Media attitudes and news value construction
This corpus-based news discourse analysis suggested the different attitudes and positions of the four neighboring societies toward Japan’s nuclear wastewater release by analyzing the sentiment, keywords, and nominations of their mainstream media reporting about this issue. The results show that the Chinese media was the only media that constructed the news value of Negativity and demonstrated an explicit and strongly antagonistic position against Japan’s nuclear wastewater discharge, by emphasizing the damage to the marine environment and the risks taken by international societies and pollution; its antagonistic position was grounded in the understanding that the water released by Japan is toxic.
Although the Singapore media also expressed notable opposition against Japan’s decision and behavior, it mainly quoted the criticisms and protests by neighboring countries, including China and Russia, without expressing its own opposing attitude; in addition, it portrayed Japan’s nuclear wastewater release dominantly in a neutral and even mildly positive way. The Philippine and South Korean media demonstrated approbatory and supportive attitudes: the Philippine media focused on displaying the pro-Japan comments and standpoints made by Japanese, Philippine, and US professional experts, whereas the South Korean media concentrated on displaying the South Korean domestic political authorities’ supportive comments on Japan’s behavior and cooperative gestures with Japanese political leaders, and its mildly opposing narratives were dominantly related to the impact on the seafood market. The neutral and supportive positions of the Philippine, South Korean, and Singapore media were grounded in the idea that the water was technically treated as safe.
Political contexts and news production
News production is profoundly shaped by the political contexts in which media organizations operate. The ways in which Chinese, Singaporean, Philippine, and South Korean media framed Japan’s nuclear wastewater release reflect their respective media environments, regulatory frameworks, and national political orientations. Media regulations, editorial policies, and the degree of censorship play critical roles in influencing how information is presented and which narratives are prioritized.
China’s strong opposition to Japan’s nuclear wastewater release is consistent with its state-controlled media landscape, where editorial policies often align with national interests (Brady, 2007). The Chinese media constructed the news value of Negativity, framing the issue as an environmental and international security threat. This antagonistic stance aligns with China’s broader geopolitical positioning and its historical relations with Japan. Media regulations in China allow little room for dissenting opinions on key national interests, which leads to a unified and strongly negative portrayal of Japan’s actions (Stockmann, 2013). Furthermore, state influence ensures that news narratives serve strategic diplomatic purposes, including fostering public skepticism toward Japan (Hassid, 2008).
Singapore’s media operates under a highly regulated but commercially driven framework, where news organizations, though not directly state-controlled, often align with government perspectives (George, 2012). The Singaporean media’s neutral to mildly positive portrayal of Japan’s actions reflects the country’s pragmatic diplomatic approach, which emphasizes economic stability and regional cooperation. By quoting criticisms from external sources rather than adopting a direct oppositional stance, Singaporean media maintains an image of balanced reporting while avoiding antagonizing major economic partners, including Japan (Birch, 1993).
The Philippine media’s favorable coverage of Japan’s wastewater release aligns with the country’s strategic geopolitical orientation, particularly its close alliance with the United States and its cooperative stance with Japan in regional security and economic matters (Castro, 2020). By prioritizing expert opinions from Japanese, Philippine, and U.S. sources, the media constructs the news value of Neutrality and Positivity, reinforcing public trust in international scientific assessments. This editorial choice reflects a media environment where press freedom exists but is also shaped by economic dependencies and political affiliations with global allies (Coronel, 2012).
South Korea’s media landscape is characterized by high levels of political polarization (Mosler and Chang, 2019). While its coverage was largely supportive of Japan’s actions, the division in reporting reflects domestic political dynamics. The South Korean government’s cooperative stance with Japan influenced mainstream media to frame the event in a technically safe and diplomatically strategic manner, reinforcing national economic and security interests. However, the media also highlighted concerns about the seafood market, suggesting a degree of sensitivity to public apprehensions. The South Korean media environment allows for diverse viewpoints, but government and corporate influence can shape dominant narratives (Kwak, 2016).
The variation in news value construction underscores how media regulations, political alignments, and editorial policies shape public discourse. Chinese media constructed strong Negativity, aligning with state-driven nationalist narratives and environmental concerns. In contrast, the relative absence of strong opposition in Singapore, the Philippines, and South Korea suggests that geopolitical and economic considerations often take precedence over environmental risk concerns in shaping public narratives.
