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.
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.
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.
I love the video that you found to include with your post. It does exactly what Krulwich suggested in his speech that we read in class. It presents science as a story that people can easily understand. It simplifies the issue of fracking in a way that makes it relatable and easily absorbed by the audience. I enjoyed reading your comments on the articles. The NYT article clearly made an appeal to readers' emotions, by providing McGraw's firsthand account of the issue. CNN also did this, but in a more subtle fashion. By showing the protesters and giving the issue a face, it is giving the audience someone to relate to, but not in such an obvious manner. In terms of objectivity, however, I think that the Washington Post did the best job. Although the article did not provide any real human connection to the story, it gave a good summary of the facts that allowed the reader a good jumping off point to engage with the issue.
ReplyDeleteI like your use of multimedia in this post. You have video, photos and a cartoon. I like that you presented news pieces from three different sources and compared them. The New York Times article was a good one to use since it put a human face to the issue and the subject weighed both sides of the issue, as the average person would. The visuals seem to support the people against fracking more than the industry pushing for more fracking. Perhaps this is because the people who are against fracking are making more noise than the companies that are pursuing the practice. All in all, I like your presentation of the issue.
ReplyDeleteGood job, Jessica! This is a really interesting topic, I had never heard about it before. I appreciate your comparison of the three news articles, I feel that it really covered all the bases. You also did a good job of staying unbiased and allowing the reader to form their own opinion about the fracking issue. I also appreciated that you pointed out when each of the articles was posted and commented on what that means for the development of the issue. Loved the cartoon too :)
ReplyDelete-Rachel Bechdolt