DOCSLIB.ORG

Evaluation of Media and Audience Frames in the Print Coverage Of

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Evaluation of Media and Audience Frames in the Print Coverage Of University of Tennessee, Knoxville TRACE: Tennessee Research and Creative Exchange Masters Theses Graduate School 5-2008 Controversy in the Coalfields: vE aluation of Media and Audience Frames in the Print Coverage of Mountain Justice Summer Amanda B. Womac University of Tennessee - Knoxville Follow this and additional works at: https://trace.tennessee.edu/utk_gradthes Part of the Communication Commons Recommended Citation Womac, Amanda B., "Controversy in the Coalfields: vE aluation of Media and Audience Frames in the Print Coverage of Mountain Justice Summer. " Master's Thesis, University of Tennessee, 2008. https://trace.tennessee.edu/utk_gradthes/442 This Thesis is brought to you for free and open access by the Graduate School at TRACE: Tennessee Research and Creative Exchange. It has been accepted for inclusion in Masters Theses by an authorized administrator of TRACE: Tennessee Research and Creative Exchange. For more information, please contact [email protected]. To the Graduate Council: I am submitting herewith a thesis written by Amanda B. Womac entitled "Controversy in the Coalfields: vE aluation of Media and Audience Frames in the Print Coverage of Mountain Justice Summer." I have examined the final electronic copy of this thesis for form and content and recommend that it be accepted in partial fulfillment of the equirr ements for the degree of Master of Science, with a major in Communication and Information. Mark Littmann, Major Professor We have read this thesis and recommend its acceptance: Edward Caudill, Dorothy Bowles Accepted for the Council: Carolyn R. Hodges Vice Provost and Dean of the Graduate School (Original signatures are on file with official studentecor r ds.) To the Graduate Council: I am submitting herewith a thesis written by Amanda B. Womac titled “Controversy in the Coalfields: Evaluation of Media and Audience Frames in the Print Coverage of Mountain Justice Summer.” I have examined the final electronic copy of this thesis for form and content and recommend that it be accepted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Masters of Science, with a major in Communications and Information Sciences. __________________________ Mark Littmann, Major Professor We have read this thesis and recommend its acceptance: _________________________ Edward Caudill _________________________ Dorothy Bowles Accepted for the Council: __________________________ Carolyn R. Hodges, Vice Provost and Dean of the Graduate School (Original signatures are on file with official student records.) (Original signatures are on file with offiical student records.) CONTROVERSY IN THE COALFIELDS: EVALUATION OF MEDIA AND AUDIENCE FRAMES IN THE PRINT COVERAGE OF MOUNTAIN JUSTICE SUMMER A Thesis Presented for the Masters of Science Degree The University of Tennessee, Knoxville Amanda B. Womac May 2008 Copyright © 2008 by Amanda Womac All rights reserved. ii DEDICATION This thesis is dedicated to my parents, Marti and Bill Womac, and my grandmother, Miriam Womac, for their continuous support throughout my academic career, and to my sister, Emily Womac for always being there. I would also like to dedicate this thesis to my partner and biggest fan, John Johnson. Thanks for the support and love that helped me achieve my goals. And last but not least, I dedicate this thesis about Mountain Justice Summer to the Movement. Thanks for your work! iii ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS I wish to thank everyone who helped me complete my master‟s of science degree in journalism. I thank Dr. Mark Littmann for his continuous and enthusiastic support of my work as both an academic and environmentalist. I would like to thank Dr. Edward Caudill and Dr. Dorothy Bowles for serving on my committee. For taking the time to help me code all the articles in my evaluation, I thank my friend Lawrence Ferris. I would also like to thank Bob Muenchen in the Statistical Consulting Center with whom I would have never made it through my analysis. I thank my family and friends whose support and encouragement has made this work possible. And finally, I would like to thank all the volunteers and community members and activists who work every day to stop mountaintop removal. Thank you for your work. iv ABSTRACT The purpose of this study is to evaluate the media and audience frames used in print media coverage of Mountain Justice Summer and mountaintop removal. The study synthesizes aspects of framing theory of media effects as described by other media scholars in an attempt to create a working model to evaluate media and audience frames. As this study will show, the media use an overall negative frame in the coverage of Mountain Justice Summer, but also have an overall negative frame in the coverage of mountaintop removal. Based on these findings, the study suggest activists with Mountain Justice Summer helped to frame the issue of mountaintop removal by staying on message, and the overall source for negative perception of activists came from industry representatives or community members. Evaluation of audience frames shows an overall positive perception of Mountain Justice Summer activists and opposition to mountaintop removal. This finding suggests a weak connection between media frames and audience frames, but also allows for further evaluation of the framing theory of media effects. v TABLE OF CONTENTS Introduction ......................................................................................................................... 