Celebrity Matt Damon aims to improve access to clean water

Matt Damon, the co founder of water.org (2009), is working to improve access to clean water to communities around the world. In the ABC news article released today (November 27), Damon and his partner Gary White discuss the problem at hand, their goals with water.org, and what they are doing to improve access to clean water and the quality of water around the world. The article echoes what is said in the video below, so I have focused on evaluating the broadcast news, as well as the benefits of coupling a celebrity with a worldwide environmental and economic issue.

When watching the news, accompanying a celebrity with a huge environmental issue can be successful because it catches the attention of someone who would otherwise be uninterested. The ABC news coverage starts off by saying "One of Hollywood's biggest stars is on a campaign..." without mentioning his name. This draws someone in because they may not be as interested in the clean water campaign, but they certainly want to know who the celebrity is that is making a difference.

This common face of Matt Damon coupled with pressing issues of clean water access in areas of Africa and Asia is a powerful way of getting the message out there to communities. ABC is successful in interviewing Matt Damon in a conversational manner, asking him questions about what inspired his journey and the founding of water.org, and how simple efforts and donations make a big difference.

Although clean water access is a major issue worldwide, it isn't something that is "sexy news," per say. However, ABC makes this news coverage sexy by presenting the issue of clean water access through the eyes of a celebrity, or well known public figure.

The video starts off by giving some basic statistics and background. Facts are given such as "The earth is 70% water but only 3% of it is drinkable," and "1 in 8 people lack access to safe, clean drinking water." Also, ABC uses a map, providing essential context, to highlight the areas where people are struggling most to get clean water, and even mentions that this problem is evident in the United States. There is a smooth transition into the interview portion with Matt Damon and his partner Gary White, and ABC says that it is these alarming statistics (previously mentioned) that sparked Damon's interest in working together with White to create water.org. This transition has an unspoken message that these statistics alarmed a celebrity and caused him to make changes, so it should also alarm you and encourage you to do the same.

Damon talks about his personal experiences in these struggling countries, especially with a 14 year old girl who would be "stuck in a death spiral of poverty," if she had to work all day to get clean water. He spoke about her being able to get an education, without having to search for clean water all day, which sets her up for a bright future. ABC uses this to create an emotional feeling and cause the audience to develop remorse for a young child who, unlike most of us here in the United States, doesn't have the privilege of getting an education and creating a future for herself through going to school. ABC's strategic questioning of Damon's experiences make the clean water issue something beyond just getting clean drinking water. The ability to get clean water becomes something that affects education and the economy as well, like a domino effect. White, Damon's partner, describes the inability to get clean water as a "sinkhole."

Within the ABC coverage, there is video of families, including children, carrying jugs of water and walking across large fields back to their homes. This provides us with a vision of the labor and extremes that people have to go to to get something we can find within a 5 foot radius.

Damon says that since they founded water.org, one of the big problems is that people can't relate to this problem because it has never been an issue for the majority of us. He says "It is really hard for people like us to relate to. Clean water is only as far as the nearest tap. The reality is that the water in our toilets is cleaner than the water that most people are drinking."

White discusses his design of WaterCredit, or a system that allows people to invest in clean water access, and then pay off the loans. ABC shines light on this system as an "outlet to global economic success," because giving people the connection to clean water allows women and children to go to school or get a paying job, and gives them "dignity and ownership of their own lives." ABC's emphasis on Damon's efforts as something more than just providing clean water makes it apparent that treating the symptom of one problem can cause a domino effect of positive effects. When people can see that their directly affecting the lives of people (education, jobs etc), and see essentially where their money is going, there is a greater chance that they will be willing to help.

A really funny bit from Stephen Colbert about Matt Damon's request for him to tweet about water.org (first part of the video below).

The Colbert Report
Get More: Colbert Report Full Episodes,Political Humor & Satire Blog,Video Archive

Fracking: Are the benefits worth the risk?

A topic being discussed frequently in the news is Hydraulic Fracturing or Fracking. Simply put, this is the process of injecting a mixture of gallons and gallons of water, sand, and chemicals deep underground to procure natural gas from rocks. Recently, fracking activity levels have increased and industries are promoting increased revenue and job opportunities in the areas of action, hoping for approval from those that live there. Citizens in the areas of fracking, specifically in Pennsylvania (Marcellus Shale Rock Formation), have united and protested against fracking due to the concern for the safety of their water.

