LIGHTS, CAMERA, ACTION: HOW HAVE ISSUE-FOCUSED

DOCUMENTARIES INFLUENCED ONLINE PUBLIC ATTENTION, MASS

MEDIA COVERAGE, AND SOCIAL MEDIA CHATTER AROUND THE

ISSUE OF FRACKING?

by

Kelly Jacobs

A thesis submitted to the Faculty of the University of Delaware in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Science in Energy and Environmental Policy

Spring 2020

© 2020 Kelly Jacobs All Rights Reserved

LIGHTS, CAMERA ACTION: HOW HAVE ISSUE-FOCUSED

DOCUMENTARIES INFLUENCED ONLINE PUBLIC ATTENTION, MASS

MEDIA COVERAGE, AND SOCIAL MEDIA CHATTER AROUNDT THE

ISSUE OF FRACKING?

by

Kelly Jacobs

Approved: ______Casey L. Taylor, Ph.D. Professor in charge of thesis on behalf of the Advisory Committee

Approved: ______Lawrence Agbemabiese, Ph.D. Chair of the Department of Energy and Environmental Policy

Approved: ______John A. Pelesko, Ph.D. Dean of the College of Arts and Sciences

Approved: ______Douglas J. Doren, Ph.D. Interim Vice Provost for Graduate and Professional Education and Dean of the Graduate College ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

First and foremost, I would like to thank my advisor, Dr. Casey Taylor, for all of her support and guidance. Through all of the writing and research, she pushed me beyond my limits to critically think outside of the box, which has unquestionably made me a better student. Thank you to Dr. Saleem Ali for helping me come up with the idea for the project and for connecting me with valuable experts. A sincere thank you to my role model Martha Narvaez for supporting me through my entire graduate school career, helping me grow personally and professionally, and giving me some of the best advice I have ever received. It has been such a pleasure working for you these last two years at the Water Resources Center.

To Dr. Jerry Kauffman and Andrew Homsey from the Water Resources Center, thank you for giving me the opportunity to work along side of you on many interesting projects. Thank you to Dr. Will Delavan, my former economics professor at Lebanon

Valley College, for helping me realize my passion for environmental issues and for volunteering to read and edit this entire document. Your mentorship and friendship is greatly appreciated. To my friends and fellow graduate students at UD, thank you for being my support system.

Last but certainly not least, thank you to my family, especially my mom and my sister Lindsey. No words could ever express how much I appreciate all of your love and encouragement.

iii

This manuscript is dedicated to my uncle, John Robinson.

iv TABLE OF CONTENTS

LIST OF TABLES...... vii LIST OF FIGURES...... viii ABSTRACT...... x

Chapter

1 INTRODUCTION ...... 1

1.1 Fracking Technology and Emergence ...... 3 1.2 Controversy ...... 6 1.3 Regulation ...... 8 1.4 Politically Polarizing Issue ...... 13 1.5 Media ...... 14

2 LITERATURE REVIEW ...... 19

2.1 Fracking Politics ...... 19 2.2 Mass Media ...... 23 2.3 Social Media ...... 29 2.4 Documentary Films ...... 31

3 METHODOLOGY ...... 38

3.1 Overview ...... 38 3.2 Timeline ...... 40 3.3 Public Attention ...... 41 3.4 Mass Media ...... 43 3.5 Social Media ...... 44

4 RESULTS ...... 48

4.1 Online Public Attention ...... 48 4.2 Mass Media ...... 54 4.3 Social Media ...... 58

5 DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION ...... 62

5.1 Online Public Attention ...... 62 5.2 Mass Media ...... 66 5.3 Social Media ...... 69 5.4 Conclusion ...... 74

v REFERENCES ...... 78

Appendix

A DETAILED ONLINE PUBLIC ATTENTION GRAPHS...... 88

vi LIST OF TABLES

Table 1.1 Major arguments on both sides of the fracking debate...... 7

Table 1.2 Fracking responsibilities of each level of government...... 13

Table 2.1 Sample measures for dimensions of impact (Barrett and Leddy, 2008)...... 36