1 Chapter 1: Background ....................................................................................................... 3 Chapter 2: Literature Review .............................................................................................. 5 The Framing Theory of Media Effects ............................................................................ 5 Media and Audience Frames ......................................................................................... 10 Frames as Dependent and Independent Variables ......................................................... 15 The Framing Process ..................................................................................................... 17 Framing Theory versus Agenda Setting ........................................................................ 19 The Power of Frames .................................................................................................... 21 Movements and Media .................................................................................................. 24 Media Coverage of Environmental Movements ........................................................... 28 Media Coverage of Mountaintop Removal ................................................................... 31 Print Media and Issue Salience ..................................................................................... 33 Reporting on the Environment ...................................................................................... 34 Chapter 3: Methods ........................................................................................................... 37 Chapter 4: Findings ........................................................................................................... 42 Media Frames ................................................................................................................ 42 Protest/Arrest Frame .................................................................................................. 42 Legal Frame ............................................................................................................... 46 Industry Frame ........................................................................................................... 52 Education Frame ........................................................................................................ 54 Mountain Justice Summer Information Frame .......................................................... 57 Community Activism Frame ..................................................................................... 59 Government Frame .................................................................................................... 59 Media Outlet and Section .............................................................................................. 60 Media Outlets ............................................................................................................ 60 Sections ...................................................................................................................... 64 Audience Frames ........................................................................................................... 70 Letters to the Editor ................................................................................................... 70 vi Editorials .................................................................................................................... 73 Public Opinion and the Environment ............................................................................ 75 Chapter 5: Analysis and Discussion ................................................................................. 77 Media Frames of Mountain Justice Summer................................................................. 77 Media Frames of Mountaintop Removal ...................................................................... 80 Audience Frames ........................................................................................................... 81
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Massey Energy Co
    Case 5:10-cv-00689 Document 83 Filed 03/11/11 Page 1 of 170 PageID #: 1266 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF WEST VIRGINIA AT BECKLEY In re MASSEY ENERGY CO. ) Civil Action No. 5: 1 0-cv-00689 SECURITIES LITIGATION ) ) CLASS ACTION ) This Document Relates To: ) The Honorable Irene C. BerBergerg ) ALL ACTIONS Jury Trial Demanded ) CONSOLIDATED AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT FOR VIOLATIONS OF THE FEDERAL SECURITIES LAWS Case 5:10-cv-00689 Document 83 Filed 03/11/11 Page 2 of 170 PageID #: 1267 TABLE OF CONTENTS GLOSSARY v I. NATURE AND SUMMARY OF THE ACTION 13 A. Fallout from the 2006 Fire at Massey’s Alma No. 1 Mine 14 B. Massey Created a New Corporate Image to Lure Investors by Purporting to Implement Safety Improvement Initiatives 17 C. Notwithstanding its Purported Safety Improvement Initiatives, Massey Prioritized Production Over Safety During the Class Period, Culminating in the Disaster at Upper Big Branch 18 D. After the Explosion, Criminal and Civil Investigations Revealed Deceptive Tactics Used by Massey to Cover Up its Safety-Last Approach to Coal Mining During the Class Period 20 E. Massey Restates its Critical NFDL Safety Metric and Blankenship Resigns 23 II. JURISDICTION AND VENUE 25 III. PARTIES 25 A. Plaintiffs 25 B. Massey 26 C. The Officer Defendants 26 D. The Director Defendants 28 IV. FACTUAL BACKGROUND AND SUBSTANTIVE ALLEGATIONS 32 A. Massey and its Subsidiaries 32 B. Blankenship’s Rise to Power and Reign at Massey 35 C. Before the Class Period, Massey Was Embroiled in Criminal and Civil Litigation Arising from Unlawful Safety Practices in 2006 37 D.
