The critical Swedes and the consensual Finns: Leading newspapers as watchdogs or lapdogs of nuclear waste repository licensing?

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

“…When these do appear, core actors are depicted as trustworthy, dependable, and co‐operative, with the safety authority as the ultimate guarantor of safety 9. Expressing confidence in the continued steady and successful advancement of the project in Finland, HS relays messages from the industry and the government—identified in earlier research as the most frequent speaker groups in the Finnish press reporting on RWM (Kojo et al, 2020; Raittila & Vehmas, 2001). By contrast, LM framings show skepticism towards the governance and technical solutions—including the possibility of a solution acceptable to the various groups of society—reporting on mutual mistrust, both among the dominant actors and between the advocates and critics of the project.…”

“…Explanations for the observed differences in framing between HS and LM can be sought in historically constituted power structures manifested in country‐specific political and media cultures, and in the positions of the respective nuclear “regimes” in public imaginaries (Pfetsch, 2004). Earlier research has underlined the influence of powerful sectors in shaping the very construction of the stories by journalists, and in suppressing the emergence of alternative master narratives (Zukas, 2018, p. 14), including in RWM policy (Kojo et al, 2020; Raittila & Vehmas, 2001). The sources of such framing power are diverse and go beyond “hard” economic and political elements.…”

“…The watchdog model is founded on the classical liberal conception of the power relationship between government and society (McQuail, 2005, p. 128), and hence on the mistrust‐based liberal model of democracy with its pluralistic view of social power. While watchdog journalism has been blamed for sensationalism and indiscriminate critique (Clayman et al, 2007, p. 24) that can feed apathy and cynicism about politics (McNair, 2003) and undermine news credibility (Wang & Cohen, 2009), our primary interest lies in the differences in the manifestation of watchdog journalism in trust‐based Nordic democracies on the one hand and mistrust‐based liberal democracies on the other (e.g., Jasper, 1990; Kojo et al, 2020; Lehtonen & De Carlo, 2019; Montin, 2015; Puustinen et al, 2017). Although the watchdog model is generally “well received by audiences across Europe” (Jebril, 2013, p. 14), and despite similarities between the Finnish and French journalistic cultures (e.g., the strong public‐service broadcasting), we suggest that differences between mistrust‐based and trust‐based democracies mirror distinct citizen perceptions of what the watchdog role implies, its key elements of objectivity, factuality, and criticality, and what role trust, mistrust, confidence, and skepticism should play in journalism.…”

“…This article focuses on another form of civic vigilance, which has received limited attention in RWM, namely the role of the mass media as a “watchdog” of the powers that be—through the provision of objective, fact‐based and critical information to citizens (Jebril, 2013), in expressing “healthy suspicion” and mistrust towards the powers that be, and thereby helping the citizens to hold political, economic and cultural elites to account (Allard et al, 2016, p. 14; Kojo et al, 2020; Laurent, 2009, p. 27; Warren, 1999, p. 310). We examine the manifestations of such civic vigilance in news articles on RWM policy in the leading newspapers in Finland (Helsingin Sanomat [HS]) and France (Le Monde [LM]), two forerunner countries in high‐level RWM.…”

A nuclear real-world experiment: Exploring the experimental mindsets of radioactive waste management organisations in France, Belgium and Canada

“…Analyzing and comparing their positions as principal investigators makes it possible to emphasize power relations between them and the audiences of such social experiments. Even if new actors appear in the process, power asymmetries remain; environmental associations [32] , affected local publics [10] , leading newspapers [33] , new consultative bodies [7] , nuclear waste management agencies or nuclear industries do not have the same resources and knowledge to influence the program.…”