In addition, the differing political contexts discussed above also help explain why Chinese and South Korean media have reported significantly more on Japan’s nuclear water release compared to media in the Philippines and Singapore.
First, China and South Korea are geographically closer to Japan than the Philippines and Singapore. Studies have shown that proximity to an environmental hazard significantly influences media coverage and public discourse (Boykoff and Roberts, 2007). The potential impact of the Fukushima wastewater release on marine ecosystems, fisheries, and human health is a major concern for neighboring countries like China and South Korea, where seafood consumption is high and the fishing industry is substantial (Seo, 2023). In contrast, the Philippines and Singapore are located farther away, reducing the perceived immediacy of environmental risks. Media coverage tends to be more intensive when an issue directly affects national interests or public safety (Gans, 2004).
Moreover, China and South Korea have complex historical relationships with Japan, particularly due to territorial disputes (Shin, 2006). Media in these countries often frame Japan-related issues within a broader historical and political context, leading to more extensive coverage (Entman, 1993). In contrast, the Philippines and Singapore maintain relatively stable and pragmatic relations with Japan, focusing more on economic and diplomatic cooperation.
Third, public discourse on nuclear energy and environmental issues is more prominent in China and South Korea due to past nuclear disasters and strong anti-nuclear sentiment (Bak, 2020). The media in these countries respond to heightened public concerns, amplifying coverage. The agenda-setting theory (McCombs and Shaw, 1972) suggests that media coverage reflects public concerns, and in societies where nuclear issues are highly politicized, news outlets are more likely to extensively report on such topics. In contrast, the Philippines and Singapore have a different media landscape. Singapore’s media is highly regulated, and reporting is often aligned with government perspectives, which may prioritize economic stability and diplomatic neutrality (George, 2012). The Philippines has a diverse and vibrant media scene, but its coverage priorities may lean more towards domestic political and social issues rather than Japan’s nuclear water release.
Last but not least, China and South Korea have significant trade dependencies on Japan, particularly in fisheries, technology, and manufacturing (Zhang, 2025). Any environmental issue affecting trade, such as potential bans on Japanese seafood imports, naturally receives more media attention. The Philippines and Singapore, while also economically linked to Japan, have a different structure of economic interdependence, focusing more on investment and infrastructure projects rather than fisheries.
Therefore, the difference in media coverage of Japan’s nuclear wastewater release among these four countries is driven by a combination of geographical, historical, political, and economic factors. Chinese and South Korean media report more intensively due to their proximity, historical tensions, stronger public concern over nuclear issues, and trade interests. Philippine and Singaporean media, while covering the issue, may not prioritize it as much due to geographical distance, diplomatic considerations, and differing public concerns.
The influence of socio-political contexts on media positions
News reporting dominates and reflects the prevalent cognition of a specific society toward a news event (Bednarek and Caple, 2012). Thus, on the basis of the results of this news value analysis, we can further infer the comprehensive social positions and cognition of the four countries toward Japan’s nuclear wastewater release. Japan’s nuclear wastewater discharge into the Pacific Ocean seems to be an apparent marine environmental threat to neighboring countries around the Pacific Ocean. However, the news data revealed that although there were opposing voices against Japan’s nuclear wastewater discharge from neighboring countries (mainly by nongovernmental groups), the mainstream attitudes of these societies are neutral and supportive. China, as the only country that explicitly opposed and protested Japan’s behavior, was outnumbered, and it seems that it was difficult for China to discourage Japan and turn the tide on this issue.
From the perspective of discursive news values analysis (DNVA), news discourse construction is intertwined with news value construction, both of which are shaped by political structures and ideological influences (Bednarek and Caple, 2017). News coverage is often dominated and controlled by social powers, including political authorities, governments, and financial influences (van Dijk, 2018). The selection and emphasis of specific news values—such as negativity, impact, or prominence—reflect the broader socio-political climate of a given society. In this case, the Chinese media’s strong antagonistic position can be seen as a reflection of its institution and government’s firm stance on Japan’s nuclear wastewater release, reinforcing news values such as negativity, conflict, and impact. In contrast, the Singaporean, South Korean, and Philippine media’s neutral and supportive tones align with their respective political structures and diplomatic strategies, in which economic and geopolitical considerations play significant roles in shaping their media discourse.