    [Show full text]
  • Alpha Complaint
    Case 2:14-cv-11609 Document 1 Filed 03/05/14 Page 1 of 32 PageID #: 1 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF WEST VIRGINIA CHARLESTON DIVISION UNITED STATES OF AMERICA; the STATE OF WEST ) VIRGINIA by and through the WEST VIRGINIA ) DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION; the ) PENNSYLVANIA DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL ) PROTECTION; and the COMMONWEALTH OF ) KENTUCKY by and through the KENTUCKY ENERGY ) AND ENVIRONMENT CABINET ) ) Plaintiffs, ) ) v. ) ) Civil Action No. ________2:14-11609 ALPHA NATURAL RESOURCES, INC.; ALPHA ) APPALACHIA HOLDINGS, INC.; ALEX ENERGY, INC.; ) ALPHA PA COAL TERMINAL, LLC; AMFIRE MINING ) COMPANY, LLC; ARACOMA COAL CO., INC.; ) COMPLAINT BANDMILL COAL CORP.; BELFRY COAL CORP.; BIG ) BEAR MINING CO.; BROOKS RUN MINING COMPANY, ) LLC; BROOKS RUN SOUTH MINING LLC; CLEAR FORK ) COAL CO.; CUMBERLAND COAL RESOURCES, LP; ) DELBARTON MINING CO.; DICKENSON-RUSSELL ) COAL COMPANY, LLC; DUCHESS COAL CO.; EAGLE ) ENERGY, INC.; ELK RUN COAL CO., INC.; EMERALD ) COAL RESOURCES, LP; ENTERPRISE MINING ) COMPANY, LLC; GOALS COAL CO.; GREYEAGLE ) COAL CO.; HARLAN RECLAMATION SERVICES LLC; ) HERNDON PROCESSING CO., LLC; HIGHLAND MINING ) CO.; INDEPENDENCE COAL COMPANY, INC.; JACKS ) BRANCH COAL CO.; KANAWHA ENERGY CO.; KEPLER ) PROCESSING CO., LLC; KINGSTON MINING, INC.; ) KINGWOOD MINING CO., LLC; KNOX CREEK COAL ) CORP.; LITWAR PROCESSING CO., LLC; MARFORK ) COAL CO.; MARTIN COUNTY COAL CORP.; NEW ) RIDGE MINING CO.; OMAR MINING CO.; PARAMONT ) COAL COMPANY VIRGINIA, LLC; PAYNTER BRANCH ) MINING,
    [Show full text]
  • Will Massey Energy Company Suffer Severe Penalties in Clean Water Act Case?
    A BNA, INC. DAILY ! ENVIRONMENT REPORT Reproduced with permission from Daily Environment Report, Vol. 2007, No. 186, 09/26/2007, pp. B1 - B6. Copyright ஽ 2007 by The Bureau of National Affairs, Inc. (800-372-1033) http://www.bna.com ENFORCEMENT CLEAN WATER ACT When Wall Street analysts calculated the statutory maximum civil penalty in a Clean Wa- ter Act case against Massey Energy Company and several affiliated companies, a great deal of negative ‘‘buzz’’ was generated because of the potential magnitude of the fine, according to the author of this article. However, the author says the courts have been very reluctant to impose statutory maximum penalties. In this article, the author provides background on the issues in the case and, based on his experience as a consultant in these matters, offers his view of how the penalty actually will be calculated. Will Massey Energy Company Suffer Severe Penalties in Clean Water Act Case? BY ROBERT H. FUHRMAN conclusion. Even assuming the government is success- ful in its assertion of liability, my opinion, which I ex- all Street analysts and media reports have sug- plain in detail below, is that the likely penalty is in the gested Massey Energy Company faces a poten- range of $1.5 million to $7 million if this case is adjudi- W tial liability of $2.4 billion for alleged violations cated. of the Clean Water Act.1 I was retained by the company to assess its liability and have reached a far different Case Background 1 This figure appeared in several publications, including On May 10, 2007, in the U.S.
