Chernobyl, Fukushima, When will we learn? Nuclear Protest and the Lack of Public Discourse
The 11th of March 2015 marked four years since the nuclear disaster at Fukushima power plant. The disaster occurred when an earthquake triggered tsunami hit the plant and resulted in the meltdown of three nuclear reactors, releasing radioactive energy that swept across Japan. News of the natural disaster swept across the world as footage of the tsunamis destructive path went live on every news channel. For a week or so media interest was maintained, focusing on the damage caused by the tsunami rather than that caused by the nuclear reactor. Soon however the sensationalist element of the news was lost, media coverage petered out, and the Western world went back to concerning itself with national issues. However for those displaced from their homes as a result of the disaster, and living with a constant fear of radiation poisoning, Fukushima is not forgotten.
This lack of sustained interest and public discourse is apparent not only with respect to the Fukushima power plant, but also to the issue of nuclear power in general. Despite its growing importance as a source of energy, and notable disasters occurring in recent decades, nuclear power is not an issue that is regularly discussed among the general population. This essay shall explore some of the reasons for this lack public discourse.
This lack of sustained interest and public discourse is apparent not only with respect to the Fukushima power plant, but also to the issue of nuclear power in general. Despite its growing importance as a source of energy, and notable disasters occurring in recent decades, nuclear power is not an issue that is regularly discussed among the general population. This essay shall explore some of the reasons for this lack public discourse.
The candlelit vigil and the demo for Fukushima in London were part of a larger movement against nuclear power. The events consisted of speeches, poems and songs which all stressed the urgency of the issue of nuclear power, and a consistent narrative running throughout was an emphasis on the need to get the voice of the anti-nuclear movement heard. A striking feature of the event was the lack of attendance despite nuclear power being such a global issue. The anti-nuclear movement calls for an end to nuclear power and tries to warn people about the damaging effects of nuclear energy, to remind people of past nuclear disasters, and to correct the myth that nuclear power is the best solution for a sustainable future.
During the candlelit vigil which took place outside the Japanese Embassy in London, attendees were asked if they had anything that they wished to say to the Japanese Government and others in power, and many took the opportunity to share their thoughts and ask questions about nuclear energy. One man, whose thoughts I feel exemplify the thoughts of all who attended the events, asked:
“Why isn’t there more news about it?… I want you to all show us that you care, and listen to our fears, and hear our prayers”
During the candlelit vigil which took place outside the Japanese Embassy in London, attendees were asked if they had anything that they wished to say to the Japanese Government and others in power, and many took the opportunity to share their thoughts and ask questions about nuclear energy. One man, whose thoughts I feel exemplify the thoughts of all who attended the events, asked:
“Why isn’t there more news about it?… I want you to all show us that you care, and listen to our fears, and hear our prayers”
The reasons for a lack of public discourse on nuclear power lies in the ability of the government and powerful corporations to shape public concerns through the manipulation of the instruments of civil society; particularly the media. This supremacy is achieved not through coercion but through “intellectual and moral leadership” (Femia, 1987, p. 24). The ability of the powerful to mould personal convictions is based on hegemony, as conceptualised by Gramsci, in which one conception of reality becomes dominant and comes to inform “all modes of thought and behaviour” (Ibid.). The mass media, and other institutions “serve to mobilise support for the special interests that dominate the state and private activity” (Chomsky & Herman, 1994, preface). As this moulding of personal convictions is shaped through institutions and is not done through force, hegemony is therefore achieved by consent.
Gramsci acknowledges that this consent can vary in intensity; yet those that disagree with the dominant ideology lack the conceptual tools which would enable them to act on their discontent. Furthermore the way that knowledge is produced and disseminated works to exclude information provided by alternative outlets from reaching the wider public.
In Manufacturing consent Herman and Chomsky (1994) reveal the ways in which the media serves the ends of a dominant elite; a dominant elite who has a vested interest in the maintenance of nuclear power. Their idea of a “propaganda model” reveals how powerful filters act to restrict the news that reaches the public, and ensures that what becomes “big news” is that which conforms to elite interests. Inconvenient facts- such as the damage caused by nuclear power- are excluded, meaning that the public is unaware of such issues and instead public perceptions of reality are manipulated in order to ensure the status quo.
For a media outlet to be successful, it needs huge sums of money in order to reach a large audience, and therefore requires the support of investors. Immediately, non-profit and dissenting organisations, such as anti-nuclear organisations, cannot compete. The largest media systems account for the majority of media output and therefore are able to set the national agenda. The largest investors are powerful people who own large corporations and therefore have a specific set of concerns. They rely on the media to create a suitable public opinion that allows them to continue, unbridled, in their quest for profits; and will not therefore fund programmes that could be seen as “anti-business” (Chomsky & Herman, 1994, p. 17). Many corporations that invest in media or own media outlets also invest controversial areas such as nuclear power and weapons production (Ibid., p. 12). A programme that closely examined the effects of nuclear power would work against these elite interests and would therefore not receive funding.
