Trust and politics in risk communication: Discourse analysis on radio frequency (RF) exposure in Malaysia
List of Authors
  • Fernandez, Prasana Rosaline

Keyword
  • Risk communication, health discourse, radio frequency, politicians, trust

Abstract
  • Radio frequency (RF) exposure from the proliferation of telecommunication structures in Malaysia triggers concerns as growing numbers of people claim that RF emission is a health hazard. Effective risk communication is needed to address this misperception but most risk communication programmes fail because of public distrust. This is worrying as trust is a vital ingredient in communicating risk. As such, this study uses critical discourse studies and Candlin and Crichton’s focal theme of trust framework to examine how the politician’s discourse on RF exposure affects trust. The data is from four (4) faceto-face semi-structured interviews with politicians as they are answerable to their constituents’ protests. The findings reveal that politicians use blame avoidance and legitimization tactics to counter or reject the views of the ‘other’ in order to build trustworthy relationships with the local communities. But the politicians’ contradictory views on RF erode public trust and impede effective risk communication.

Reference
  • 1. Bernard, H. R. (2006). Research methods in anthropology: Qualitative and quantitative approaches. Oxford. Altamira Press.
    2. Boussofara-Omar, N. (2011). Learning the 'linguistic habitus' of a politician: A presidential authoritative voice in the making. In A. Mooney, J. S. Peccei, S. Labelle, B. E. Henriksen, E. Eppler, A. Irwin, P. Pichler, & S. Soden (Eds.), The Language, Society & Power Reader (pp. 73-91). London: Routledge.
    3. Cabrejas-Peñuelas, A. B., & Díez-Prados, M. (2014). Positive self-evaluation versus negative otherevaluation in the political genre of pre-election debates. Discourse & Society, 25(2), 159-185.
    4. Candlin, C. N., & Crichton, J. (2013). From ontology to methodology: exploring the discursive landscape of trust. In C. N. Candlin & J. Crichton (Eds.), Discourses of trust (pp.1-18). Basingstoke, England: Palgrave Macmillan.
    5. Chilton, P.A. (2004). Analysing Political Discourse: Theory and Practice. London: Routledge.
    6. Cousin, M. E., & Siegrist, M. (2010). The public’s knowledge of mobile communication and its influence on base station siting preferences. Health, Risk & Society, 12(3), 231-250.
    7. Dohle, S., Keller, C., & Siegrist, M. (2012). Fear and anger: antecedents and consequences of emotional responses to mobile communication. Journal of Risk Research, 15(4), 435-446.
    8. Fairclough, N., Mulderrig, J., & Wodak, R. (2011). Critical Discourse Analysis. In T. A. V. Dijk (Ed.), Discourse studies: A multidisciplinary introduction (Second ed., pp. 357-378). London, U.K.: SAGE Publications Ltd.
    9. Hampel, J. (2006). Different concepts of risk – A challenge for risk communication. International Journal of Medical Microbiology, 296(1), 5-10.
    10. Hansson, S. (2015). Discursive strategies of blame avoidance in government: A framework for analysis. Discourse & Society, 26(3), 297-322.
    11. Henriksen, B. E. (2011). Language and politics: Introduction. In A. Mooney, J. S. Peccei, S. Labelle, B. E. Henriksen, E. Eppler, A. Irwin, P. Pichler, & S. Soden (Eds.), The Language, Society & Power Reader (pp. 65-68). London: Routledge.
    12. Kleef, E. V., Fischer, A. R. H., Khan, M., & Frewer, L. J. (2010). Risk and benefit perceptions of mobile phone and base station technology in Bangladesh. Risk Analysis, 30(6), 1002-1015.
    13. Leiss, W. (1995). "Down and dirty": The use and abuse of public trust in risk communication. Risk Analysis, 15(6), 685-692.
    14. Markon, M.-P. L., Crowe, J., & Lemyre, L. (2013). Examining uncertainties in government risk communication: citizens' expectations. Health, Risk & Society, 15(4), 313-332.
    15. McComas, K. A. (2006). Defining Moments in Risk Communication Research: 1996–2005. Journal of Health Communication, 11(1), 75-91.
    16. McComas, K. A. (2003). Citizen satisfaction with public meetings used for risk communication. Journal of Applied Communication Research, 31(2), 164-184.
    17. MCMC. 2014. Communications & multimedia pocket book of statistics. Malaysia: MCMC.
    18. Petts, J., Horlick-Jones. T., & Murdock, G. (2001). Social amplification of risk: The media and the public. Sudbury, UK: HSE Books.
    19. Renn, O., Ortleb, J., Benighaus, L., & Benighaus, C. (2011). Risks. In P. Pechan, O. Renn, A. Watt, & I. Pongratz (Eds.), Safe or Not Safe: Deciding What Risks to Accept in Our Environment
    20. and Food (pp.1-40). New York, U.S.A.: Springer.
    21. Reisigl, M. (2008). Rhetoric of political speeches. In: R. Wodak, & V. Koller (Eds.). Handbook of Communication in the Public Sphere (pp. 243-269). New York: Walter de Gruyter.
    22. Riedlinger, M., & Rea, J. (2015). Discourse ecology and knowledge niches: Negotiating the risks of radiation in online Canadian forums, post-Fukushima. Science, Technology, & Human Values, 40(4), 588-614.
    23. Slovic, P. (1999). Trust, emotion, sex, politics, and science: Surveying the risk-assessment battlefield. Risk Analysis, 19(6), 689-701.
    24. Tawdry victory. (2013, May 11). The Economist, Retrieved from http://www.economist.com/news/asia/21577375-government-scrapes-homeallegedlyaided-vote-rigging-tawdry-victory.
    25. Trettin, L., & Musham, C. (2000). Is trust a realistic goal of environmental risk communication? Environment and Behavior, 32(3), 410-426.
    26. Ufen, A. (2009). The transformation of political party opposition in Malaysia and its implication for the electoral authoritarian regime. Democratization. 16(3), 604-627.
    27. van Dijk, T. A. (2006). Discourse and manipulation. Discourse & Society,17(3), 359-383.
    28. van Dijk, T. A. (1998). Ideology: A Multidisciplinary Approach: SAGE Publications.
    29. Wenzelburger, G. (2014). Blame avoidance, electoral punishment and the perceptions of risk. Journal of European Social Policy, 24(1), 80-91.
    30. Wodak, R., & Meyer, M. (2016). Critical discourse studies: history, agenda, theory and methodology. In R. Wodak & M. Meyer (Eds.), Methods of critical discourse studies (3rd ed., pp. 1-22). London: Sage Publications Ltd.
    31. Yasui, S. (2013). An analysis of the argument over the health effects of low-dose radiation exposure caused by the accident at the Fukushima Daiichi APP in Japan. Journal of Risk Research, 16(8), 937-944.