    [Show full text]
  • Consent Decree: United States of America V. Massey Energy Company, Et Al., Civil Action No. 2:07-0299
    IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF WEST VIRGINIA ) UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) Civil Action No. 2:07-0299 ) Hon . John T . Copenhaver, Jr. MASSEY ENERGY COMPANY, et al ., ) ) CONSENT DECREE Defendants . ) ) TABLE OF CONTENTS I . BACKGROUND . ..... .... .... ... .. .. .... ..... .... ... ... ... ..... ... .-1­ II . JURISDICTION AND VENUE . ..... .... .. .. ... .... .... .. .... -2­ III . APPLICABILITY . ..... .... .. ... .. ... ... .... ... ... .. ... .... ... ... -2­ IV . DEFINITIONS . ..... .... .... ..... ... .. .. .:... ..... ... ... ... .... ..... .... -3­ V. CIVIL PENALTY ... ... ... .. .... ... ... ... .... .... ... .... .... ... ...... .... -7­ VI . COMPLIANCE REQUIREMENTS . ... .... ... .... ..... ... ... .... ... .. .... .... -8­ VII . INJUNCTIVE RELIEF . .... ..... ... ... .. ... ..... .... ..... ... ... ..... -12­ VIII . ADDITIONAL INJUNCTIVE RELIEF .. ... ... ... .. ... ... .. .. .... -20­ IX . REPORTING REQUIREMENTS . .... .... .... .... .... .... ..... .... ... .... .... -21­ X. STIPULATED PENALTIES . ..... .... .. ... ..... .... ... .. ... .... .... -27­ XI . FORCE MAJEURE . ...... ..... ... ... ... ... .. .. .... ...... .... :.. ..... .... .-31­ XII . DISPUTE RESOLUTION . ...... ... .... ... .. ... .. ... ... .... .... .. .. -34­ XIII . INFORMATION COLLECTION AND RETENTION ... .... ....... ..... ..... ., . -37­ XIV. EFFECT OF SETTLEMENT/RESERVATION OF RIGHTS . ....... .... .... ... -39­ XV. COSTS . .... .. .... ..... ... .... .... ...... ... .... .... ... -41­ XVI. NOTICES
    [Show full text]
  • Twists and Turns in Ancient Roads: As Unidentified
    CLIMATE CHANGE AND THE WAR ON COAL: EXPLORING THE DARK SIDE Patrick Charles McGinley∗ To see coal purely as a gift from God overlooks the many dangerous strings attached to that gift. Similarly, to see it as just an environmental evil would be to overlook the undeniable good that accompanies that evil. “Failing to recognize both sides of coal—the vast power and the exorbitant costs—misses the essential, heartbreaking drama of the story.1 TABLE OF CONTENTS Introduction ............................................................................................... 256 I. Coal at the Millennium .......................................................................... 258 II. History of Coal ..................................................................................... 262 A. Early History .................................................................................... 262 B. Coal and the Industrial Age .............................................................. 262 C. Coal and Industrialization in the United States ................................ 263 III. Coal’s Dark Side: Examining its Externalities .................................... 265 A. The Socio-Economic Costs of Coal Mining and Burning ................ 266 1. Industrial Awakening in the Coalfields .............................. 266 ∗ Professor McGinley is the “Judge Charles H. Haden II Professor of Law” at West Virginia University. In the print version of Volume 13 Issue 2, the Vermont Journal of Environmental Law mistakenly inserted the name of a purported "co-author."