Table 3.1 Example tweets according to agree, neutral, and disagree codes...... 45

Table 3.2 Example tweets according to the six framing codes...... 47

Table 4.1 Average web search popularity for Gasland, Gasland 2, and FrackNation...... 51

Table 4.2 Average YouTube search popularity for Gasland, Gasland 2, and FrackNation...... 52

Table 4.3 Total number of national newspaper mentions for Gasland, Gasland 2, and FrackNation (LexisNexis)...... 57

Table 4.4 Position results for Gasland tweets...... 58

Table 4.5 Position results for Gasland 2 tweets...... 58

Table 4.6 Position results for FrackNation tweets...... 59

Table 4.7 Framing results for Gasland tweets...... 60

Table 4.8 Framing results for Gasland 2 tweets...... 60

Table 4.9 Framing results for FrackNation tweets...... 60

vii LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 1.1 The hydraulic fracturing process (Beebeejaun, 2013)...... 4

Figure 1.2 Current and prospective shale plays (EIA, 2011)...... 5

Figure 1.3 Local opposition to fracking measured by legislation passed (FracTracker, 2018)...... 11

Figure 1.4 Local opposition to fracking measured by the number of existing advocacy groups (FracTracker, 2018)...... 12

Figure 2.1 Ideological slant of 36 popular news sources (Mitchell et al., 2014)..... 25

Figure 2.2 Dimensions of social impact of documentary films (Barrett and Leddy, 2008)...... 35

Figure 4.1 Web search comparison between Gasland 2, FrackNation, and “fracking”...... 49

Figure 4.2 YouTube search comparison between Gasland 2, FrackNation, and “fracking”...... 50

Figure 4.3 Web search comparison between Gasland, Gasland 2, and FrackNation...... 51

Figure 4.4 YouTube search comparison between Gasland, Gasland 2, and FrackNation...... 52

Figure 4.5 Web and YouTube searches for Gasland and “fracking” (Vasi et al., 2015)...... 53

Figure 4.6 National newspaper mentions of Gasland 2, April 2013 to April 2016 (LexisNexis)...... 55

Figure 4.7 National newspaper mentions of FrackNation, January 2013 to January 2016 (LexisNexis)...... 56

viii Figure 4.8 National newspaper mentions of Gasland and “fracking” (Vasi et al., 2015)...... 57

Figure 4.9 Position results for Gasland, Gasland 2, and FrackNation...... 59

Figure 4.10 Framing results for Gasland, Gasland 2, and FrackNation...... 61

ix ABSTRACT

Over the course of the last several decades, documentary filmmaking has become a popular method of calling attention to social issues and changing public perception. One of many environmental issues that have been explored by documentarians is hydraulic fracturing, or fracking for short. Gasland, Gasland 2, and

FrackNation are three examples of fracking-focused documentaries that were created to highlight the debate surrounding natural gas drilling. In order to understand what level of social impact these documentaries received, online public attention, mass media coverage, and social media chatter related to the Gasland and FrackNation documentaries are explored in this study. Using Google Trends and the LexisNexis database, web searches, YouTube searches, and national newspaper mentions of all three documentaries are counted over a three-year time period following each premier.

Additionally, 900 tweets are analyzed for affect and framing. The findings suggest that both of the Gasland documentaries received more online public attention and mass media coverage than FrackNation. Twitter users were more likely to agree than disagree with the message of the films, and users frequently expressed emotional responses to all three documentaries. The producers of Gasland, Gasland 2, and

FrackNation succeeded in creating films that generated online public attention and discussion on social media and within mass media about the issue of fracking. While

x Gasland resulted in social and policy change, Gasland 2 and FrackNation did not rise to the same level of social impact. Rather, Gasland 2 contributed to a stronger anti- fracking movement, while FrackNation contributed to a stronger pro-fracking movement.

xi Chapter 1

INTRODUCTION

The Internet has changed how people consume news. Rather than relying on local newspapers, people have turned to online news outlets, smartphone apps, and social media to learn about current events. A Pew Research Center study concluded that 20% of American adults often use social media to get their news, while only 16% still read print newspapers (Shearer, 2018). The same study indicated that 43% of

American adults regularly utilize either news websites or social media to read the news. The shift from traditional news platforms, such as television reporting and print, to online platforms has arguably made it more convenient for people to stay informed.