In this blog post, I evaluate the key differences in the approach of the CNN, NY Times and Washington Post in reporting on fracking. I have been following this issue since the second week of class, but didn’t feel like I had gathered enough information or variety in news reporting to compose a blog post at that time. After several weeks, I have read a variety of articles, mostly local ones (Buffalo news), and have chosen to highlight the ways in which these three bigger news sources report on this environmental issue.

CNN:

On September 20, CNN released an article focusing on the protesting against fracking in Philadelphia (‘Fracking’ protesters say drilling jobs not worth environmental risks). CNN reporter, Sarah Hoye, presents the people as the victims, opening the article describing a protester (Charlotte Bevins) with "her eyes red and puffy from crying." Apparently, this local lost her brother in a drilling (hydraulic fracturing) accident. However, this isn't the main reason for the protesting, and this isn't the main reason so many people are concerned in the areas of fracking, according to CNN. Throughout the article, Hoye includes excerpts from the crowd as they protest such as "No fracking way," "Ban fracking now," and "The water, the water is on fire." CNN's report on fracking presents the public's concern for contamination of their drinking water. The industry continues to carry out the process of fracking, and CNN highlights that "U.S. Geological Survey estimated that the Marcellus Shale contains about 84 trillion cubic feet of undiscovered, technically recoverable natural gas." Not only is there a great deal of natural gas to be gathered from these rocks, but industries are arguing that through the process of fracking, jobs will be created. CNN reports that "More than 100 shale gas and oil companies wrote a letter to Obama underscoring the importance of hydraulic fracturing to create cheap, clean energy and jobs.”

CNN emphasizes that the protesters believe the benefits are not worth the risks that will come with continue hydraulic fracturing, which could "“contaminate a watershed that provides drinking water to 15 million people.” Pittsburgh councilman (Doug Shields) and a resident (Sarah Kolb) are both quoted providing support on this side of the argument.

Shields says " I want everybody to have a job, but not at this cost” and resident Kolb says "resident says she is concerned about the future of the quality of the drinking water if fracking is allowed." Although CNN mentions increased revenue and job offers as benefits of fracking, from the perspective of industries, there are no sources specifically quoted to support this side of the argument, just statements about what people said. In this way, CNN frames the issue of fracking as a negative one, and provides reasons for why the risks of fracking outweigh the possible benefits the industry talks about.

NY Times:

About a month after the CNN news report on fracking, a very interesting article was published in the New York Times on October 22 (Drilling Down on the Family Farm). This is much less of a hard facts, news report about fracking, and more of a reflective opinion piece from a writer who experienced this problem first hand, on his family farm in Ellsworth Hill, Pa.. After already learning a great deal about the issue of fracking from previous articles I read, I decided to evaluate this piece instead of another hard news story because of the dimension it brought to this problem. The author, Seamus McGraw, created a story like account of the situation that occurred on his family farm when drilling, or fracking began. Although very different from most articles I read about this issue, the personal experience and narrative of McGraw was an extremely effective story that the New York Times chose in their gatekeeping process.

This article portrays a resident dealing with this issue first hand, and presents him as someone who is torn between the monetary benefits of allowing fracking, and the health risks that come with that. Even at the end of the article McGraw says "I still don't really know the answer," hinting that many residents may be similarly dealing with this tug of war between what is right for the economy, and what is right for their health. The NY Times article encompasses the element of fear in the citizens when McGraw says "But now that it was happening on our 100 acres, I could understand in a much more visceral way why the word to describe this process — fracking — stirs such fear. I could even feel the stirring of that fear myself." This portrays how personal experiences with environmental issues can spark a certain fear, or when they actually begin to influence your own life, you start to care about them.

(photo from earth friendly news)

The NY Times article frames an ordinary resident (McGraw) who begins to have to deal with fracking first hand, making it a relatable perspective on the issue. McGraw says that he, as well as his family members were aware of the dangers of fracking and the "slightly radioactive, highly saline and heavy-metal-laden water that has existed alongside the shale for 400 million years, flows up to the surface over the lifetime of the well.” McGraw's tone is one of concern as he discusses the possible health risks from the act of fracking on nearby lands.

In comparison to the CNN report, the NY Times provides less information and more emotion, with the personal connection the author has to the issue. For someone previously educated on fracking, this article can be informative in providing an interesting perspective, and even for someone who doesn't know anything about this, the story like narrative makes it an easy, understandable and informative read. McGraw remains somewhat objective in his experiences with fracking as well, since he is undecided on what is right, and presents both sides of the story (residents and industry). Although he is someone who is literally getting fracked, he doesn't frame the this as a complete negative.

