Worldwide, an average of about 144,500 times earthquakes occur each year. Of these, about 5,000 times have their epicenters in Japan and its surrounding areas. In particular, about 13% of earthquakes of M6.0 or higher occur in Japan. Japan is, after all, one of the world’s most earthquake-prone countries. Sudden earthquakes that leave deep scars have caused tremendous damage to people. For Japan, earthquakes are a very familiar disaster, and public interest is very high. In fact, a previous GNV article found that in Japan, among all types of disasters worldwide, earthquakes are reported on particularly often.

Collapsed buildings and media during the 2016 Ecuador earthquake (Photo: Galeria del Ministerio de Defensa del Perú /Wikimedia Commons [ CC BY 2.0])

However, in international news coverage in Japan overall, the existence of a significant regional bias has been confirmed. Regions such as Latin America, Africa, and Oceania tend to receive little coverage. There is also a large gap between industrialized countries and poor countries, and information from poor countries is rarely reported. But does this regional bias also appear in coverage of earthquakes, a topic that draws relatively high interest domestically? And among the various indicators used to gauge earthquake scale, such as death toll and magnitude, which factors actually determine the volume of coverage?

Earthquakes that were reported

Here, based on the Mainichi Shimbun, we analyzed earthquakes around the world that were reported in Japan over the 10 years from 2008 to 2017. The target cases were those with epicenters outside Japan and that were reported within one month of occurrence. The earthquakes with the most coverage are shown in the table below.

Loading…

In order of coverage volume, earthquakes in Sichuan, China; New Zealand; and Nepal rank in the top three. Also, earthquakes that occurred in China appear three times within the top ten.

Were these heavily reported earthquakes actually “large-scale earthquakes”? In Japan, was more coverage given to quakes with higher death tolls? Or to those with larger magnitudes?

Earthquake scale and coverage

 First, let’s look at the relationship between the scale of human impact and coverage volume. The earthquakes with the highest death tolls and their coverage volumes are shown in the graph below.

Loading…

The graph shows that the scale of human impact and coverage volume are somewhat related. Earthquakes with high death tolls seem to attract attention and be reported in Japan. Therefore, the scale of human impact can be said to be one factor determining coverage volume. However, when ranked, the earthquakes with the most coverage do not perfectly match those with the greatest human toll. A higher death toll does not necessarily mean coverage will increase proportionally. In fact, Pakistan and Ecuador are examples where, despite high death tolls, coverage was extremely low. Starting with those two, there are four earthquakes that appear in the top 10 by death toll but not in the top 10 by coverage. As for Haiti, even though it ranks first by a wide margin in deaths and was a massive quake that even crushed the presidential palace, its coverage ranks fourth. Conversely, some earthquakes that do not make the top 10 in deaths—such as those in New Zealand, Italy, Taiwan, and the 2013 Sichuan earthquake in China—do appear in the top 10 by coverage. In this way, there are cases where coverage is quite extensive even if the human toll itself is not that large. What, then, accounts for such differences?

The presidential palace collapsed in the 2010 Haiti earthquake (Photo: Marco Dormino /Wikimedia Commons [ CC BY 2.0])

Next, let’s look at the relationship between magnitude and coverage volume. Earthquakes of magnitude 8.0 or higher occurred 9 times over the 10 years, and those of 7.0 or higher occurred 148 times. Of these, only 38—about 24%—were reported in the Mainichi Shimbun. Apparently, even large-magnitude earthquakes are not necessarily always reported. In addition, there were 52 earthquakes below magnitude 7.0 that were reported in Japan. From this, it appears that magnitude alone does not determine the volume of coverage.

What determines earthquake coverage?

 From the analysis so far, we see a certain correlation between the scale of human impact and coverage, but why does the coverage volume differ even when the human toll is similar? Why are there cases with few victims that still get covered, and cases with many victims that are hard to get covered? Possible factors include whether the earthquake is related to Japan, whether the country where it occurred is familiar to Japanese people, and how easy it is to access the site.