Easy accessibility and frequent use of the World Wide Web has unquestionably changed how human beings living in the developed world gather and process information and interact with each other.

One of the numerous political, economic, and social issues that regularly receive media attention is the environment. Topics such as global climate change, deforestation, natural disasters, and energy issues such as hydraulic fracturing are frequently covered. The media plays an important role in reporting on the environment because most Americans learn about these issues through television (88%), newspapers (71%), and the Internet (65%) (Leiserowitz, Smith, & Marlon, 2010).

1 Therefore, online news outlets have an important responsibility when it comes to correctly informing their audience about environmental science and policy.

In addition to learning about environmental issues via Internet sources, social media has greatly contributed to social mobilization. Social media platforms such as

Facebook, YouTube, Twitter, and Instagram have been used extensively to generate support for environmental campaigns (Dosemagen, 2016). Environmental and scientific organizations post media content including pictures, videos, info graphics, personal interviews, and more to raise awareness about specific environmental issues.

For example, NASA launched their ‘Adopt the Planet’ campaign in 2017 to educate the public about our global environment, including air and water quality, surface temperature, and change in land cover (Hille, 2017). More generally, environmental groups routinely post news stories and videos that support their respective mission.

The Environmental Defense Fund, for example, has a Facebook page that consists of stories related to endangered species, deforestation, sustainable consumption behavior, and more (Environmental Defense Fund, 2020). Since people spend a significant amount of time using social media daily, posting informational content may act as a catalyst for education (Salim, 2019).

Social media is utilized to connect people locally, regionally, nationally, and globally (Schaefer, 2017; King, 2011). Social media provides an easy platform, as long as Internet connection exists in your area, to engage with like-minded individuals and even argue with people who hold differing opinions (Graells-Garrido et al., 2013).

Dosemagen argues that social media has become a means of participation in

2 environmental decision-making and allows people to discuss local environmental issues in terms of the larger, global context (2016).

In addition to social media platforms, issue-focused documentaries have become a popular method of spreading awareness about social and environmental issues. Documentaries have been around since the beginning of the twentieth century, but it was not until the late 1990’s that documentaries became a major category in the film industry (Dirks, n.d.). Although documentaries are viewed as a form of entertainment, documentary filmmakers strive to share important information and educate the public through their work. Some hold the view that documentary films are replacing newspapers as the dominant source of investigative journalism (Gompertz,

2012).

1.1 Fracking Technology and Emergence

Over the last two decades, one of the environmental challenges that has received increased media attention is natural gas extraction. Natural gas extraction through a process known as hydraulic fracturing, or fracking for short, has increased dramatically since the late 1990’s (Lallanilla, 2018). Fracking is a process whereby a mixture of sand, water, and various chemicals is pumped down a well at extremely high pressure to create small cracks in a shale formation and release natural gas. The hydraulic fracturing process is different than conventional oil drilling because it involves a vertical, then horizontal drilling process to capture as much natural gas as

3 possible (Stephenson, 2015). The typical fracking process is illustrated in Figure 1.1 below.

Figure 1.1 The hydraulic fracturing process (Beebeejaun, 2013)

Although fracking technology was invented in the 1940’s, it was not until 1981 that hydraulic fracturing became popular (Gertner, 2013). Fracking is geographically

4 limited to regions that lie on top of shale formations – in the United States, the

Marcellus, Bakken, and Barnett shale basins are three of the largest areas of fracking activity. These basins have made Texas, Pennsylvania, North Dakota, and Wyoming the most active in the use of fracking. Figure 1.2 below depicts the current and prospective shale plays, or areas of shale rock with similar geological characteristics, for natural gas extraction.

