Conclusion: Time, Space and Emotion in Tracing Fukushima

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


In this concluding chapter, we revisit the beginnings of our book and discuss the main findings of our project. The case studies presented herein are a unique combination of wide-ranging data from different sources, the innovative use of computational and qualitative methods and ambitious theoretical cross-pollination. This multifaceted approach has allowed us to address the hybrid logics of the circulation of meanings and emotions in the contemporary media environment over time. Moreover, our enquiries have made visible how mediated communication and affect are used by societies to maintain the status quo after traumatic, disruptive events. The findings provide new insight into disruptive events in the global hybrid media environment and into the way they are influenced by the factors of time, space and emotion.


Disruptive media events Hybrid media environment Interdisciplinarity Trauma Affect 


  1. Alexander, J. C. (2012). Trauma. A social theory. Cambridge, UK: Polity.Google Scholar
  2. Assmann, A., & Conrad, S. (2010). Introduction. In A. Assmann & S. Conrad (Eds.), Memory in a global age. Discourses, practices and trajectories (pp. 1–16). Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Benkler, Y., Faris, R., & Roberts, H. (2018). Network propaganda: Manipulation, disinformation, and radicalization in American politics. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bennett, L and Segerberg, A (2013). The Logic of Connective Action. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  5. Boyd, D., & Crawford, K. (2012). Critical questions for big data. Information, Communication & Society, 15(5), 662–679. Scholar
  6. Dayan, D., & Katz, E. (1992). Media events: The live broadcasting of history. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  7. Edy, J. A. (1999). Journalistic uses of collective memory. Journal of Communication, 49(2), 71–85. Scholar
  8. 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
  9. Ide, A. (2014, January 1–2). The situation of dark tourism in Japan and Fukushima Daiichi nuclear power station. Paper presented at international conference on humanities, literature and economics (ICHLE’14), Bangkok, Thailand. Accessed 4 Oct 2018.
  10. Katz, D., & Liebes, T. (2007). ‘No more peace!’ How disaster, terror and war have upstaged media events. International Journal of Communication, 1, 158–166.Google Scholar
  11. Laaksonen, S.-M., Nelimarkka, M., Tuokko, M., Marttila, M., & Kekkonen, A. (2015). Data augmented ethnography: Using big data and ethnography to explore candidates’ digital interactions. In Proceedings of the empiricist’s challenge: Asking meaningful questions in the age of big data conference, University of Mannheim.Google Scholar
  12. Lennon, J., & Foley, M. (2000). Dark tourism. The attraction of death and disaster. London: Thomson Learning.Google Scholar
  13. Nuclear Regulation Authority, Japan. (2016). Estimated and measured 1m height environmental radioactivity level at monitoring posts in 47 prefectures (Monitoring date: June 2, 2016). Accessed 4 Oct 2018.
  14. Nuclear Regulation Authority, Japan. (2018). Estimated and measured 1m height environmental radioactivity level at monitoring posts in 47 prefectures (Monitoring date: September 30, 2018). Accessed 4 Oct 2018.
  15. Pantti, M., Wahl-Jorgensen, K., & Cottle, S. (2012). Disasters and the media. New York: Peter Lang.Google Scholar
  16. Papacharissi, Z. (2014). Affective publics. Sentiment, technology, and politics. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  17. Rantasila, A., Sirola, A., Kekkonen, A., Valaskivi, K., & Kunelius, R. (2018). #fukushima five years on: A multimethod analysis of Twitter on the anniversary of the nuclear disaster. International Journal of Communication, 12, 928–949.
  18. Rothenbuhler, E. (1998). Ritual communication: From everyday conversation to mediated ceremony. Thousand Oaks: Sage.Google Scholar
  19. Stone, P. R. (2006). A dark tourism spectrum: Towards a typology of death and macabre related tourist sites, attractions and exhibitions. Tourism, 54(2), 145–160.Google Scholar
  20. 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
  21. 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
  22. UNSCEAR (United Nations Scientific Committee on the Effects of Atomic Radiation). (2018). What levels of radiation exposure do people receive? United Nations. Accessed 4 Oct 2018.
  23. Vaccari, C., Chadwick, A., & O’Loughlin, B. (2015). Dual screening the political: Media events, social media, and citizen engagement. Journal of Communication, 65(6), 1041–1061.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Wagner-Pacifici, R. (2018). What is an event? Chicago: Chicago University Press.Google Scholar
  25. Ytreberg, E. (2017). Towards a historical understanding of the media event. Media, Culture and Society, 39(3), 309–423.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Zelizer, B. (2017). What Journalism Could Be? Cambridge: Polity Press.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