    [Show full text]
  • Massey Energy Company 2007 Annual Report Any X 26765
    Massey Energy Company Energy Massey 2007 MAssEy EnERgy CoMpAny Annual Report p.o. BoX 26765 RICHMonD, VA 23261 (804) 788-1800 Meet the energy behind massey energy Massey energy coMpany 2007 annual report finanCial highlights shareholder information Year Ended December 31, (In millions, except per share, per ton Common Stock Information Comparison of Cumulative Total Return for the and number of employees amounts) 2007 2006 2005 2004 2003 at February 15, 2008, there were 80,491,644 shares Period December 31, 2002 to December 31, 2007 outstanding and approximately 6,800 shareholders $ 800 Consolidated Statement of Income Data of record of Massey energy’s common stock. $ 700 produced coal revenue $ 2,054.4 $ 1,902.3 $ 1,777.7 $ 1,456.7 $ 1,262.1 Registrar and Transfer Agent $ 600 Total revenue SM 2,413.5 2,219.9 2,204.3 1,766.6 1,571.4 Wells Fargo Shareowner Services $ 500 Income (Loss) before interest and Shareowner relations Department $ 400 income taxes 179.7 111.0 (20.9) 46.2 (17.5) p.o. Box 64854 Income (Loss) before cumulative effect St. paul, Mn 55164-0854 $ 300 of accounting change 94.1 41.6 (101.6) 13.9 (32.3) For change of address, lost dividends or lost stock $ 200 net income (loss) 94.1 41.0 (101.6) 13.9 (40.2) certificates, write or telephone: $ 100 Income (Loss) per share – Basic Wells Fargo Bank, n.a. $ 0 p.o. Box 64874 Income (Loss) before cumulative effect 12/02 12/03 12/04 12/05 12/06 12/07 of accounting change $ 1.17 $ 0.51 $ (1.33) $ 0.18 $ (0.43) St.
    [Show full text]
  • Response of Omar Mining Company, A.T
    NORMA ACORD, ::<L 'RORY L. PERRY II, CLERK West Virginia Residents, f SUPREME COURT OF APPEALS Plaintiffs and Class Representatives, ~~l,~,j·:' OF WEST VIRGINIA Plaintiff/Petitioner, v. Appeal No. ______ Civil Action No. 04-C-lSl-0 CO LANE COMPANY, a West Virginia Circuit Court of Logan County corporation, individually and as a successor-in-interest to Cole & Crane Real Estate Trust; COAL & CRANE REAL ESTATE TRUST, a West Virginia trust; LOGAN COUNTY BOARD OF EDUCATION, a West Virginia public body; WEST VIRGINIA COAL & COKE COMPANY, a West Virginia corporation, OMAR MINING COMPANY, a West Virginia corporation, individually and as successor-in-interest to West Virginia Coal & Coke Company; A.T. MASSEY COAL COMPANY, a West Virginia corporation, individually and as a successor-in-interest to West Virginia Coal & Coke Company; MASSEY ENERGY COMPANY, a Virginia corporation, individually and as a successor-in-interest to West Virginia Coal & Coke Company; RICHARD FRY, a West Virginia resident, individually, Defendants/Respondents. RESPONSE OF OMAR MINING COMPANY, A.T. MASSEY COAL COMPANY, INC., AND MASSEY ENERGY COMPANY TO PETITION FOR APPEAL Daniel L. Stickler (WVSB # 3613) Jonathan L. Anderson (WVSB # 9628) JACKSON KELL Y PLLC 1600 Laidley Tower Charleston, West Virginia 25301 (304) 340-1000 Counsel for Respondents Omar Mining Company, A. T. Massey Coal Company, Inc., and Massey Energy Company {C1863023.1 } TABLE OF CONTENTS I. INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................... 1 II. KIND OF PROCEEDING AND NATURE OF RULING BELOW .................................. .2 III. STATEMENT OF FACTS .................................................................................................. 3 A. Historical Background ............................................................................................. 3 1. 1920-1954: Coal & Coke's Operations in the Island Creek Valley ............. 3 2.