Figure 1.2 Current and prospective shale plays (EIA, 2011)

5 1.2 Controversy

Politically, fracking has become a controversial practice. Frequently cited concerns with respect to fracking include, but are not limited to, air pollution, water contamination, public health, wastewater disposal, noise and light pollution, and seismic activity (APHA, 2012). Since the fracking process involves drilling deep into the Earth’s surface near the water table, there have been highly publicized cases of well contamination. Following the extraction process, residual natural gas may also leak into the groundwater, resulting in methane contamination. Osborn et al. (2011) concluded that methane concentration in water wells within a one-kilometer radius from fracking sites were 17 times higher than the average. Water contamination and air pollution as a result of fracking have led to various health concerns for those living in close proximity to drilling sites, as well as natural gas industry employees (National

Institute, 2019). Extensive research into the environmental externalities associated with fracking has documented these impacts, but the public health evidence is still limited (APHA, 2012). Since fracking is a relatively new process with little regulatory oversight, opponents argue that the natural gas industry should take time to address these concerns in order to protect human health and environmental quality (Hadavi,

2020).

Despite the potential health and environmental ramifications, the economics make fracking an attractive energy option in the United States. The price of natural gas has decreased with the implementation of fracking and is now competitive with coal and oil (McElroy & Lu, 2013). The U.S. has reduced its dependence on foreign energy

6 sources through increased domestic natural gas production (U.S. Energy Information

Administration, 2019). Furthermore, the natural gas industry employs thousands of

Americans and provides tax income and other economic benefits to communities where drilling takes place (American Exploration & Production Council, 2019). In addition to rig drillers, the natural gas industry indirectly employs truck drivers, engineers, and operations management (Bureau, 2018). Since natural gas is cleaner burning compared to coal and oil, proponents argue that natural gas can be used as a transition fuel between carbon intensive fossil fuels and renewable energy (Losz &

Elkind, 2019). In general, supporters claim that natural gas will positively contribute to the domestic economy, decrease unemployment, and reduce the nation’s carbon footprint in order to combat global climate change (Rinkesh, 2016). Table 1.1 summarizes the major arguments in favor of and in opposition to the fracking process.

Table 1.1 Major arguments on both sides of the fracking debate

Pros Cons Positively contributes to national economy Risk of water and air pollution Reduces dependence on foreign oil Potential human health impacts Cleaner burning than other fossil fuels Noise and light pollution Provides jobs Water consumption and disposal Lower energy costs Seismic activity Economic benefits to landowners and local communities Contributes to global climate change

7 1.3 Regulation

Environmental federalism refers to the shared authority among different levels of government over different aspects of environmental issues (Oates, 2009). While there are numerous benefits of a federalist system, such as diffusing power and greater expertise of local conditions, there are also several drawbacks (Wiseman, 2014).

Dividing environmental regulation responsibilities between federal, state, and local government can be inconsistent and confusing. For example, the Environmental

Protection Agency (EPA) is responsible for setting national standards for environmental factors such as clean water and air quality, and the states assume responsibility for enforcing these standards. However, the federal government can step in if the states are not fulfilling their implementation and enforcement duties (Toupin,

2019).

With respect to environmental issues, it is common for the federal government to give states specific regulatory responsibilities and funding while they act as the watchdog to ensure that policy is being enforced (Warner & Shapiro, 2013). As an energy issue and one of local land use, fracking generally falls under state and local jurisdiction. The practice, may, however, lead to federal action if it is deemed to be a violation of federal environmental policies. However, a 2004 study conducted by the

EPA found that there was no direct link between the process of hydraulic fracturing and environmental degradation (Davis, 2012), and fracking has been exempt from environmental protections outlined in the Safe Drinking Water Act, Clean Water Act,

Clean Air Act, and National Environmental Policy Act (Mall, 2013). Through the

8 “Halliburton Loophole,” in the Energy Policy Act of 2005, the EPA had no authority over the practice of fracking.

