The Cynical Public: Claims about Science in the Discourse on Hydrofracking

Abstract

This content analysis of newspaper articles and online social media from English-speaking sources on the topic of ‘fracking’ interrogates the use of scientific legitimacy in claims-makings and how public understandings of science develop through these media. In both forms of media, science is invoked in one sense as rational and objective to either neutralize or support emotionally-charged accounts and fears of hydraulic fracturing dangers. In another sense, however, science is viewed as a bureaucratic tool used at the will of government and business interests and easily corrupted to support ideological or interest-based positions. Claims regarding science typically follow ideological positions rather than the reverse - the ‘science’ that supports fracking as safe is called into question by those skeptical of fracking, while the anti-fracking position is designated as ‘anti-science’ by those who favor fracking. These strategies as they play out in the media serve to spread uncertainty, heighten cynicism, and undermine public confidence in science. An understanding of science as incomplete and cumulative, however, lends itself to the precautionary principle.