It is widely recognized that fracking is a topic of debate in the news, which is largely “compartmentalized” into stories on fracking as economically beneficial or risky to environment and health. Building on previous scholarship, we take a constructivist position and focus on fracking as potentially technical and social, or sociotechnical. Our qualitative textual analysis of news printed in two high-circulation newspapers in Canada (2013-2015) reveals that normative positions on fracking are furthered alongside normative descriptions of Indigenous Peoples and regional cultures. We argue that science communication practitioners perform specific normative work via their communicative acts.
AllenS.AdamB.CarterC. (Eds.). (2000). Environmental risks and the media. London, England: Routledge.
2.
AugoustinosM. (2001). Social categorization: Towards theoretical integration. In DeauxK.PhilogeneG. (Eds.), Representations of the social: Bridging theoretical traditions (pp. 201-216). Oxford, England: Blackwell.
BlairB. D.WeibleC. M.HeikkilaT.McCormackL. (2015). Certainty and uncertainty in framing the risks and benefits of hydraulic fracturing in the Colorado news media. Risk, Hazards and Crisis in Public Policy, 6, 290-307.
BombergE. (2015). Shale we drill? Discourse dynamics in UK fracking debates. Journal of Environmental Policy & Planning, 19, 72-88.
9.
BoykoffM. T.BoykoffJ. M. (2007). Climate change and journalistic norms: A case study of US mass-media coverage. Geoforum, 38, 1190-1191.
10.
BraunV.ClarkeV. (2006). Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research in Psychology, 3, 77-101.
11.
CarrageeK.RoefsW. (2006). The neglect of power in recent framing research. Journal of Communication, 54, 214-233.
12.
CarvalhoA. (2007). Ideological cultures and media discourses on scientific knowledge: Re-reading news on climate change. Public Understanding of Science, 16, 223-243.
ChapmanG.KumarK.FraserC.GaberI. (1997). Environmentalism and the mass media: The North-South divide. London, England: Routledge.
15.
ChenS.GunsterS. (2016) “Ethereal carbon”: Legitimizing liquefied natural gas in British Columbia. Environmental Communication, 10, 305-321.
16.
Council of Canadian Academies. (2014). Environmental impacts of shale gas extraction in Canada: The expert panel on harnessing science and technology to understand the environmental impact of shale gas extraction. Ottawa, Ontario, Canada: Author.
17.
CoxR. (2006). Environmental communication and the public sphere. London, England: Sage.
18.
CrabbS. (2006). “Fiona Farewells Her Breasts”: A popular magazine account of breast cancer prevention. Critical Public Health, 16, 5-18.
19.
Cronlund AndersonM.RobertsonC. (2011). Seeing red, a history of natives in the Canadian newspapers. Winnipeg, Manitoba, Canada: University of Manitoba Press.
20.
DodgeJ.LeeJ. (2015). Framing dynamics and political gridlock: The curious case of hydraulic fracturing in New York. Journal of Environmental Policy & Planning, 19, 14-34.
21.
DriedgerM. (2008). Creating shared realities through communication: Exploring the agenda-building role of the media and its sources in the E. coli contamination of a Canadian public drinking water supply. Journal of Risk Research, 11, 23-40.
22.
EndresD. E.CozenB.BarnettJ. T.O’ByrneM.PetersonT. R. (2016). Communicating energy in a climate (of) crisis. Annals of the International Communication Association, 40, 419-447.
23.
EngelderT. (2011). Should fracking stop? No, it’s too valuable. Nature, 477, 271-275.
24.
EvensenD. T.ClarkeC. E.StedmanR. C. (2014). A New York or Pennsylvania state of mind: Social representations in newspaper coverage of gas development in the Marcellus Shale. Journal of Environmental Studies of Science, 4, 65-77.
25.
FlerasA. (2012). The media gaze: Representations of diversities in Canada. Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada: University of British Columbia Press.
26.
GustonD.FisherE.GrunwaldA.OwenR.SwierstraT.van der BurgS. (2014). Responsible innovation: Motivations for a new journal. Journal of Responsible Innovation, 1, 1-8.
27.
HabibS.HinojosaM. S. (2016). Representation of fracking in mainstream American newspapers. Environmental Practice, 18, 83-93.
28.
HansenA. (1993). The mass media and environmental issues. Leicester, England: Leicester University Press.
29.
HansenA. (2009). Science, communication and media. In HollimanR.WhiteleggE.ScanlonE.SmidtS.ThomasJ. (Eds.), Investigating science communication in the information age (pp. 105-127). New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
30.
HansenA. (2011). Communication, media and environment: Towards reconnecting research on the production, content and social implications of environmental communication. International Communication Gazette, 73, 7-25.
31.
HilgartnerM. (1990). The dominant view of popularization: Conceptual problems, political uses. Social Studies of Science, 20, 519-539.
32.
HopkeJ. E. (2016). Translocal anti-fracking activism: An exploration of network structure and tie content. Environmental Communication, 10, 380-394.
33.
HowarthR. W.IngraffeaA. (2011). Should fracking stop? Yes, it’s too high risk. Nature, 477, 271-275.
34.
HoweM. (2015). Debriefing Elsipogtog: Anatomy of a struggle. Black Point, Nova Scotia, Canada: Fernwood.