The 34 states across the U.S. that allow oil and gas drilling vary in how they approach regulating the industry (FracTracker, 2017). New York has banned fracking, whereas Pennsylvania has embraced relatively lenient regulations in order to capitalize on the newfound natural resource wealth (Cielec, 2019). State governments must balance the economic, social, and environmental interests of constituents with the respective state’s economic development and energy needs.

Local governments also play an important role in the day-to-day operations of the natural gas industry. Although states are the major political players when it comes to fracking regulation, localities at the municipal level exert authority over relevant zoning issues. Before the drilling process begins, natural gas companies must obtain leases from landowners and permits from the locality depending on various mandates.

The West Virginia Department of Environmental Protection, for example, requires extraction companies to obtain at least seven separate permits before drilling (West

Virginia Rivers, n.d.).

In addition to the permitting process, local governments can establish numerous rules that affect the operation and location of wells. Localities have the authority to set a minimum distance between drilling sites and residential areas and may require the use of sound barriers to reduce noise pollution (Ground Water, 2009).

Individual municipalities can go as far as placing a moratorium or outright ban on fracking within its borders. For example, although Pennsylvania has become a hotspot

9 for natural gas extraction, towns and cities including Pittsburgh and State College have banned fracking (Food & Water Watch, 2019). If a community is worried about the potential hazards of fracking, then municipalities can use various legal means, including ballot measures, to temporarily or permanently stop fracking in the area.

More than 400 cities and municipalities across 20 states have enacted a ban or moratorium through local legislation (Mufson, 2014). Figures 1.3 and 1.4 depict local opposition to fracking measured by legislation passed, including bans, moratoria, ordinances, and resolutions, and the number of existing advocacy groups as of 2018.

Whereas bans and moratoria are self-explanatory, “interest” in Figure 1.3 refers to the publicly expressed interest in passing legislation to stop fracking in a community, measured by the Food & Water Watch (FracTracker, 2018).

10

Figure 1.3 Local opposition to fracking measured by legislation passed (FracTracker, 2018)

11

Resistance movements

1:36,978,595 JanuaryFigure 14, 2020 1.4 Local opposition to fracking measured by the number of existing advocacy 0 250 500 1,000 mi Advocacy groups groups (FracTracker, 2018) 0 385 770 1,540 km Sources: Esri, HERE, Garmin, Intermap, increment P Corp., GEBCO, USGS,

FTKaren

The lack of federal oversight has resulted in states and localities fighting for

power to regulate the natural gas industry. For example, Denton, Texas established a

ban on fracking within city limits, which is being challenged in the Texas court system

(Fitzgereald, 2017). Table 1.2 below summarizes the fracking responsibilities of each

level of government.

12

Table 1.2 Fracking responsibilities of each level of government

Federal Level State Level Local Level Power dependent upon Limited role Chief regulators the states Exemptions from major Varies in terms of whom & Can establish local rules, environmental regulations what risks are regulated bans, & moratoria Oversees chemical disclosure, Oversees zoning, some water use, health considerations, permitting, community environmental permitting, etc. engagement, etc.

1.4 Politically Polarizing Issue

Fracking has unquestionably become a partisan issue. According to a Pew

Research Center survey, political ideology or party was the strongest predictor of an

individual’s perspective on fracking (Rainie et al., 2015). The major opponents to

fracking are those who value the environment and/or tend to favor politically liberal

policies (Gearhart et al., 2019). The Democratic Party’s platform includes working to

address global climate change and promoting renewable energy alternatives (DNC,

2016). Consequently, several 2020 Democratic presidential candidates, including

Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren, have publicly supported a nationwide fracking

ban (Uhrmacher et al., 2019). However, Uhrmacher et al. also points out that all

Democratic candidates in the current presidential election agree that additional

regulation must be implemented to ensure that the fracking process is completed

safely.