To explore the reasons behind the differing media positions in the four countries, we further analyzed the political and social contexts surrounding Japan’s nuclear wastewater release. As close allies of the United States and Japan, the Philippines and South Korea are more likely to frame the issue in a way that mitigates antagonism and aligns with their diplomatic interests. Singapore, maintaining its traditional neutrality, constructs news discourse by balancing diverse perspectives without overtly taking a stance. These findings suggest that news values are not solely shaped by journalistic routines but are also deeply embedded in broader socio-political structures that influence how newsworthiness is framed and expressed.
Various scholars have argued from different perspectives that public and media attitudes toward diplomatic events often align with domestic policies and diplomatic priorities. Several political factors contribute to this alignment. For instance, in democratic systems, leaders who disregard public sentiment risk electoral consequences, incentivizing them to align foreign policy with domestic preferences (Fearon, 2013). Additionally, business lobbies, environmental groups, and other stakeholders exert political pressure, shaping foreign policy decisions (Keohane and Milner, 2010).
Putnam’s Ratification Theory (1988) further suggests that a country’s diplomatic strategies must gain approval from domestic institutions, including legislatures, regulatory agencies, and public opinion—acting as gatekeepers that influence the feasibility of a given diplomatic stance. Governments must also consider the influence of domestic interest groups when determining the positions their diplomats take. Following Entman’s Framing Theory (1993), the media, as a public platform, plays a crucial role in shaping public attitudes, which in turn affect diplomatic decisions. By amplifying risks and generating public opposition, media discourse can pressure governments to adopt a more assertive diplomatic stance.
Drawing on these theoretical perspectives, this study underscores the necessity of examining both domestic policies and diplomatic priorities to explain why different countries exhibit varying media responses to Japan’s nuclear water release in their news coverage.
Previous research has claimed that, dominated by maritime expansionism, the U.S. has made great efforts to ally a series of Asian countries to control the Asian and Pacific regions since the Cold War (Jamali and Liu, 2021). Japan, as the largest country on the first island chain in Far East Asia, has long been allied with the U.S. to maintain the maritime power of China (Kim and Boas, 2020). Thus, as Chen and Liu (2024) revealed on the basis of news data analysis, the U.S. media manifested its acceptance of Japan’s nuclear wastewater release by constructing this event as a technically safe and politically rational behavior. The Philippines, South Korea and Singapore have been interpreted by a series of scholars as constantly gravitating toward Washington for security assurances and have been regarded as long-term allies of the U.S. (De Castro, 2023; Cook et al. 2024; Peng and Phang, 2018). For the same reason, it can be inferred that these three countries would definitely maintain alignment with the U.S. in issues regarding Asia and the Pacific and express a supportive position toward Japan’s nuclear wastewater release, which has been supported by the statistical findings of this study.
Comparatively, dominated by the diplomatic concept of building a maritime community with a shared future, China focused more on the harmonious maritime environment and the sustainable interests of the whole international community (Lin and Dong, 2021; Yu and Huang, 2023). Thus, as the previous data-based news discourse analysis revealed (Chen and Liu, 2024), the Chinese media demonstrated a prominent antagonistic position and critical attitude toward Japan’s nuclear wastewater release, by primarily framing the issue as an environmentally harmful and legally irresponsible behavior for international society and humanity’s survival and development and calling for international joint efforts for the conservation of marine ecology, which is essentially in agreement with the results of the present study.
However, it is important to recognize that while domestic politics significantly shape foreign policy, there are instances where leaders pursue diplomatic strategies that do not fully align with domestic preferences. Krasner’s concept of “state autonomy” (1978) suggests that states may act independently of domestic pressures when national security or long-term strategic interests are at stake. For example, despite widespread public opposition to the Iraq War, U.S. foreign policy under the Bush administration remained interventionist, driven by broader geopolitical priorities. Similarly, research by Jacobs and Page (2005) indicates that foreign policy decisions are often shaped more by elite consensus—including policymakers, think tanks, and business leaders—than by mass public opinion. A notable example is European governments’ continued support for NATO missions despite public skepticism, as elite policymakers prioritize transatlantic security and defense commitments.
The findings of this study reveal distinct social positions in the portrayal of Japan’s nuclear water release across different countries. While the media in the Philippines, South Korea, and Singapore predominantly adopt a neutral or supportive stance, often emphasizing perspectives from political elites and professional authorities, they also present notable portrayals of public dissent. For instance, South Korean media depict domestic protests through news photographs, while Singaporean media highlight public protests in other countries, illustrating the multiplicity of social perspectives on this issue. These variations suggest a discrepancy between elite narratives and public sentiment, demonstrating that political and professional elites do not always align with the broader public.
