Temporal Affordances in the Networked Remembering of Fukushima

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


This chapter studies temporal aspects of the Fukushima disaster from the perspective of remembering. This chapter demonstrates how the meanings, interpretations and uses of media events change and develop through time, as narratives and counter-narratives vary and shift. We demonstrate how temporal affordances are dependent on technological affordances and interpretations of a disruptive media event. This chapter contains a social network analysis (SNA) of commemorative tweets from 2016 demonstrating that public actors, such as media operators and NGOs like Greenpeace, gain the most retweets and thus the most visibility. This chapter ends with a qualitative analysis of Greenpeace International tweets 2011–2016 that demonstrate how temporal and technological affordances change the mode of tweeting.


Temporal affordances Remembering Social network analysis Greenpeace 


  1. Bastian, M., Heymann, S., & Jacomy, M. (2009). Gephi: An open source software for exploring and manipulating networks. Conference paper, The third international conference on weblogs and social media, ICWSM 2009, San Jose.
  2. Borra, E., & Rieder, B. (2014). Programmed method: Developing a toolset for capturing and analyzing tweets. Aslib Journal of Information Management, 66(3), 262–278. Scholar
  3. Bruns, A., & Burgess, J. (2012). Researching news discussion on Twitter. Journalism Studies, 13(5–6), 801–814.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Chadwick, A. (2013). The hybrid media system: Politics and power. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Scholar
  5. Cioffi-Revilla, C. (2010). A methodology for complex social simulations. JASSS, 13(1).
  6. DMI-TCAT (Digital methods initiative Twitter capture and analysis Toolset). See for example.
  7. Edy, J. A. (1999). Journalistic uses of collective memory. Journal of Communication, 49(2), 71–85. Scholar
  8. Edy, J. A. (2014). Collective memory in a post-broadcast world. In B. Zelizer & K. Tenenboim-Weinblatt (Eds.), Journalism and memory (pp. 66–79). Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Freeman, L. C. (2000). Visualizing social networks. Journal of Social Structure, 1(1), 1–10.Google Scholar
  10. Hansen, D. L., Rotman, D., Bonsignore, E., Milić-Frayling, N., Mendes Rodrigues, E., Smith, M., & Shneiderman, B. (2012). Do you know the way to SNA? A process model for analyzing and visualizing social media data. International Conference on Social Informatics, 12.
  11. Hernandez, B. A. (2011). Explore Twitter’s evolution: 2006 to present. Mashable. Accessed 20 Sept 2018.
  12. Hindman, M. (2009). The myth of digital democracy. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  13. Huhtamäki, J., Russell, M. G., Rubens, N., & Still, K. (2015). Ostinato: The exploration-automation cycle of user-centric, process-automated data-driven visual network analytics (Computational social sciences) (Vol. 3). Cham: Springer. Scholar
  14. Hutchby, I. (2001). Technologies, texts and affordances. Sociology, 35(2), 441–456. Scholar
  15. Jacomy, M., Venturini, T., Heymann, S., & Bastian, M. (2014). ForceAtlas2, a continuous graph layout algorithm for handy network visualization designed for the Gephi software. PLoS One, 9(6), e98679. Scholar
  16. Lin, Y.-R., Keegan, B., Margolin, D., & Lazer, D. (2014). Rising tides or rising stars? Dynamics of shared attention on Twitter during media events. PLoS One, 9(5), e94093. Scholar
  17. Newman, M. E. J. (2006). Finding community structure in networks using the eigenvectors of matrices. Physical Review E – Statistical, Nonlinear, and Soft Matter Physics, 74(3).
  18. Özdemir, B. P. (2012). Social media as a tool for online advocacy campaigns: Greenpeace Mediterranean’s anti genetically engineered food campaign in Turkey. Global Media Journal, 5(2), 23–39. Canadian edition.Google Scholar
  19. Rogstad, I. (2016). Is Twitter just rehashing? Intermedia agenda setting between Twitter and mainstream media. Journal of Information Technology & Politics, 13(2), 142–158. Scholar
  20. Sonnevend, J. (2016). Stories without borders. The Berlin Wall and the making of a global iconic event. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Starbird, K. (2017). Examining the alternative media ecosystem through the production of alternative narratives of mass shooting events on Twitter. Proceedings of the 11th international conference on web and social media, ICWSM 2017, 230–239.Google Scholar
  22. Sumiala, J., Tikka, M., Huhtamäki, J., & Valaskivi, K. (2016). #JeSuisCharlie: Towards a multi-method study of hybrid media events. Media and Communication, 4(4), 97–108. Scholar
  23. Sumiala, J., Valaskivi, K., Tikka, M., & Huhtamäki, J. (2018). Hybrid media events: The Charlie Hebdo attacks and global circulation of terrorist violence. Bingley: Emerald Publishing.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Tenenboim-Weinblatt, K., & Neiger, M. (2018). Temporal affordances in the news. Journalism, 19(1), 37–55. Scholar
  25. Volkmer, I., & Lee, C. (2014). Shifting the politics of memory: Mnemonic trajectories in a global public Terrain. In B. Zelizer & K. Tenenboim-Weinblatt (Eds.), Journalism and memory. Basingstoke/New York: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar

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