13 Fracking supporters, on the other hand, typically include those who prioritize achieving energy independence and economic growth, which tend to be more conservative goals. The Republican Party believes that producing affordable and reliable energy, primarily oil and natural gas, is key to economic prosperity (RNC,

2016). Furthermore, members of the modern GOP have generally been less supportive of environmental protection. Since assuming office in 2016, President Donald Trump has encouraged the expansion of natural gas and coal production in order to eliminate energy imports through taking executive action and rolling back environmental regulations (Greshko et al., 2019). Although Republicans and Democrats have different values when it comes to the nation’s economic, energy, and environmental needs, both sides have become entrenched in their individual views. The politically polarizing gap between the two major parties is the largest it has ever been (Pew

Research Center, 2017). This stark partisan divide is one of the reasons why reaching a compromise seems untenable and people on both sides of the debate are so passionate (Mooney, 2014).

1.5 Media

Newspaper articles, news broadcasting, radio talk shows, television, films, websites, and social media have all contributed to the natural gas drilling narrative. In the context of traditional news platforms, fracking is reported on at the national, regional, and local levels. Research has shown that discussions around fracking in both mass media and social media are framed in one of two ways – people either focus

14 on the economic benefits or the environmental risks (Matthews & Hansen, 2018). The media has played a significant role in educating the public about fracking news on a national scale as well as what is going on in their local neighborhoods (Matthews &

Hansen, 2018).

Several documentaries about energy production have been released over the last decade that coincides with the fracking boom. Documentaries have been utilized as an informative resource to generate social change (Finneran, n.d.). An early example that shed light on global climate change, An Inconvenient Truth, was released in 2006. Since then, documentaries such as Gasland (2010), The Sky is Pink (2012),

Gasland Part II (2013), FrackNation (2013), and Triple Divide (2013) were produced to bring attention to the natural gas industry’s practices. While most of these documentaries focus on the negative externalities of natural gas extraction,

FrackNation provides a supportive view toward the technology. Depending on various factors such as timing and budget, such issue-focused documentaries have the potential to significantly impact public perception and policy decisions (Barrett and

Leddy, 2008).

Gasland generated controversy after airing on HBO in June 2010. The film’s producer, Josh Fox, decided to create the film after being offered $100,000 for the drilling rights to his property located on the border of Pennsylvania and New York within the Delaware River Basin. Gasland follows the stories of several communities spread across the country. In a series of interviews, residents of these small, rural towns explain how their lives have been negatively impacted by fracking in their

15 neighborhoods. One of the most controversial aspects of the documentary is its footage of residents lighting their tap water on fire and claiming that methane migration was the cause (Chow, 2013). The documentary also depicts several cases of chronically ill residents as well as dead livestock and vegetation near drilling sites.

Fox received backlash from oil and gas industry supporters for his portrayal of fracking, especially after the film was nominated for an Academy Award in February

2011. Despite the strong opposition, Gasland served Fox’s purpose – to answer the question of what is actually happening in shale gas states (Chow, 2013). The documentary received international attention, airing in more than 30 countries and reaching approximately 50 million viewers (HBO, n.d.).

In 2013, Fox released a follow-up titled Gasland Part II. In it, he revisits families from the original documentary as well as landowners that were newly affected by natural gas drilling, but focuses on the science and politics surrounding fracking. He interviews scientists, engineers, and politicians about their predictions for

America’s energy future and their opinions about the importance of shifting to a renewable energy system.

Filmmakers Phelim McAleer, Ann McHlinney, and Magdalena Segieda released FrackNation in 2013 to address what they perceived to be misinformation and propaganda associated with the anti-fracking movement (FrackNation, 2013).

