Healthy mistrust or complacent confidence? Civic vigilance in the reporting by leading newspapers on nuclear waste disposal in Finland and France

IF 1.9 Q3 PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION

Risk, Hazards & Crisis in Public Policy Pub Date : 2021-03-10 DOI:10.1002/RHC3.12210

Markku Lehtonen, M. Kojo, Mika Kari, Tapio Litmanen

{"title":"Healthy mistrust or complacent confidence? Civic vigilance in the reporting by leading newspapers on nuclear waste disposal in Finland and France","authors":"Markku Lehtonen, M. Kojo, Mika Kari, Tapio Litmanen","doi":"10.1002/RHC3.12210","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Funding information Finnish Research Programme on Nuclear Waste Management (KYT2022), Grant/Award Number: Dnro KYT 13/2019; Strategic Research Council at the Academy of Finland “Collaborative remedies for fragmented societies – facilitating the collaborative turn in environmental decision‐making” (CORE), Grant/Award Number: Research project no. 313015; European Commission Marie Skłodowska‐Curie Individual Fellowships Abstract Trust and confidence have been identified as crucial for efforts at solving the conundrum of high‐level radioactive waste management (RWM). However, mistrust has its virtues, especially in the form of “civic vigilance”—healthy suspicion towards the powers that be. This article examines civic vigilance in the form of “watchdog journalism,” as practiced by the leading Finnish and French newspapers— Helsingin Sanomat (HS) and Le Monde (LM)—in their RWM reporting. Although both countries are forerunners in RWM, Finland constitutes a Nordic “high‐trust society” while France has been characterized as a “society of mistrust.” Employing the methods of frame analysis, key RWM‐related news frames were identified, consisting of varying combinations of confidence, skepticism, trust, and mistrust. LM's mistrust‐skepticism‐oriented framings reflect the classical watchdog role, in sharp contrast with the confidence oriented framings of HS, which tends to reproduce government and industry framings. Explanations for the observed differences can be sought in historically constituted political and media cultures, as well as national nuclear “regimes”. For further research, we suggest two alternative hypotheses concerning the","PeriodicalId":21362,"journal":{"name":"Risk, Hazards & Crisis in Public Policy","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.9000,"publicationDate":"2021-03-10","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1002/RHC3.12210","citationCount":"9","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Risk, Hazards & Crisis in Public Policy","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1002/RHC3.12210","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION","Score":null,"Total":0}

引用次数: 9

Abstract

Funding information Finnish Research Programme on Nuclear Waste Management (KYT2022), Grant/Award Number: Dnro KYT 13/2019; Strategic Research Council at the Academy of Finland “Collaborative remedies for fragmented societies – facilitating the collaborative turn in environmental decision‐making” (CORE), Grant/Award Number: Research project no. 313015; European Commission Marie Skłodowska‐Curie Individual Fellowships Abstract Trust and confidence have been identified as crucial for efforts at solving the conundrum of high‐level radioactive waste management (RWM). However, mistrust has its virtues, especially in the form of “civic vigilance”—healthy suspicion towards the powers that be. This article examines civic vigilance in the form of “watchdog journalism,” as practiced by the leading Finnish and French newspapers— Helsingin Sanomat (HS) and Le Monde (LM)—in their RWM reporting. Although both countries are forerunners in RWM, Finland constitutes a Nordic “high‐trust society” while France has been characterized as a “society of mistrust.” Employing the methods of frame analysis, key RWM‐related news frames were identified, consisting of varying combinations of confidence, skepticism, trust, and mistrust. LM's mistrust‐skepticism‐oriented framings reflect the classical watchdog role, in sharp contrast with the confidence oriented framings of HS, which tends to reproduce government and industry framings. Explanations for the observed differences can be sought in historically constituted political and media cultures, as well as national nuclear “regimes”. For further research, we suggest two alternative hypotheses concerning the

查看原文本刊更多论文

健康的不信任还是自满的自信?芬兰和法国主要报纸报道核废料处理的公民警惕性

资助信息芬兰核废料管理研究计划（KYT2022），拨款/奖励编号：Dnro KYT 13/2019；芬兰科学院战略研究委员会“分散社会的合作补救措施——促进环境决策的合作转变”（CORE），拨款/奖励编号：研究项目编号：313015；欧盟委员会Marie Skłodowska‐Curie个人奖学金摘要信任和信心被认为是解决高水平放射性废物管理难题的关键。然而，不信任也有其优点，尤其是以“公民警惕”的形式——对当权者的健康怀疑。本文以“监督新闻”的形式审视了公民警惕，正如芬兰和法国主要报纸Helsingin Sanomat（HS）和Le Monde（LM）在RWM报道中所实践的那样。尽管这两个国家都是RWM的先驱，但芬兰是北欧的“高度信任社会”，而法国则被描述为“不信任社会”。采用框架分析的方法，确定了与RWM相关的关键新闻框架，包括信任、怀疑、信任和不信任的不同组合。LM的不信任-怀疑导向框架反映了传统的监管角色，与HS的信心导向框架形成鲜明对比，后者倾向于复制政府和行业框架。可以在历史上形成的政治和媒体文化以及国家核“政权”中寻求对所观察到的差异的解释。为了进一步研究，我们提出了两个关于

本文章由计算机程序翻译，如有差异，请以英文原文为准。

求助全文

约1分钟内获得全文求助全文

来源期刊

Risk, Hazards & Crisis in Public Policy PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION-

CiteScore

7.50

自引率

8.60%

发文量

期刊介绍： Scholarship on risk, hazards, and crises (emergencies, disasters, or public policy/organizational crises) has developed into mature and distinct fields of inquiry. Risk, Hazards & Crisis in Public Policy (RHCPP) addresses the governance implications of the important questions raised for the respective fields. The relationships between risk, hazards, and crisis raise fundamental questions with broad social science and policy implications. During unstable situations of acute or chronic danger and substantial uncertainty (i.e. a crisis), important and deeply rooted societal institutions, norms, and values come into play. The purpose of RHCPP is to provide a forum for research and commentary that examines societies’ understanding of and measures to address risk,hazards, and crises, how public policies do and should address these concerns, and to what effect. The journal is explicitly designed to encourage a broad range of perspectives by integrating work from a variety of disciplines. The journal will look at social science theory and policy design across the spectrum of risks and crises — including natural and technological hazards, public health crises, terrorism, and societal and environmental disasters. Papers will analyze the ways societies deal with both unpredictable and predictable events as public policy questions, which include topics such as crisis governance, loss and liability, emergency response, agenda setting, and the social and cultural contexts in which hazards, risks and crises are perceived and defined. Risk, Hazards & Crisis in Public Policy invites dialogue and is open to new approaches. We seek scholarly work that combines academic quality with practical relevance. We especially welcome authors writing on the governance of risk and crises to submit their manuscripts.