts oriented to the media coverage analysis of the Japanese disaster. This new post is in line with the precedent one.
Now, instead of showing data about brand profile of the events, we show some results concerning the evolution of media coverage given to the Fukushima nuclear crisis, which become apparent yesterday after the massive explosion in Unit 1.
At this moment Japanese Government announces that there are serious risks of reactor meltdown, plus a possible explosion in Reactor Unit 3, as it is experiencing the same problems suffered by Reactor 1.
We show below the results concerning the increase of media coverage given to Fukushima problems, concerning first to all news about the nuclear plant, and then two specific comparative analysis concerning the media impact of explosion related news plus meltdown news.
The increase of news related to the explosion itself accelerated in our third measurement, 9 hours after it happened. Before it, reassurance that this explosion supposed just a minor problem made that the increase rate was lower. One day later, news seem to focus on the explosion issue and its consecuences, reinforced with addional news about the risks of a possible second explosion, that has not yet occurred at this moment.
As for reactor meltdown related news, it has experienced a lower increase rate than other news about Fukushima problems during the first day. Trend is clearly changing today, as meltdown risks become actual and already prevented by the Japanese Government.
Japan VI. Fukushima Second Explosion Media Percpetion Compared to First Blast
Japan V. Japan Earthquake Media Impact by Cities
Japan IV. Fukushima Nuclear Crisis Media Coverage Evolution
Japan I. Japan Earthquake and Tsunami Vs Wikileaks: Media Coverage of Disasters
REPUTATION METRICS 
Like many of us, I have been absorbed by the coverage of the rapid fire disasters striking our Japanese brothers and sisters. I hope I’m not the only one to discern the lascivious nature of the media coverage, lip-licking over the potential of nuclear meltdown and more earthquakes, more tsunamis.
It is a not a fine line between reporting the news and speculation. It is a broad divide. For the love of Heaven, isn’t enough actually happening without dragging in experts with vague credentials and vaguer associations with the science involved to brainstorm about what more might possibly happen?
I think in this regard, it’s a blessing so many of the Japanese don’t have electricity.
Remedial journalism classes are required to underscore the fact: if it is happened or is happening, it’s news. If it might happen, it’s speculation.
All of these news outlets are, and have been for decades now, making the serious mistake of going for the quick hook, the weakness of humans for drama and tragedy. If only one channel or newspaper would show restraint and leadership, giving us the facts in a clearly understandable format, it would be that channel and that newspaper to which we would all turn the next time we needed reliable information.
This fast-food media coverage is fat-laden and nutrient-shy and may just kill us all.
Pingback: Cycle for Charity
Pingback: Earthquake and Tsunami in Japan, One Year After – Media Impact Analysis « Crisis, Media, Reputation