This corpus-based news discourse analysis offers a comprehensive lens to examine the multi-dimensional perspectives within a country regarding a global news event. It effectively captures the interplay between diplomatic policies, domestic political dynamics, and public opinion, shedding light on the complex relationships among different societal groups in shaping media representations.
Geopolitical implications and international political economy perspectives
China’s strong opposition to Japan’s nuclear wastewater release—particularly when compared to the more measured reactions of other neighboring countries—can be understood not only through environmental and public health lenses but also within the framework of International Political Economy (IPE) and its complex diplomatic relationship with the United States. From an IPE perspective, Japan’s decision to release wastewater into the ocean intersects with global environmental governance, regional security dynamics, and economic interests, all of which shape China’s response.
First, within the IPE framework, the nuclear wastewater issue raises concerns related to environmental justice, state sovereignty, and global commons governance. Although Japan has justified its decision based on domestic regulatory frameworks and international safety assessments, the transboundary nature of ocean contamination means that the release has economic and environmental ramifications beyond Japan’s borders. Among the most affected is China, a major regional trade partner whose coastal economies and fishing industries could suffer from potential long-term ecological consequences. Given that China is the world’s largest consumer of seafood (Huang et al. 2024), the potential contamination of marine resources presents both an economic and food security risk. Consequently, China’s opposition can be seen as an effort to safeguard its national interests, particularly its fisheries industry and coastal economic zones.
Beyond environmental and economic concerns, Japan’s decision also carries geopolitical implications. As a leading regional economic power and Japan’s primary competitor, China may perceive the wastewater release as a move that undermines environmental norms and regional stability. By positioning itself as a defender of environmental standards, China not only challenges Japan’s actions but also asserts its leadership in global environmental governance and resource control. This framing allows China to advance its broader regional influence while critiquing Japan’s alignment with Western-led regulatory frameworks.
Second, China’s stance on Japan’s wastewater release is also shaped by its broader geopolitical rivalry with the United States. Historically, China has been highly sensitive to actions that could be perceived as undermining its regional influence, especially when such actions are backed by U.S.-led alliances. Japan’s decision, supported by Western powers such as the U.S., reinforces the strong U.S.-Japan strategic partnership, which China often views as part of a broader effort to contain its influence in the Asia-Pacific.
The U.S., along with international regulatory agencies, has framed Japan’s release as scientifically sound and compliant with global safety standards. This narrative stands in sharp contrast to China’s portrayal of the issue as a serious environmental and public health risk. The divergence in framing reflects broader power struggles in international environmental governance, where China seeks to challenge Western-led narratives and position itself as an emerging leader in global sustainability efforts. By strongly opposing Japan’s decision, China signals its commitment to stricter environmental oversight while simultaneously reinforcing its broader diplomatic stance against U.S.-backed regional policies.
Last but not least, compared to other neighboring countries, China’s opposition has been notably more vocal and politically charged. While nations such as South Korea and the Philippines have raised environmental concerns, their responses have generally been more measured, emphasizing diplomatic engagement and scientific assessments (Ngai et al. 2022). In contrast, China has taken a more confrontational stance, employing diplomatic and economic measures, such as issuing strong statements questioning Japan’s safety assurances and imposing import restrictions on Japanese seafood (Masaya, 2022).
Several factors contribute to this discrepancy. China’s greater economic reliance on fisheries compared to South Korea and the Philippines makes the potential risks of contamination a more immediate concern. While South Korea has strong economic and security ties with both the U.S. and Japan, leading to a more pragmatic approach, China’s broader geopolitical strategy motivates a firmer stance to assert itself as a regional leader opposing Western-backed initiatives.
Therefore, China’s strong opposition to Japan’s nuclear wastewater release is not merely a reaction to environmental concerns but a strategic move shaped by broader IPE dynamics and its diplomatic relationship with the U.S. While other neighboring countries, such as South Korea, have responded with more restrained diplomatic engagement, China’s more assertive approach reflects its regional power ambitions, economic interests, and long-standing geopolitical relation with Japan. By analyzing China’s response through the lens of IPE and international diplomacy, we gain a deeper understanding of how environmental issues become embedded in geopolitical strategies and regional power struggles.
