Advertisement

Affective Entanglements of Expertise: The Finnish Case

  • Katja ValaskiviEmail author
  • Anna Rantasila
  • Mikihito Tanaka
  • Risto Kunelius
Chapter

Abstract

This chapter examines the role of experts and expertise in the news coverage of Fukushima Daiichi disaster by the Finnish broadcasting company Yleisradio (YLE) between March 2011 and December 2016. The chapter analyses both YLE’s news coverage and online comments about the news of Fukushima Daiichi. Reflecting findings from previous studies on perceptions on nuclear energy, expertise and affect, this chapter argues that experts often become nodal points of discussion that become sticky with affect. Moreover, the presence of sticky figures such as the experts appears to influence affective dynamics of online comments by often dividing the commenters into opposing positions.

Keywords

Affect Expertise Online comments Fukushima disaster 

References

  1. Abe, Y. (2013). Risk assessment of nuclear power by Japanese newspapers following the Chernobyl nuclear disaster. International Journal of Communication, 7, 1968–1989.Google Scholar
  2. Ahmed, S. (2004). The cultural politics of emotion. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.Google Scholar
  3. Ahmed, S. (2010a). Creating disturbance. Feminism, happiness and affective differences. In M. Liljeström & S. Paasonen (Eds.), Working with affect in feminist readings. Disturbing differences (pp. 31–44). London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  4. Ahmed, S. (2010b). Happy objects. In M. Gregg & G. J. Seigworth (Eds.), The affect theory reader (pp. 29–51). Durham: Duke University Press.Google Scholar
  5. Alexander, J. C. (2012). Trauma. A social theory. Cambridge, UK: Polity.Google Scholar
  6. Binns, A. (2012). Don’t feed the trolls! Journalism Practice, 6(4), 547–562.  https://doi.org/10.1080/17512786.2011.648988.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Energiateollisuus. (2016). Ydinvoiman kannatuksen kehitys 1983–2015. Development of the acceptance of nuclear power 1983–2015. Energiateollisuus ry. https://energia.fi/ajankohtaista_ja_materiaalipankki/materiaalipankki/ydinvoiman_kannatuksen_kehitys_1983_2016.html. Accessed 9 Sept 2018.
  8. Every, D. (2013). ‘Shame on you’: The language, practice and consequences of shame and shaming in asylum seeker advocacy. Discourse & Society, 24(6), 667–686.  https://doi.org/10.1177/0957926513486223.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Fennovoima. (2018). The story of Fennovoima. https://fennovoima.fi/en/fennovoima/story-of-fennovoima. Accessed 28 Aug 2018.
  10. Galtung, J., & Ruge, M. H. (1965). The structure of foreign news. The presentation of the Congo, Cuba and Cyprus crises in four Norwegian newspapers. Journal of Peace Research, 2(1), 64–90.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 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.  https://doi.org/10.1086/229213.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. International Atomic Energy Agency. (2018). Country nuclear power profiles: Finland. https://cnpp.iaea.org/countryprofiles/Finland/Finland.htm. Accessed 18 Mar 2019.
  13. Jane, E. A. (2014). ‘Back to the kitchen, cunt’: Speaking the unspeakable about online misogyny. Continuum, 28(4), 558–570.  https://doi.org/10.1080/10304312.2014.924479.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Jasanoff, S., & Kim, S.-H. (2009). Containing the atom: Sociotechnical imaginaries and nuclear power in the United States and South Korea. Minerva, 47, 119–146.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11024-009-9124-4.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Jasanoff, S., & Kim, S.-H. (2013). Sociotechnical imaginaries and national energy policies. Science as Culture, 22(2), 189–196.  https://doi.org/10.1080/09505431.2013.786990.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Laihonen, M. (2016). Political foreplay for nuclear new build. Defining good at the intersection of politics, economy and technology. Doctoral dissertation at Aalto University, Helsinki.Google Scholar
  17. Matamoros-Fernández, A. (2017). Platformed racism: The mediation and circulation of an Australian race-based controversy on Twitter, Facebook and YouTube. Information, Communication & Society, 20(6), 930–946.  https://doi.org/10.1080/1369118X.2017.1293130.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Mazzarella, W. (2009). Affect: What is it good for? In S. Dube (Ed.), Enchantments of modernity. Empire, nation, globalization (pp. 29–309). London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  19. Oikkonen, V. (2017). Affect, technoscience and textual analysis: Interrogating the affective dynamics of the Zika epidemic through media texts. Social Studies of Science, 47(5), 681–702.  https://doi.org/10.1177/030631271772376.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Paasonen, S. (2015). A midsummer’s bonfire: Affective intensities of online debate. In K. Hillis, S. Paasonen, & M. Petit (Eds.), Networked affect (pp. 27–42). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  21. Pantti, M. (2016). “Despicable, disgusting, repulsive!!!” Public emotions and moralities in online discussions about violence towards refugees. Javnost – The Public, 23(4), 363–381.  https://doi.org/10.1080/13183222.2016.1248099.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Pantti, M., Wahl-Jorgensen, K., & Cottle, S. (2012). Disasters and the media. New York: Peter Lang.Google Scholar
  23. Papacharissi, Z. (2014). Affective publics. Sentiment, technology, and politics. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Penney, M. (2012). Nuclear nationalism and Fukushima. The Asia-Pacific Journal Japan Focus, 10(11): 2, 1–21.Google Scholar
  25. Probyn, E. (2005). Blush: Faces of shame. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.Google Scholar
  26. Ruostetsaari, I. (2017). Stealth democracy, elitism, and citizenship in Finnish energy policy. Energy Research & Social Science, 37, 93–103.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.erss.2017.06.022.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Ruostetsaari, I. (2018). Citizens’ support for rival modes of political involvement in energy policy-making. The case of Finland in 2007–2016. International Journal of Energy Sector Management, 12(3), 323–340.  https://doi.org/10.1108/IJESM-12-2017-0005.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Sonnevend, J. (2016). Stories without borders. The Berlin Wall and the making of a global iconic event. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Teollisuuden voima. (2018). Olkiluoto 3. https://www.tvo.fi/OL3. Accessed 20 Dec 2018.
  30. Timonen, I., Kallio, R., & Mörä, T. (1987). Tshernobylin voimalaonnettomuus lehdistössä [Chernobyl nuclear power plant accident in the press]. Tampere: Tampere University Press.Google Scholar
  31. Vehkalahti, P. (2017). Pohjoisen ydinmylly. Julkinen keskustelu Fennovoiman ydinvoimalasta 2007–2013 [Nuclear mill of the north: Public discussion about Fennovoima’s nuclear power plant from 2007 to 2013]. Doctoral dissertation at University of Tampere, Tampere, Tampere University Press. http://urn.fi/URN:ISBN:978-952-03-0541-3
  32. Weart, S. R. (2012). The rise of nuclear fear. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. White, M. H., II, & Crandall, C. S. (2017). Freedom of racist speech: Ego and expressive threats. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 113(3), 413–429.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Yle Uutiset. (2010). Kommentoidaan! [Let’s comment!] 29.1.2010, AM 10.34. https://yle.fi/uutiset/3-5431326. Accessed 22 May 2018.

Copyright information

© The Author(s) 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • Katja Valaskivi
    • 1
    Email author
  • Anna Rantasila
    • 1
  • Mikihito Tanaka
    • 2
  • Risto Kunelius
    • 1
  1. 1.Tampere UniversityTampereFinland
  2. 2.Waseda UniversityTokyoJapan

Personalised recommendations