**An additional article, published November 8 portrays readers responses to a NY Times article written by David Brooks about shale gas and fracking. Brooks says that the reason why there is so much controversy over fracking is because of an uninformed public. However, the thoughts directed at the editor suggest other possibilities, and provide dimension to the issue of fracking. In this article, Maurice Hinchey's post suggests that the industry's lack of attention to health risks is the reason why public is divided on fracking and President and Chief Executive of the American Petroleum Institute, Jack Gerard responds with "Benefits of Fracking." The input and back and forth on this issue is interesting and provides a more objective, balanced evaluation of fracking. The opinions also show that even though the news is reported in a certain way, varying opinions still exist with strong arguments for both sides.

Washington Post:

The most recent article I want to discuss was published Nov 3 by the Washington Post (Federal probe into hydraulic fracturing and its effects on drinking water to begin). In the context of Allentown, Pa., this article begins with stating that the Environmental Protection Agency has found that the act of fracking has contaminated drinking water. The Post, more so than any other article I read, dedicates a few sentences towards describing what hydraulic fracturing (fracking) actually is, before delving further into the issues with drinking water. Similar to the CNN report, the Post says that industry claims fracking is safe, but the major concern is in the polluted waters that citizens and residents are complaining about. The Post also mentions the states where fracking is occurring and where the EPA will investigate the quality of drinking water: "EPA will examine drilling sites in Pennsylvania, Colorado, Lousiana, North Dakota and Texas." The two sides are clearly presented in the Post article- the industry who believes that fracking is not harming the environment or the health of residents, and the people who are being affected by polluted waters or believe their water will be contaminated if fracking continues.

(Photo from water-contamination.com)

Since this is the most recent news report of the three mentioned here, this suggests that more efforts are being made to address the water quality issue, even two months after the first article (CNN). The weaknesses with this report however, are the lack of specific sources to connect the audience with the issue. A personal account from a resident dealing with health problems from the water, or even a quote from a health organization or doctor evaluating the situation could be affective in warning the public of the possible risk (or lack there of), in areas where fracking is occurring. The Post addresses the various locations where water contamination is possible, but doesn't successfully portray a resident's struggles or provide validity of the already polluted waters that people are complaining about.

The additional NY Times opinion pages article, was added to this blog post after the initial writing. I have continued following the issue of fracking and thought this addition was informative in the overall understanding of this issue.

Bangkok: Floods threaten water quality

With the recent floods in Thailand, Bangkok is under water and lots of it. The major issue is portrayed differently in news coverage- The Washington Post focuses on drainage systems and lack of barriers between the the flooded waters and the city capital, Fox News identifies the major problem as increased disease risk from the waste in the floodwaters, and the Wall Street Journal is a mix of the Post and Fox reports. It is evident that these sources believe different components of the flood in Bangkok are the most important to address for their audience. A general overview of the flood issue in Thailand can be found here from the International Federation of Red Cross. Other basic information about the floods can be found at the UN news center, ("Unicef ramps up efforts to help victims in Thailand, and "Ban voices UN solidarity with Thailand after viewing flood hit areas.")

The Washington Post (Floodwaters cover more of Bangkok; no major barriers now lie between water, city center,) presents the flooding issue as a problem because of the lack of barriers between the water and the city, where 9 million people reside. The article, posted on November 5, calls this flooding “the worst in half a century." and mentions the alarming number of deaths (450 so far).

The Post talks about efforts being made to build a flood wall, or a barrier to prevent the water from reaching the main city, but city spokesman Jate Sopitpongstorn is quoted emphasizing the importance of drainage systems as a means of combating the floodwaters. The Post relays that there is uncertainty as to how the drainage system will hold up with such a large amount of water. This article portrays skepticism when stating “Sound predictions are difficult because various government officials, including the Bangkok governor and prime minister, have given often widely different versions of what can city residents can expect.” This can be worrisome to the people in Bangkok in their preparations to deal with the floods and try to survive. Although the Post mentions that the government has ordered families to evacuate in certain regions, different opinions are portrayed on the actual severity of the flood. The Prime Minister (Yingluck Shinawatra is quoted that she is “exhausted, but will never give up,” and “just needs the public to understand.” The Post successfully interviews a few key players in this issue (Prime Minister and city spokesman), but is missing a voice of those heavily impacted by the damages to their homes and communities.