In conclusion, Japan’s nuclear wastewater release is not merely an environmental issue but a highly contested geopolitical event, shaped by the strategic interests and diplomatic alignments of global powers in the Asian and Pacific regions. This study demonstrates that media discourse surrounding the event reflects broader geopolitical dynamics, as different countries’ news coverage aligns with their diplomatic priorities, domestic policies, and public sentiments. While the U.S. and its allies largely frame the issue through a scientific and regulatory lens, China emphasizes environmental and public health risks, illustrating how geopolitical competition and historical tensions influence national media narratives.
Moreover, this study highlights that media discourse does not always align neatly with official diplomatic positions. While government-led narratives often prioritize national interests, public sentiment and grassroots activism in some countries, such as South Korea, introduce alternative perspectives, revealing tensions between elite-driven discourse and societal concerns. This discrepancy suggests that media representations of international environmental events are shaped not only by state policies but also by domestic political considerations and public engagement.
The contributions of this study are threefold. First, on the basis of systematic and quantitative news data analysis, this study not only revealed the different attitudes and positions held by Japan’s main stakeholder-neighboring countries toward Japan’s nuclear wastewater discharge but also uncovered the grounds for their attitudes and positions, the concerns and the political motives of these countries on this issue, and the geopolitical pattern of the Pacific ocean and the structure of the global camps that dominated the stances of these countries over this issue. Compared with previous studies that focused on examining the response of one specific country to Japan’s nuclear wastewater release event, the present research offers a much fuller and deeper sociological view of this issue and helps readers perceive the countervailing political forces around the Asian region through the release of nuclear wastewater from Japan. Second, unlike the majority of the existing research, which has focused on predicting the potential consequences of Japan’s nuclear wastewater release via a statistical analysis modeling method, the present study adopted mass media news reporting analysis to investigate the realistic social responses of neighboring countries of Japan to this issue, which reflected the factors that actually guide and affect Japan’s subsequent decisions and behaviors and have greater practical relevance. Finally, this study used a DNVA approach to explore the power patterns of neighboring countries around Japan through news discourse analysis, which investigates the whole news communication method, including the news discourse, the news values that dominate the news discourse construction and the social structure that influences the news values. The DNVA approach offers a more coherent framework than the approach adopted in many previous studies that revealed social structure directly through news coverage analysis.
The present study reveals that the release of treated radioactive water from the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear plant has elicited significant reactions from China, South Korea, the Philippines, and Singapore, reflecting broader regional concerns over environmental safety, economic consequences, and public health. China has been one of the most vocal critics, arguing that Japan’s decision disregards international environmental responsibilities and poses long-term risks to marine ecosystems. South Korea initially expressed strong opposition but later adopted a more measured stance following government-led scientific reviews and diplomatic negotiations, though public skepticism remains high. The Philippines and Singapore, in contrast, have largely aligned with the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) assessment, which concluded that the discharge meets international safety standards.
Beyond these major regional actors, it is crucial to recognize that Pacific nations, including Fiji and the Federated States of Micronesia, have expressed varying perspectives on Japan’s discharge plan. Initially, many Pacific nations, as members of the Pacific Islands Forum, voiced strong opposition, raising concerns about potential contamination and the long-term consequences for fisheries, coastal communities, and biodiversity. Given the Pacific’s historical experience with nuclear testing and its heavy reliance on marine resources, these nations have often advocated for the precautionary principle in environmental governance (Priyanka, 2023). Additionally, they have underscored the legal obligations under the South Pacific Nuclear Free Zone Treaty (Treaty of Rarotonga), which aims to prevent the dumping of radioactive materials in the region (Puna, 2023).
However, opinions within the region have not been uniform. Notably, Fiji’s stance evolved over time, with Prime Minister Sitiveni Rabuka ultimately expressing support for Japan’s plan, citing confidence in the scientific assessments provided by the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) and emphasizing Fiji’s strong diplomatic and economic ties with Japan. This divergence in perspectives highlights the complexity of regional responses, shaped by both environmental concerns and geopolitical considerations.
The diverse responses from these nations illustrate the complex interplay of scientific, environmental and geopolitical factors shaping the discourse on nuclear waste disposal. However, because media analysis from Pacific nations was beyond the scope of this study, their perspectives have not been examined in detail.
