Nuclear media discourses after the closure of the Ignalina Nuclear Power Plant: Is the game over?

• Authors: Natalija Mažeikienė , Judita Kasperiūnienė , Ilona Tandzegolskienė
• Languages of publication: EN

Abstracts

EN

The article presents a critical discourse analysis of media coverage of the most important Lithuanian strategic object - the Ignalina Nuclear Power Plant INPP - in the three biggest news portals. Media news focuses mostly on certain aspects of decommissioning of the INPP management issues and the transparency of financing mechanisms. Environmental and social aspects of the decommissioning are not sufficiently disclosed and discussed. The community of Visaginas the satellite town for the workers of the INPP remains an invisible and silent actor of the discourse. In the media news portals, the town is portrayed as disconnected from the INPP. This divide could be explained by assuming that after the closure of the INPP as a major feeding enterprise the town must search for a re-definition of its identity and construct this identity without nuclear energy and without the INPP. On the other hand, such a divide reflects a common trend characteristic of the entire nuclear discourse - to disempower communities and the public, create a boundary between the industry and the public, between the experts and ordinary citizens.

Keywords

EN

critical discourse analysis; Ignalina Nuclear Power Plant; media framing; media news portals; nuclear discourse; nuclear media discourse; text mining; Visaginas

• Publisher: Polskie Towarzystwo Komunikacji Społecznej
• Journal: Central European Journal of Communication
• Year: 2019
• Volume: 12
• Issue: 3(24)
• Pages: 335-360

Dates

published

2019-08-08

Contributors

author

Natalija Mažeikienė

• Vytautas Magnus University

author

Judita Kasperiūnienė

• Vytautas Magnus University

author

Ilona Tandzegolskienė

• Vytautas Magnus University

References

• Anshelm, J. (2010). Among demons and wizards: The nuclear energy discourse in Sweden and the re-enchantment of the world. Bulletin of Science, Technology & Society, 30(1), 43–53.
• Augutis, J., Krikštolaitis, R., Martišauskas, L., Uspuras, E., & Zutautaite, I. (2016). Energetinio saugumo tyrimų raida Lietuvoje [Development o energy security reasearch in Lithuenia]. Ener-getikas, 62(4), 232–246.
• Balkan-Sahin, S. (2019). Nuclear energy as a hegemonic discourse in Turkey. Journal of Balkan and Near Eastern Studies, 27(4), 443–461. https://doi.org/10.1080.19448953.2018.1506282.
• Ball-Rokeach, S. J. (1998). A theory of media power and a theory of media use: Different stories, ques-tions, and ways of thinking. Mass Communication and Society, 1(1–2), 5–40.
• Baločkaitė, R., & Rinkevičius, L. (2009). Branduolinės energetikos diskursai Lietuvos žiniasklai­ doje ir viešojoje nuomonėje: nuostatų takoskyros ir “kalbančiųjų klasės” formavimasis rizikos visuomenėje [Nuclear power discourse in Lithuanian mass media and public opinion: Attitudinal divergencies and the emerging talking and acting classes in the risk society]. Filosofija. Sociologija, 20(4), 259–270.
• Balžekienė, A. (2006). Socialinis branduolinės rizikos suvokimas: teorinės įžvalgos ir jų refleksija Lietuvos visuomenės požiūriuose į Ignalinos AE [Social perception of nuclear risk: Theoretical insights and their reflection in the attitudes of Lithuanian society towards the Ignalina NPP]. Doctoral dissertation at Kauno technologijos universitetas.
• Catellani, A. (2012). Pro-nuclear European discourses: Socio-semiotic observations. Public Relations Inquiry, 1(3), 285–311.
• Entman, R. M., & Rojecki, A. (1993). Freezing out the public: Elite and media framing of the U.S. anti-nuclear movement. Political Communication, 10, 155–173.
• Evans, A., & Steven, D. (2007). Climate change: The state of the debate. New York, US: Center on Inter-national Cooperation.
• Fairclough, N. (2013). Critical discourse analysis: The critical study of language. London and New York: Routledge.
• Fan, W., & Bifet, A. (2013). Mining big data: Current status and forecast to the future. ACM SIGKDD Explorations Newsletter, 14(2), 1–5.
• Fuchs, C. (2017). Social media: A critical introduction. Los Angeles: Sage.
• Gamson, W. A., & Modigliani, A. (1989). Media discourse and public opinion on nuclear power: A constructionist approach. American Journal of Sociology, 95(1), 1–37.
• Hanninen, H., & Yli-Kauhaluoma, S. (2014). The social construction of nuclear community: Building trust in the world’s first repository for spent nuclear fuel. Bulletin of Science, Technology & Society, 34(5–6), 133–144.
• Kinsella, W. J. (2005). One hundred years of nuclear discourse: Four master themes and their implica-tions for environmental communication. In S. L. Senecah (Ed.), The environmental communication yearbook (vol. 2, pp. 49–72). Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
• Leonavičius, V., & Genys, D. (2017). Energetinio saugumo sociologija. Monografija [Sociology of energy security: A monograph]. Kaunas: Vytauto Didžiojo universitetas, 144–214.
• Mercado-Saez, M.-T., Marco-Crespo, E., & Alvarez-Villa, A. (2019). Exploring news frames, sources and editorial lines on newspaper coverage of nuclear energy in Spain. Environmental Communication, 13(4), 546–559. https://doi.org/10.1080/17524032.2018.1435558.
• Scott, J. (2017). Social network analysis. Los Angeles: Sage.
• Wu, X., Zhu, X., Wu, G. Q., & Ding, W. (2014). Data mining with big data. IEEE Transactions on Knowledge and Data Engineering, 26(1), 97–107.
• Yli-Kauhaluoma, S., & Hanninen, H. (2014). Tale taming radioactive fears: Linking nuclear waste disposal to the “continuum of the good.” Public Understanding of Science, 23(3), 316–330.

Identifiers

DOI

10.19195/1899-5101.12.3(24).4