Asian Journal for Public Opinion Research

Center for Asian Public Opinion Research & Collaboration Initiative (충남대학교 아시아여론조사학회)
권호 표지
DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

Roles of Malaysian Online Newspapers in the Construction of Public Opinion on Rare Earth Risks

  • Received : 2020.05.09
  • Accepted : 2020.11.18
  • Published : 2020.11.30
Download PDF
⟨ Previous Next ⟩

Abstract

This study explored the representation of risks from the controversial Lynas rare earth refining as a risk event by five Malaysian online mainstream and alternative newspapers using qualitative content analysis. The aim is to uncover the role of the news media in the social amplification and attenuation of risks within the literature evidence as those roles are still uncertain. Content analysis is used to explore the online newspapers' roles guided by the Social Amplification of Risk Framework (SARF). The representations typified environmental, financial, health, occupational, property, radioactive, and technological risks and established connections between four risk types (environmental, financial, radioactive, and health risks). Radioactive risk was repeatedly associated with other risks, suggesting that the volume and information flow focused on radioactive risk as a key ingredient for amplification. This connection shows that the nature of the relationship between risks is multidimensional, contradicting the unidirectional type found in previous studies. Alternative online newspapers amplified and attenuated more risks, thus, providing more diverse coverage than mainstream sources. Consequently, this study provides evidence that risk representation from rare earth refining in a digital news environment is multidimensional and intensified or weakened in a multi-layered pattern. The stakeholders are engaged in a contestation by positioning their narratives to oppose or support their interests, which are amplified or attenuated by the online newspapers as social amplification stations.

Keywords

Acknowledgement

The authors would like to acknowledge funding by Short Term Grant of Universiti Sains Malaysia (304/PCOMM/6313284).

