(a) a project title; (b) a list the participants and roles, (c) a 300-400 word abstract of their research project (including background, goal, methods, results and conclusions); and (d) one or two graphics that visually represent the work, whether a selfie of you in the archives or a pic of an artifact that you are studying or a screen shot of an interesting document you are working on or...

(a) Project Title: “Media Nuclear Discourse: Content Analysis of The New York Times

Coverage”

(b) Participants:

a. Kyoko Sato

i. General guidance and analysis.

b. Yifan Zhu

i. Data collection, sampling, preliminary coding and analysis

(c) Abstract

We seek to analyze the changing meanings of nuclear technology in the US media discourse. We chose The New York Times due to its large readership and broad influence, as well as its availability through databases. Using a variety of search terms, we first identified NYT articles that addressed nuclear technology, and narrowed them to three key periods that followed significant nuclear “events,” the 1945 bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, and nuclear disasters in Three Mile Island (1979) and Chernobyl (1986). We chose 100 articles from each year (after each “event”), and first coded them, using NVivo, to identify the sections that addressed themes including damages and benefits of nuclear technology, relationships between the bomb and energy, and understanding of radiation. Then we analyzed the coded materials in depth to identify different ways the “nuclear” was discussed and how they changed over time. Preliminary findings include: (i) From excitement and apprehension to “necessary evil”: In 1945, there was excitement and apprehension about entering “the nuclear age.” People feared nuclear weapons might bring the doom of humanity, but they were highly optimistic that nuclear energy would provide unlimited energy. In 1979 and 1986, however, although people still stressed the necessity of nuclear energy, it is thought of more as a necessary evil. The arguments for nuclear energy are more about the worse harms of alternatives – climate change, higher economic cost… – than about its benefits. (ii) Changing understanding of radiation: In 1945, with the focus set on the direct damages of the bombs, few were concerned about the damages of indirect radiation. References to radiation were unsettled, between some saying radiation would remain for seventy years, causing sterilization and leukemia, and others dismissing any negative effects as Japanese propaganda. In 1979 and 1986, obviously, knowledge on radiation’s effects had vastly improved, with much specific discussion on estimated health consequences and treatments. Surprisingly, though, the original studies on the aftermath of the 1945 bombings were never mentioned in our samples. (iii) Decoupling of nuclear energy and bombs: While in 1945 references to the atomic bomb were often accompanied with fantasies about nuclear energy, in

1979 and 1986 these two applications almost never appeared together. In fact, the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki seemed to be forgotten – only mentioned once in our samples of the latter two years. (iv) Boundary work: While the Three Mile Island accident in 1979 prompted much reflection on nuclear energy and safety in the United States, the Chernobyl disaster of 1986 was largely seen as only a Soviet disaster, with the Soviet system to be blamed (“the accident may reveal more about the Soviet Union than the hazards of nuclear power” Apr 30, 1986), hardly promoting any reflections on nuclear power.

(d) Graphics:

a.