More so than ever our knowledge comes from various forms of media; be that television, the internet, or newspapers. Less and less do people seek to find out things for themselves, meaning that a wealth of information that challenges the status quo is lost as people instead take the word of experts they see on television.
These experts, however, are not as transparent as they may seem. In Atomic Mumbai Kaur (2013) relays the instance of when alarm bells were briefly raised when radioactive canisters from Bhabha Atomic Research Centre (BARC) were spotted being used by fruit vendors. Calm was swiftly restored however as BARC scientists were sent to test the canisters for radiation and reported that they were safe. Kaur questioned the locals about how much they trusted this information that was provided by scientists who work for the implicated institute. Yet no one had seemed to consider this, and even if they had they would have no way to challenge the truth of the scientists claims; what the media and the scientists said therefore “had to be taken as gospel” (Kaur, 2013, p. 169). Speaking to anti-nuclear protesters it became clear that the knowledge they had about nuclear issues was a result of them personally looking for information, rather than simply accepting what media experts said. The power of media’s identified experts, and the readiness at which their words are accepted, is something that should not be belittled; the intellectual has “at his disposal, whether in the service of the state or against it, powers which can either benefit or irrevocably destroy life” (Foucault, 1980, p. 129).
In Britain the media situation is slightly different to that of America as not all media outlets are funded by private investors. The BBC is publically funded by a license fee that must be bought by anyone who has a television. Theoretically this means that the BBC is less tailored towards catering to elite interests; however it still requires the government to provide it with the license fee and is therefore still subject to government control and harassment. With the recent appointment of a new Secretary of State for Culture, there is concern that BBC funding is under threat (BBC, 2015).
Furthermore media outlets, including the BBC, rely heavily on government and corporate sources to provide them news, so, as Chomsky (1994, p. 22) says, “it is very difficult to call authorities on whom one depends for daily news liars, even if they do tell whoppers”.
From this it follows that critical sources of news and information, such as the anti-nuclear movement, may be avoided not simply because it can be costly to establish their credibility, but also because “primary sources may be offended and may even threaten the media against using them” (Ibid.). The structure of the media therefore works in favour of domestic power interests and in opposition to all critical organisations. Profits, therefore, are privileged over people.
Gramsci acknowledges that this consent can vary in intensity; yet those that disagree with the dominant ideology lack the conceptual tools which would enable them to act on their discontent. Furthermore the way that knowledge is produced and disseminated works to exclude information provided by alternative outlets from reaching the wider public.
In Manufacturing consent Herman and Chomsky (1994) reveal the ways in which the media serves the ends of a dominant elite; a dominant elite who has a vested interest in the maintenance of nuclear power. Their idea of a “propaganda model” reveals how powerful filters act to restrict the news that reaches the public, and ensures that what becomes “big news” is that which conforms to elite interests. Inconvenient facts- such as the damage caused by nuclear power- are excluded, meaning that the public is unaware of such issues and instead public perceptions of reality are manipulated in order to ensure the status quo.
For a media outlet to be successful, it needs huge sums of money in order to reach a large audience, and therefore requires the support of investors. Immediately, non-profit and dissenting organisations, such as anti-nuclear organisations, cannot compete. The largest media systems account for the majority of media output and therefore are able to set the national agenda. The largest investors are powerful people who own large corporations and therefore have a specific set of concerns. They rely on the media to create a suitable public opinion that allows them to continue, unbridled, in their quest for profits; and will not therefore fund programmes that could be seen as “anti-business” (Chomsky & Herman, 1994, p. 17). Many corporations that invest in media or own media outlets also invest controversial areas such as nuclear power and weapons production (Ibid., p. 12). A programme that closely examined the effects of nuclear power would work against these elite interests and would therefore not receive funding.
More so than ever our knowledge comes from various forms of media; be that television, the internet, or newspapers. Less and less do people seek to find out things for themselves, meaning that a wealth of information that challenges the status quo is lost as people instead take the word of experts they see on television.
These experts, however, are not as transparent as they may seem. In Atomic Mumbai Kaur (2013) relays the instance of when alarm bells were briefly raised when radioactive canisters from Bhabha Atomic Research Centre (BARC) were spotted being used by fruit vendors. Calm was swiftly restored however as BARC scientists were sent to test the canisters for radiation and reported that they were safe. Kaur questioned the locals about how much they trusted this information that was provided by scientists who work for the implicated institute. Yet no one had seemed to consider this, and even if they had they would have no way to challenge the truth of the scientists claims; what the media and the scientists said therefore “had to be taken as gospel” (Kaur, 2013, p. 169). Speaking to anti-nuclear protesters it became clear that the knowledge they had about nuclear issues was a result of them personally looking for information, rather than simply accepting what media experts said. The power of media’s identified experts, and the readiness at which their words are accepted, is something that should not be belittled; the intellectual has “at his disposal, whether in the service of the state or against it, powers which can either benefit or irrevocably destroy life” (Foucault, 1980, p. 129).
