Certainty and Uncertainty in Framing the Risks and Benefits of Hydraulic Fracturing in the Colorado News Media

Abstract

Oil and gas development using hydraulic fracturing is an industrial activity that can impose risks to some communities and benefits to others. How policymakers permit, regulate and monitor hydraulic fracturing can be influenced by differing perceptions of the risks and benefits. The media can play a critical role in portraying these perceptions. This article examines how the news media covers different risks and benefits of hydraulic fracturing, which actors are associated with those risks and benefits, and how actors use certainty and uncertainty with risks and benefits. To explore these questions, we coded 198 articles from three Colorado newspapers. The analysis shows differences by newspaper in the coverage of the risks and benefits, particularly the economic and public health themes. The results also show that industry representatives argue for the benefits and safety of hydraulic fracturing with certainty; environmental groups highlight the risks of hydraulic fracturing with similar levels of certainty and uncertainty; and the general public expresses both the benefits and risks, but with greater uncertainty. The results illuminate how people may perceive hydraulic fracturing differently depending on the news media sources and how different actors may use certainty and uncertainty as a strategy to influence the policy process.

The discursive politics of unconventional gas in Scotland: Drifting towards precaution?

“…Ashmoore et al [1] apply a similar method to examine newspaper coverage in three US states, whereas Blair et al [6] focus on media coverage in Colorado and highlight the importance of uncertainty for framing shale gas. Dodge and Lee [19] explain policy gridlock on fracking in New York State through the absence of a "shared discursive space".…”

Fracturing Debate? A Review of Research on Media Coverage of “Fracking”

“…Journalists who engage with the issue as an economic "good, " outline in their stories the "benefits" of fracking for regional investment, job creation and, for the US regions specifically, the benefits of less dependence on the US state for their energy supply and fracking as a way to secure their financial futures (Bigl, 2017). Complementing the media discussion of economic benefit is journalists' reporting of environmental concerns with the fracking process (Blair et al, 2015). Introduced here are problems over water pollution and the consequent dangers that the aforementioned pollution poses for health (Habib and Hinojosa, 2016).…”

Breaking Down Uncertain Risks for Risk Communication: A Conceptual Review of the Environmental Health Literature

“…Therefore, communication statements about uncertain risks such as "the risk is still uncertain" include "double uncertainties" that can cause a conceptual and semantic problem for risk communication. Different societal groups (e.g., scientists, policymakers, or the general public) may interpret these statements differently and may focus on different aspects of risk in their own communications (Blair, Weible, Heikkila, & McCormack, 2015;Scheer et al, 2014). Communication of uncertainty can also be used as a strategy toward influencing public policy (Friedman, Dunwoody, & Rogers, 1999;Bailey, Giangola, & Boykoff, 2014;Blair, Heikkila, & Weible, 2016) In light of the current research, statements like "the risk is uncertain" and "a risk cannot be excluded" can, for example, be used as an argument to reject policy action as well as to demand policy action.…”