References

  1. AELB (2020). Maklumat LYNAS [About Lynas]. https://www.aelb.gov.my/malay/awam-maklumat-lynas.asp
  2. Amberg, S. M., & Hall, T. E. (2008). Communicating risks and benefits of aquaculture: A content analysis of US newsprint representations of farmed salmon. Journal of the World Aquaculture Society, 39(2), 143-157. http://doi.org/10.1111/j.1749-7345.2008.00160.x
  3. Ardevol-Abreu, A. (2015). Framing theory in communication research in Spain. Origins, development and current situation. Revista Latina de Comunicacion Social, 70, 423-450. https://doi.org/10.4185/RLCS-2015-1053en
  4. ASM, & NPC. (2011). Rare earth industries: Moving Malaysia's green economy forward. The Academy of Sciences Malaysia (ASM) and the National Professors' Council (NPC).
  5. Charmaz, K. (2008). Grounded theory. In J. A. Smith (Ed.), Qualitative psychology: A practical guide to research methods (pp. 81-110). Sage.
  6. Dunwoody, S., & Peters, H. P. (1992). Mass media coverage of technological and environmental risks: A survey of research in the United States and Germany. Public Understanding of Science, 1(2), 199-230. https://doi.org/10.1088/0963-6625/1/2/004
  7. Hove, T., Paek, H.-J., Yun, M., & Jwa, B. (2015). How newspapers represent environmental risk: The case of carcinogenic hazards in South Korea. Journal of Risk Research, 18(10), 1320-1336.. https://doi.org/10.1080/13669877.2014.923025
  8. Illing, P. (2001). Toxicity and risk: Context, principles and practice. Taylor & Francis.
  9. Kitzinger, J., & Reilly, J. (1997). The rise and fall of risk reporting: Media coverage of human genetics research, 'false memory syndrome' and 'mad cow disease.' European Journal of Communication, 12(3), 319-350. https://doi.org/10.1177/0267323197012003002
  10. Kamrin, M. A., Katz, D. J., & Walter, M. L. (1995). Reporting on risk: A journalist's handbook on environmental risk assessment. Foundation for American Communications and National Sea Grant College Program.
  11. Kasperson, R. E. (2012). A perspective on the social amplifications of risk. The Bridge, 42(3), 23-27. https://nae.edu/Publications/Bridge/62556/62566.aspx
  12. Kasperson, R. E. (2018). Social amplification of risk and extreme events. In V. M. Bier (Ed.), Risk in Extreme Environments: Preparing, Avoiding, Mitigating, and Managing. Routledge. https://books.google.com.my/books?hl=en&lr=&id=l5Y6DwAAQBAJ&oi=fnd&pg=PT182&ots=kJ9G807yYJ&sig=x6wukA1QwsfG5K7xsihqH_A4N_8#v=onepage&q&f=false
  13. Kasperson, R. E., Renn, O., Slovic, P., Brown, H. S., Emel, J., Goble, R., Kasperson, J. X., & Ratick, S. (1988). The social amplification of risk: A conceptual framework. Risk Analysis, 8(2), 177-187. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1539-6924.1988.tb01168.x
  14. Kiranjit, K. (2015). Social media creating digital environmental publics: Case of Lynas Malaysia. Public Relations Review, 41(2), 311-314. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.pubrev.2014.12.005
  15. Lofland, J., Snow, D. A., Anderson, L., & Lofland, L. H. (2006). Analyzing social settings: A guide to qualitative observation and analysis. Wadsworth/Thomson.
  16. Martin, B. (1996). Technological vulnerability. Technology in Society, 18(4), 511-523. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0160-791X(96)00029-2
  17. Metag, J., & Marcinkowski, F. (2014). Technophobia towards emerging technologies? A comparative analysis of the media coverage of nanotechnology in Austria, Switzerland and Germany. Journalism, 15(4), 463-481. https://doi.org/10.1177/1464884913491045
  18. Mustafa, K. A. (2012). Reporting the environment: Human rights, development and journalism in Malaysia. Asia Pacific Media Educator, 22(2), 253-262. https://doi.org/10.1177/1326365x13498172
  19. Newman, N., Fletcher, R., Kalogeropoulos, A., Levy, D. A. L., & Nielsen, R. K. (2017). Reuters Institute digital news report 2017. Reuters Institute for the Study of Journalism. https://reutersinstitute.politics.ox.ac.uk/sites/default/files/Digital News Report 2017 web_0.pdf
  20. Ng, E. (2014, September 3). Lynas gets full operating licence before TOL expiry date. The Malaysian Insider. http://www.themalaysianinsider.com/malaysia/article/lynas-gets-fulloperating-licence-before-tol-expiry-date
  21. Nielsen Consumer and Media View. (2018, April 17). State of the media - The Malaysian media landscape in 2017. http://www.nielsen.com/my/en/insights/reports/2018/state-of-the-media-malaysian-media-landscape-2017.html
  22. Nik Norma, N. H. (2015). Climate change and the risk messages of environment: A visual social semiotics analysis of the Malaysian and German online newspapers. Paper presented at the Second International Conference on Media, Communication and Culture (ICMCC 2015), Vistana Hotel, Penang.
  23. Nik Norma, N. H., Nur 'Izzah', A. M. N., Narul Salmi, A. L., & Muhamad Saifudin, M. S. (2018). Understanding risk perceptions of youths on the Lynas projects: A socio-cultural outlook. In R. S. Zinaida (Ed.), Communication for social change, sport, environment and politic. ASPIKOM.
  24. Phua, K. L.(2016). Rare earth plant in Malaysia: Governance, green politics, and geopolitics. Southeast Asian Studies, 5(3), 443-462. doi.10.20495/seas.5.3_443
  25. Pidgeon, N., & Barnett, J. (2013). Chalara and the social amplification of risk. Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs. https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/200394/pb13909-chalara-social-amplification-risk.pdf
  26. Raupp, J. (2014). Social agents and news media as risk amplifiers: A case study on the public debate about the E. coli outbreak in Germany 2011. Health, risk & society, 16(6), 565-579. https://doi.org/10.1080/13698575.2014.950203
  27. Ryan, G. W., & Bernard, H. R. (2003). Techniques to identify themes. Field Methods, 15(1), 85-109. https://doi.org/10.1177/1525822X02239569
  28. Sandman, P. M. (1986). Explaining Environmental Risk (Conflict Research Consortium BOOK SUMMARY). United States Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Toxic Substances. https://www.beyondintractability.org/bksum/sandmanexplaining
  29. Slovic, P. (2016). Understanding perceived risk: 1978-2015. Environment: Science and Policy for Sustainable Development, 58(1), 25-29. https:/doi.org/10.1080/00139157.2016.1112169
  30. Stern, P. C., & Fineberg, H. V. (Eds.). (1996). Understanding risk: Informing decisions in a democratic society. National Academies Press.
  31. Strauss, A. A. (1987). Qualitative analysis for social scientists. Cambridge University Press.
  32. Sualman, I., Jaafar, R., & Salbiah, L. (2017). News framing Lynas plant project: A study of five Malaysian newspapers. Advanced Science Letters, 23(1), 304-307. https://doi.org/10.1166/asl.2017.7166
  33. Tengku Ismail, T. H., Juahir, H., Aris, A. Z., Zain, S. M., & Samah, A. A. (2016). Local community acceptance of the rare earth industry: The case of the Lynas Advanced Materials Plant (LAMP) in Malaysia. Environment, Development and Sustainability: A Multidisciplinary Approach to the Theory and Practice of Sustainable Development, 18(3), 739-762. http://doi.org/10.1007/s10668-015-9675-5
  34. Zhang, L., & Zhong, L. (2010). Integrating and prioritizing environmental risks in China's risk management discourse. Journal of Contemporary China, 19(63), 119-136. https://doi.org/10.1080/10670560903335835