In Britain the media situation is slightly different to that of America as not all media outlets are funded by private investors. The BBC is publically funded by a license fee that must be bought by anyone who has a television. Theoretically this means that the BBC is less tailored towards catering to elite interests; however it still requires the government to provide it with the license fee and is therefore still subject to government control and harassment. With the recent appointment of a new Secretary of State for Culture, there is concern that BBC funding is under threat (BBC, 2015).
Furthermore media outlets, including the BBC, rely heavily on government and corporate sources to provide them news, so, as Chomsky (1994, p. 22) says, “it is very difficult to call authorities on whom one depends for daily news liars, even if they do tell whoppers”.
From this it follows that critical sources of news and information, such as the anti-nuclear movement, may be avoided not simply because it can be costly to establish their credibility, but also because “primary sources may be offended and may even threaten the media against using them” (Ibid.). The structure of the media therefore works in favour of domestic power interests and in opposition to all critical organisations. Profits, therefore, are privileged over people.
To conclude, a lack of public discourse on nuclear issues is due to the ability of powerful people and corporations to mobilise bias and manipulate the media to work in their favour. In our current society the majority of the population gains their knowledge of world affairs solely from mainstream media; the anti-nuclear movement, and other dissenting groups simply do not have the resources to get their message across to the masses, and even if they did, their critiques would be dismissed as “conspiracy theories” (Ibid., preface). The media are able to manipulate public perceptions through moulding personal convictions and in this way are able to construct a regime of truth. This regime of truth is framed by discourses which are set by the powerful and transmitted to the public through the media (Foucault, 1980, p. 131). In order for the anti-nuclear movement to advance it is a matter of “detaching the power of truth from the forms of hegemony, social, economic and culture, within which it operates at the present time” (Ibid., p,133). The voice of the anti-nuclear movement needs to be made louder; as numbers grow it becomes harder and harder for these issues to be swept under the carpet; with strength in numbers change may come, and hopefully it will come soon.
Bibliography
British Broadcasting Corporation (2015) About the BBC. Available at: http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/aboutthebbc/entries/9637e45d-c96c-36c6-9e3f-af141e81cab4 (Accessed: 20 May 2015)
Chomsky, N and Herman, E.S. (1994) Manufacturing Consent: The Political Economy of the Mass Media. London: Vintage.
Femia, J. (1987) Introduction and Preview. In Gramsci's Political Thought: Hegemony, Consciousness, and the Revolutionary Process. : Oxford Scholarship Online. Available at: http://www.oxfordscholarship.com/view/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780198275435.001.0001/acprof-9780198275435-chapter-1. (Accessed: 20 May 2015).
Foucault, M. (1980) Power/Knowledge: selected interviews and other writings, 1972-1977. New York: Pantheon Books.
Kaur, R. (2013) Atomic Mumbai: Living with the Radiance of a Thousand Suns. New Delhi: Routledge India.
Sicotte, D. (2009) ‘Power, Profit and Pollution: The Persistence of Environmental Injustice in a Company Town’, Human Ecology Review, 16(2), pp. 141-150.
All photos and videos taken by the author
British Broadcasting Corporation (2015) About the BBC. Available at: http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/aboutthebbc/entries/9637e45d-c96c-36c6-9e3f-af141e81cab4 (Accessed: 20 May 2015)
Chomsky, N and Herman, E.S. (1994) Manufacturing Consent: The Political Economy of the Mass Media. London: Vintage.
Femia, J. (1987) Introduction and Preview. In Gramsci's Political Thought: Hegemony, Consciousness, and the Revolutionary Process. : Oxford Scholarship Online. Available at: http://www.oxfordscholarship.com/view/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780198275435.001.0001/acprof-9780198275435-chapter-1. (Accessed: 20 May 2015).
Foucault, M. (1980) Power/Knowledge: selected interviews and other writings, 1972-1977. New York: Pantheon Books.
Kaur, R. (2013) Atomic Mumbai: Living with the Radiance of a Thousand Suns. New Delhi: Routledge India.
Sicotte, D. (2009) ‘Power, Profit and Pollution: The Persistence of Environmental Injustice in a Company Town’, Human Ecology Review, 16(2), pp. 141-150.
All photos and videos taken by the author