In April of 1986, the Soviet Union stated that there was an accident at the Chernobyl nuclear plant. All newspapers and media outlets have been sharing the information about this disaster from the moment of the announcement to this day. Still, media statements from 1986, and especially the day of the initial report, can be considered the first reaction of the media to the accident. The first example of this coverage is a story written by Edward Edelson for the NY Daily News. In this article, Edelson (1986) states that the Chernobyl nuclear plant’s accident might be the worst one in history. The author also presents some information about the location itself, making many comparisons to American nuclear plants. He notes that the structure of the Soviet factory is different from that of American ones. Edelson describes the personal telephone communication of an American professor who speaks about the plant’s impact on radiation levels in Sweden.
Overall, this article is based on the American point of view. It offers a number of comparisons between the Soviet and American nuclear plant structure. For example, Edelson (1986) points out that “unlike American nuclear plants … reactors at Chernobyl did not have containment vessels” implying that American plants would not have let the same accident to occur (para. 8). In other paragraphs, the reporter compares other aspects of reactors such as their cooling systems and cores. Therefore, the author tries to show the readers the difference in technology between the two states. The information presented by the journalist is not supported by any outside sources as it would be in a scientific text. As it is featured in a newspaper, it offers a brief explanation of the situation.
It is impartial enough not to make any accusatory statements or remarks in most cases. One example of an opinionated comment can be found at the beginning of the story. Edelson (1986) argues that facts provided by the Soviet’s official representatives are “sketchy” (para. 2). This phrase is followed by him mentioning Swedish radiation measurements, and it is not clear whether the author considers them unreliable as well. Here, his statements show the Soviet government in a negative light, possibly affecting the readers’ perception of the country as a result.
Nevertheless, the article’s continuous contrasting of the two countries can be considered as an attempt to make a certain point. Perhaps, the reporter tries to ensure his readers that a similar situation cannot occur in their country. This article can affect the audience in a number of ways. First of all, the author’s commentary on the Soviet coverage of the problem can strain the relations between the two countries and make Soviet authorities seem more unreliable and untrustworthy than before (Friedman, Gorney & Egolf 1992). Moreover, the comparison between the two different plants can make American readers more assured in the quality of their country’s manufacturing.
Another article that covers the Chernobyl disaster is a story by Serge Schmemann for The New York Times. In this case, the report has much more information about the accident because it features the history of the plant’s construction process, the coverage of the disaster by the Soviet media, and the comments of multiple diplomats, authorities, and reporters. Schmemann (1986) begins the story by analysing the phrasing of the official statement released by the Soviet representatives, mentioning it being “terse” and “not immediately clear” (para. 2). The location of the plant is also more detailed than in the previous article. The author then describes the first reactions of Swedish, Danish, and Finnish nuclear plant workers to the situation and explains that they were the first ones to notice the elevated levels of radiation in the atmosphere. He also includes a statement from the United States experts to assure the American people of their safety.
The story also features some retelling of comments made by a British reporter, Scandinavian authorities, Swedish scholars, Finnish officials, Swedish diplomats, and Western experts. The author combines these statements to fully cover all affected parties and deliver the news from different points of view. Nevertheless, it is also possible that this collection of remarks is a way to prove his point, further contrasting this abundance of information with the Soviet’s limited amount of media coverage. Furthermore, Schmemann (1986) also points out the Soviet’s “practice of focusing on disasters elsewhere” by arguing that their officials often try to discuss differed accidents from other countries when similar situations occur in the Soviet Union (para. 21). This approach is mentioned by the journalist to argue that Soviet authorities often try to distract their citizens from existing problems.
The reporter offers many different statements from a plethora of individuals. However, most of them are not facts but opinions, which can be perceived differently by the author and his audience. The phrase “Russians often call Western friends to find out whether something has happened in the Soviet Union” reveals the attitude of the journalist towards the Soviet Union as it implies that their news coverage is much less reliable than the American one (Schmemann 1986, para. 21). This article can affect the audience in the same way as the first one. It also tries to highlight the reliability of American reporters and criticise Soviet officials.
Reference List
Edelson, E 1986, ‘The Chernobyl nuclear plant explodes in 1986’, NY Daily News, Web.
Friedman, SM, Gorney, CM & Egolf, BP 1992, ‘Chernobyl coverage: how the US media treated the nuclear industry’, Public Understanding of Science, vol. 1, no. 3, pp. 305-323.
Schmemann, S 1986, ‘Soviet announces nuclear accident at electric plant’, The New York Times, Web.