In the earthquake that struck New Zealand in 2011, of the 185 fatalities, 28 were Japanese. Many of the affected Japanese were international students, and articles often focused on the activities of international emergency relief teams searching for them. In terms of article counts, more than 55% mentioned Japanese victims. It seems likely that coverage increased because this earthquake was strongly connected to Japan. Additionally, for this New Zealand earthquake and the 2016 Italy earthquake, these countries are major travel destinations for Japanese tourists, which probably made them more visible to the media and boosted coverage. Furthermore, the fact that these countries are industrialized nations also plays a role. As noted earlier, Japan’s international news tends to prioritize topics from industrialized countries and to give less attention to those from poorer countries. This tendency can be seen, to some extent, in earthquake reporting as well.

Christchurch Cathedral collapsed in the 2011 New Zealand earthquake (Photo: Andy Miah /Wikimedia Commons [ CC BY-SA 2.0])

As the graph above also shows, earthquakes in neighboring countries such as Taiwan and China tend to receive more coverage, and updates on casualties and other damage are reported more frequently. This is likely related to ease of access—being able to reach the site quickly from Japan or from cities where correspondents are based. In addition, distance from the country’s major cities matters. For example, the epicenter of the 2016 Ecuador earthquake was near Muisne, which is 344 km from Quito, the capital and city with an airport. The epicenter of the 2011 Turkey earthquake was near Van, more than 1,500 km from Istanbul, a major Turkish city, and over 1,000 km from the capital, Ankara. One factor behind these two earthquakes not making the top 10 in coverage is likely the difficulty of access from major cities—i.e., the difficulty of conducting prolonged on-site reporting. Thus, ease of access to the epicentral area can also be a determining factor for coverage volume.

Tsunamis are also closely tied to earthquake reporting in Japan. Among large-magnitude earthquakes, some are reported even when there is little human impact. In most such cases, information about tsunamis is included. Reports are issued not only when a tsunami impact on Japan is possible, but also when there is no impact. The media’s heightened sensitivity to tsunamis likely stems from the 2011 Great East Japan Earthquake, after which caution toward tsunamis in Japan grew even stronger. In this way, while magnitude itself showed little strong correlation with earthquake reporting, there is a certain correlation with tsunamis.

A ship washed ashore by the tsunami from the 2010 Chile earthquake (Photo: U.S. Geological Survey /Wikimedia Commons [ CC BY 2.0])

It is also common in earthquake reporting to see headlines like “Rescued after X days!” or “Rescued after XX hours!” People are moved by miraculous survivals, bringing a brief moment of joy to earthquake coverage, which tends to be dominated by negative news. Such articles often feature children, including babies, or older adults. In fact, during the 2008 earthquake in China, a 98-year-old woman was rescued after nine days; in the 2011 Turkey earthquake, a baby was rescued after 46 hours; and in the 2016 Taiwan earthquake, an eight-year-old girl was rescued after 61 hours. Perhaps the survival of children and older adults—who are more vulnerable than healthy adults—draws even more attention and emotion. As found in a previous GNV article about the cave incident in Thailand, the media’s tendency to select and report news with dramatic, story-like elements—such as rescue dramas—seems to apply to earthquake reporting as well.

Regional disparities and earthquakes

We have discussed the results of the analysis and the trends observed in earthquake reporting; here, let us again turn to the relationship between regional disparities and earthquake coverage. Regional disparities in reporting are one of the issues GNV has addressed for some time. In this analysis, we found that while regional disparities in earthquake reporting are not nonexistent, they are not as large as in other cases or in international reporting in general. When a large-scale earthquake occurs and major damage ensues, the region tends to receive at least some coverage. Cases in which regional disparity is not very large in Japanese international news are quite rare. In Japan, which has experienced many earthquakes, both readers and editors of newspapers feel close to the issue of earthquakes and can empathize with countries where they occur. Moreover, because earthquakes are sudden and intense and can cause massive damage at once, there is strong demand for information about damage and rescue operations. In that sense, earthquakes are highly newsworthy and relatively easy to cover. Earthquakes are such a highly watched topic, and people are so sensitive to them, that they can, to some extent, offset the regional disparities that usually arise in Japanese international reporting.

We found that cases do exist in Japanese international reporting where regional disparities are not large. We can only hope that, beyond earthquakes, Japan’s attention will look more broadly and evenly across the world, transcending regional disparities.

Writer: Wakana Kishimoto