35.
HudginsA.PooleA. (2014). Framing fracking: Private property, common resources, and regimes of governance. Journal of Political Ecology, 21, 222-348.
JaspalR.NerlichB. (2014). Fracking in the UK press: Threat dynamics in an unfolding debate. Public Understanding of Science, 23, 348-363.
40.
JaspalR.NerlichB.LemancyzkS. (2014). Fracking in the Polish press: Geopolitics and national identity. Energy Policy, 74, 253-261.
41.
KingT. (2013). The inconvenient Indian: A curious account of Native people in North America. London, England: Penguin Books.
42.
MatthewsJ. (2016). Maintaining a politicized climate of opinion? Examining how political framing and journalistic logic combine to shape speaking opportunities in UK elite newspaper reporting of climate change. Public Understanding of Science, 26, 467-480.
43.
MatthewsJ.HansenA. (2018). Fracturing debate? A review of research on media coverage of “fracking.” Frontiers in Communication, 3, 1-11.
44.
MatzJ.RenfrewD. (2015). Selling “fracking”: Energy in depth and the Marcellus shale. Environmental Communication, 9, 288-306.
45.
MazurA. (2016). How did the fracking controversy emerge in the period 2010-2012?Public Understanding of Science, 25, 207-222.
46.
McCombsM.ShawD. (1972). The agenda-setting function of mass media. Public Opinion Quarterly, 36, 176-187.
47.
MercadoM. T.AlvarezA.HerranzJ. M. (2014). The fracking debate in the media: The role of citizen platforms as sources of information. Journal of Communication Studies, 7, 45-62.
48.
MetzeT. (2014). Fracking the debate: Frame shifts and boundary work in Dutch decision making on shale gas. Journal of Environmental Policy & Planning, 19, 35-52.
49.
MontgomeryC. T.SmithM. B. (2010). Hydraulic fracturing: History of an enduring technology. Journal of Petroleum Technology, 62(12). doi:10.2118/1210-0026-JPT
50.
MooneyC. (2011). The truth about fracking. Scientific American, 305(5), 80-85.
NowotnyH.ScottP.GibbonsM. (2001). Re-thinking science: Knowledge and the public in the age of uncertainty. Cambridge, England: Polity Press.
55.
O’DohertyK.LeCouteurA. (2007). “Asylum seekers,” “boat people” & “illegal immigrants”: Social categorization in the media. Australian Journal of Psychology, 59, 1-12.
56.
OliveA. (2016). What is the fracking story in Canada?The Canadian Geographer/Le Géeographe Canadien, 60, 32-45.
57.
PierroR.BlackstockC.HardingR.McCueD.MetatawabinM. (August, 2013). Buried voices: Media coverage of aboriginal issues in Ontario Media Monitoring Report:2010-2013. Toronto, Ontario, Canada: Journalists for Human Rights.
58.
PotterJ. (1996). Representing reality: Discourse, rhetoric and social construction. London, England: Sage.
59.
PotterJ.EdwardsD.WetherellM. (1993). A model of discourse in action. American Behavioral Scientist, 36, 383-401.
60.
ReeseS.GandyO.GrantA. (Eds.). (2001). Framing public life: Perspectives on media and our understanding of the social world. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
RichJ. L. (2016). Drilling is just the beginning: Romanticizing rust best identities in teh campaign for shale gas. Envrionmental Communication, 10, 292-304.
63.
SarewitzD. (2004). How science makes environmental controversies worse. Environmental Science & Policy, 7, 385-403.
64.
ScheufeleD.LewensteinB. (2005). The public and nanotechnology: How citizens make sense of emerging technologies. Journal of Nanoparticle Research, 7, 659-667.
65.
ShanahanJ.McComasK. (1999). Nature stories: Depictions of the environment and their effects. Cresskill, NJ: Hampton Press.
SteuterE. (1999). The Irvings cover themselves: Media representations of the Irving Oil Refinery Strike, 1994-1996. Canadian Journal of Communication, 24(4), 1-18.
Truth and Reconciliation Commission. (2015). The final report of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission Canada, Volume 1. Kingston, ON: McGill-Queen’s University Press.
71.
Tuhiwai SmithL (2013). Decolonizing methodologies, research and Indigenous Peoples. New York, NY: Zed Books.
72.
VipondM. (2011). The mass media in Canada (4th ed.). Toronto, Ontario, Canada: Lorimer.
73.
WagnerA. (2015). Shale gas: Energy innovation in a (non-)knowledge society: A press discourse analysis. Science and Public Policy, 42, 273-286.
74.
WetherellM.PotterJ. (1992). Mapping the language of racism: Discourse and the legitimation of exploitation. London, England: Harvester Wheatsheaf.
75.
WinnerL. (1980). Do artifacts have politics?Daedalus, 109, 121-136.
76.
YoungN.MatthewsR. (2011). The aquaculture controversy in Canada. Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada: University of British Columbia Press.
77.
Youngblood HendersonJ. (2000). Aukpachi: Empowering Aboriginal thought. In BattisteM. (Ed.), Reclaiming Indigenous voice and vision (pp. 248-278). Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada: UBC Press.