    [Show full text]
  • Winds of Change the Newsletter of The
    Winds of Change the newsletter of the June 2010 Ohio Valley Environmental Coalition E Huntington, WV www.ohvec.org Victory! Passing Stronger Cemetery Legislation by Robin Blakeman operations and other land-altering After at least three years of activities. trying to more effectively protect During our first three years cemeteries, we finally did it! This year, of work, four separate bills were at OVEC’s urging, citizens and introduced; none resulted in new members of the faith community joined legislation, but all increased elected forces in lobbying for the passage of officials’ awareness of the need to HB 4457, which improves cemetery protect cemeteries. protection throughout West Virginia. We built allies within faith Our efforts to protect community groups and other cemeteries were sparked by an organizations, such as genealogical increasing number of reports of societies and the WV Perpetual cemetery desecration and blocked Care Cemetery Board. Prominent access to family cemeteries. representatives from Catholic, Many of the access and Episcopalian, Methodist, Unitarian desecration complaints are related to and Presbyterian faith groups lent mountaintop removal operations, but support. For the past two years, there are statewide problems with the WV Council of Churches has protecting cemeteries from natural gas endorsed the need for improved cemetery protection Anderson “Devil Anse” legislation in its legislative Supreme Court Pilot Project Approved Hatfield’s grave is just one policy guide. of hundreds in WV by Carol Warren During the 2009 overshadowed by MTR Coalition partners of WV Citizens for Clean WV legislative interims, a Elections were very encouraged when Governor Manchin mining operations (center announced in his State of the State address that he planned background).
    [Show full text]
  • MASSEY ENERGY COMPANY (Exact Name of Registrant As Specified in Its Charter)
    UNITED STATES SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D. C. 20549 FORM 8-K CURRENT REPORT PURSUANT TO SECTION 13 OR 15(d) OF THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934 Date of report (Date of earliest event reported): April 8, 2010 (April 5, 2010) MASSEY ENERGY COMPANY (Exact Name of Registrant as Specified in Its Charter) Delaware 1-7775 95-0740960 (State of Incorporation) (Commission File Number) (I.R.S. Employer Identification No.) 4 North 4th Street, Richmond, Virginia 23219 (Address of principal executive offices) (Zip Code) Registrant’s telephone number, including area code: (804) 788-1800 N/A (Former name, former address and former fiscal year, if changed since last report date) Check the appropriate box below if the Form 8-K filing is intended to simultaneously satisfy the filing obligation of the registrant under any of the following provisions: Written communications pursuant to Rule 425 under the Securities Act (17 CFR 230.425) Soliciting material pursuant to Rule 14a-12 under the Exchange Act (17 CFR 240.14a-12) Pre-commencement communications pursuant to Rule 14d-2(b) under the Exchange Act (17 CFR 240.14d-2(b)) Pre-commencement communications pursuant to Rule 13e-4(c) under the Exchange Act (17 CFR 240.13e-4(c)) https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/37748/000119312510079731/d8k.htm 9/26/2015 Form 8-K Page 2 of 4 Item 7.01 Regulation FD Disclosure On April 5, 2010, an explosion occurred at the Upper Big Branch mine in Montcoal, West Virginia, operated by our subsidiary, Performance Coal Company. The explosion resulted in 25 fatalities as of the date of this Current Report on Form 8-K (“Form 8-K”).
    [Show full text]
  • To Dance with the Devil: the Social Impact of Mountaintop Removal Surface Coal Mining Shirley Stewart Burns ABSTRACT
    To Dance with the Devil: The Social Impact of Mountaintop Removal Surface Coal Mining Shirley Stewart Burns ABSTRACT Five generations have passed since railroads began to take West Virginia’s bountiful natural-resource treasures of coal and timber to places outside the region, decimating the state’s hardwood forests and diminishing its coal reserves. By 1920, West Virginia’s bountiful hardwood forests had nearly disappeared. The repercussions of constantly extracting resources with no thought of the future consumed those within the region. At the turn of the nineteenth century, West Virginia’s inhabitants learned a difficult lesson about what such a “dance with the devil” could do. In this present struggle, once again balancing economics with community needs for a safe and functioning environment, this generation has now done the same. 4 SHIRLEY STEWART BURNS / TO DANCE WITH THE DEVIL ARTICLE “There are two roads in life, a right one and a wrong one. There is no in-between path to take.” —Pauline Canterberry, resident of Sylvester, West Virginia As the nineteenth century gave way to the twentieth, West Virginia’s rural backcounties experienced a fundamental transformation. Natural-resource speculators pervaded the area; chief among them were the coal and timber industries, along with their handmaiden, the railroad industry. Throughout West Virginia, beautiful hardwood forests came crashing down until, by the 1920s, nearly all of them were gone.1 Railroads penetrated the rugged countryside to whisk the natural treasures of timber and coal away from the state and into the large cities beyond. Older agricultural communities were soon joined by new industrial towns that dotted the landscape for the express purpose of providing a home for workers and their families.