Photo from Huffington Post

Fox News reports about the flooding in Bangkok on November 3, but shines light on trash and sewage increasing the risk of disease. The approach used in this news report is strikingly different from that of the Post. The report opens quoting a Bangkok citizen, a local garbage man, someone dealing first hand with the dangers of living in the flooded waters. Fox names this flood “the worst in more than half a century,” like the Post, but for different reasons. This article focuses on the health threats that will rise after the floods have passed and a spokesman for UNICEF, Mark Thomas, voices the risks of being in the water, especially for children. “"There's a lot of danger around it. You need to keep kids out of the water, and everybody should stay out of the water as much as possible." Fox News lists diseases that can be derived from the polluted waters such as eye infections, diarrhea, mosquito born diseases, skin and fungal infections, respiratory problems etc. A doctor from the World Health Organization, Dr. Maureen Birmingham is quoted. "People get water in their mouths that's contaminated with feces, and all the diseases that can ensue from that -- that's probably the biggest concern." Another doctor from Thailand’s Health Ministry, Dr. Wiwat Wiriyakijja, is quoted in the article and talks about just how dangerous the water is and the bacterial infections that can kill if untreated. The Washington Post interviews people from varying perspectives on the Bangkok flooding- a garbage man living in the floods, two doctors addressing the issue, a UNICEF spokesman helping with sanitation, and a mother Nantana Junsamlee, who has to constantly remind her son to avoid getting water in his mouth while he enjoys swimming around. Overall, Fox News’ approach in attacking the issue from varying viewpoints, unlike Washington Post, provides a holistic picture of what is actually going on in Bangkok. It is thorough and objective news reporting.

In the recent news article presented by the Wall Street Journal ("Floodwater Leaves Bangkok awash in trash",) one of the authors is a Doctor (Dr. Wiwat Wiriyakijja) that was interviewed in the Fox News report. This article, like Fox News, focuses on trash and health risks, but also talks about drainage systems and the flow of water (or lack there of,) like the Washington Post news coverage. The Wall Street Journal article is a mix of the other two news reports on the Bangkok flooding in its presentation of the major issues. The WSJ further delves into the garbage man perspective and talks about the amount of trash produced by 12 million people in the city. A garbage collector, Ms. Jiraporn, provides a similar perspective of the garbage man interviewed in the Fox News report. She says that she doesn’t mind picking up the garbage but that people need to be more responsible. The WSJ presents the citizens as not only victims of the flood, but culprits of the trash piling up and causing polluted waters. This article echoes the death count of 450 that the Post stated, and also mentions possible diseases from the dirty water (diarrhea, dengue fever, leptospirosis), similar to Fox News. Besides the health risks, the WSJ talks about the flow of water towards the city and mentions that city officials are focusing on improving the drainage systems to combat the massive volume of floodwaters. The Wall Street Journal, unlike the other two news sources evaluated, mentions the costs of cleanup from the flood and the strain that this could but on the economy. Similar to the Washington Post news coverage, Prime Minister Yingluck Shinawatra is interviewed. Here, she talks about the budget for recovery from the damages and the hopes to improve the management of water flow for preparation in withstanding a future flood in Thailand. A creative tool used in the WSJ reporting is tying in other environmental crisis as comparison, in this case being the tsunami in Japan. By relating the severity of this current issue in Bangkok to that of a past issue, the news report provides a duality that can make the coverage more understandable.

Photo from Child Friendly News

A broadcast news report showed below, by CNN, as well as an article titled "Weeks of woes await sodden Bangkok," address the trash and disease as the major concerns for the Bangkok people and focuses less on the drainage system or water movement. The job of clearing trash has become an issue because of the rising water, and the water has become a major issue for the health of residents and workers. The reporter, Elizabeth Neisloss, is shown in the midst of workers picking up "the toxic mess" in the "rivers of garbage." In this news report of the floods in Bangkok, an official is interviewed urging the people to avoid putting their garbage in the water. According to CNN, the Ministry of Public Health states that more than 1.3 million have been affected by the polluted waters with skin problems etc, but no "outbreaks of serious disease." CNN's broadcast report puts viewers in touch with the scenes of the actual crisis. This component of the CNN news report provides context and visuals, much more effective than reporting on the issue from a broadcast studio.

**Here are a series of photos provided by CNN from Bangkok with an additional article published November 11. This more recent news article provides information about the irrigation systems, how they are holding up, and what the future looks like for Bangkok.

Other informative articles to read about the Bangkok floods from the NY Times are "In Flood, Thai leaders choose between bad and worse," and "Floodwalls keep Bangkok dry but provinces angry." From CNN, "Thai flood crisis: Updated info for tourists," gives the most recent news information on the status of the floods in Bangkok, published November 16. This issue is changing week to week, and has been really interesting to follow, especially in evaluating media coverage.