    [Show full text]
  • IN RE MASSEY ENERGY ) Consolidated COMPANY DERIVATIVE and ) C.A
    IN THE COURT OF CHANCERY OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE ) IN RE MASSEY ENERGY ) Consolidated COMPANY DERIVATIVE AND ) C.A. No. 5430-CB CLASS ACTION LITIGATION ) ) OPINION @Xk\ OlYd`kk\[9 B\YilXip 7+ 1/06 @Xk\ @\Z`[\[9 IXp 3+ 1/06 Stuart Grant, Cynthia A. Calder, and Michael T. Manuel of GRANT & EISENHOFFER P.A., Wilmington, Delaware; Mark Lebovitch and David Wales of BERNSTEIN LITOWITZ BERGER & GROSSMANN LLP, New York, New York; Gregory M. Nespole and Benjamin Y. Kaufman of WOLF HALDENSTEIN ADLER FREEMAN & HERZ LLP, New York, New York; Nadeem Faruqi of FARUQI & FARUQI, LLP, New York, New York; Co-Lead Attorneys for Plaintiffs. Kevin G. Abrams, Matthew L. Miller, and Michael A. Barlow of ABRAMS & BAYLISS LLP, Wilmington, Delaware; Ronald S. Rolfe and Julie A. North of CRAVATH, SWAINE & MOORE LLP, New York, New York; Attorneys for Defendants James B. Crawford, Robert H. Foglesong, Richard M. Gabrys, E. Gordon Gee, Bobby R. Inman, Dan R. Moore, Stanley C. Suboleski, and Lady Barbara Thomas Judge. Kenneth J. Nachbar and Ryan D. Stottmann of MORRIS, NICHOLS, ARSHT & TUNNELL LLP, Wilmington, Delaware; William W. Taylor, III and Steven N. Herman of ZUCKERMAN SPAEDER LLP, Washington, DC (on behalf of Don. L. Blankenship); Peter H. White of SCHULTE ROTH & ZABEL LLP, Washington, DC (on behalf of Mark A. Clemens and Jeffrey M. Jarosinski); Stephen E. Baril of KAPLAN VOEKLER CUNNINGHAM & FRANK PLC, Richmond, Virginia; Stephen P. Anthony of COVINGTON & BURLING LLP, Washington, DC (on behalf of Christopher Adkins); Attorneys for Defendants J. Christopher Adkins, Don L. Blankenship, Mark A. Clemens, Jeffrey M.
    [Show full text]
  • Coal Company Blasts Last Intact Mountain in Coal River Valley
    Coal Company Blasts Last Intact Mountain in Coal River Valley SustainableBusiness.com News 11/09/2009 [no author listed] A subsidiary of Massey Energy (NYSE: MEE) has begun mountaintop-removal coal-mining operations on Coal River Mountain in West Virginia, the only peak in Coal River Valley that hasn't been blasted away for mining. Blasting for the mine is taking place 200 yards from the Brushy Fork coal slurry impoundment, which holds 8 billion gallons of toxic coal sludge above the Coal River community. Local and national conservation organizations including the Center for Biological Diversity are asking the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the White House to halt the mining operation. "It is just plain wrong to blow up the last mountain in Coal River Valley and to jeopardize the lives of the people living below the slurry dam. The federal government should intervene and protect this community," said Tierra Curry, a biologist at the Center. Citizens are concerned that blasting could weaken or breach the slurry dam. A coal slurry impoundment owned by a Massey subsidiary failed in 2000, spilling more than 300 million gallons of toxic slurry into the Big Sandy River in Martin County, Kentucky. In 1972, 125 people were killed by a 132-million-gallon slurry spill in Logan County, West Virginia. At 3,300 feet, Coal River Mountain is the tallest mountain ever to undergo mountaintop-removal mining. Massey Energy plans to blast away 6,600 acres of the mountain and fill in 18 streams with toxic mining waste, the Center for Biological Diversity said.
    [Show full text]