FrackNation was a direct critique of Gasland (Catsoulis, 2013). There are numerous claims included in Gasland that FrackNation seeks to refute (FrackNation, 2013). One claim they examine is the potential for water contamination due to the fracking

16 process. McAleer also interviewed residents about their experiences living near drilling sites, some of who expressed their dissatisfaction with the media’s portrayal of their relationship with the natural gas industry. FrackNation paints a very different picture of the public response to fracking compared to the Gasland films.

Vasi et al. (2015) addressed how Gasland contributed to the anti-fracking movement. The authors examined Internet searches, social media posts, and newspaper articles in order to determine how Gasland affected public discourse. They concluded that the film led to an increase in online activity about fracking. They also described how local moratoria in the Marcellus Shale states were passed after screenings of Gasland contributed to anti-fracking mobilizations. Other studies have also noted this connection between political documentaries and change in public perception, which may result in policy change (Finneran, n.d.). However, similar analyses of Gasland 2 and FrackNation have not been done since those films were released. This research seeks to assess whether Gasland 2 and FrackNation had a similar impact on public discourse as compared to Gasland. Specifically, did Gasland

2 receive as much online public attention and mass media coverage compared to the original Gasland documentary? Did FrackNation receive as much online public attention and mass media coverage compared to Gasland and Gasland 2? How are people responding to Gasland, Gasland 2, and FrackNation on Twitter?

The goal of this research is to explore how fracking-focused documentaries are perceived online and in the media. Gasland magnified the debate about fracking, motivated anti-fracking mobilization groups, and contributed to policy change (Vasi et

17 al., 2015). Although fracking decisions are often made at the state or local level, the economic and environmental effects have global implications to our energy system

(Melikoglu, 2014). By studying the online response generated by these documentaries, this study will build on the work of Vasi et al. (2015) in order to improve our understanding of the impact political documentaries have had in the fracking debate.

18 Chapter 2

LITERATURE REVIEW

This review provides a summary of the current scholarly literature as it relates to the impacts of politics, mass media, social media, and documentaries on the public discourse of fracking.

2.1 Fracking Politics

Countries spread across the globe have responded to the rise in fracking technology differently. Most of the European Union countries have placed a ban on fracking (Beebeejaun, 2013), while the United States, Canada, and China have utilized fracking technology extensively (Aloulou, 2015). Other countries have also embraced fracking politically, including the United Kingdom and Poland (Beebeejaun, 2013).

Although the U.S. and E.U. share similar democratic values with comparable economic and energy goals, the way they handle fracking policy is very different.

According to Bomberg (2017), there are two major reasons for the transatlantic differences in shale policy – structural factors such as geology, geography, economics, and technology as well as the role of agency. These four structural factors are typically used to determine the viability of drilling. Bomberg argues that the question of who is involved with creating and influencing fracking policy is extremely important. More

American politicians support than oppose fracking, while the opposite is true for

19 policymakers in the E.U. Bomberg identifies prominent pro-fracking actors in the U.S. such as the American Petroleum Institute, the Independent Petroleum Association of

America, America’s Natural Gas Alliance, and the Marcellus Shale Coalition. On the opposite end of the spectrum, local community groups have played a significant role in the anti-fracking movement. Bomberg points out that in addition to local grassroots groups, larger organizations have adopted an anti-fracking perspective, such as

Americans Against Fracking, Food and Water Watch, and Friends of the Earth.

Bomberg also mentions the Gasland documentaries as an important component of the anti-fracking network. While the E.U. is operating under the precautionary principle, the U.S. has adopted a pro-fracking policy mindset because the pro-fracking network has greater reach and resources (Bomberg, 2017). Furthermore, the U.S. policy default is avoiding regulation until the burden of proof is significant enough to impose specific rules and additional costs on the energy industry (Wiener & Rogers, 2002).

Wiener and Rodgers’ findings support Bomberg’s findings, as location, technology, risk aversion, public perception, and agency all play a role in the enactment and enforcement of environmental policy.

As explained by Downs (1972), the “issue attention cycle” may be used to describe American attitudes towards major political issues, including the environment.

The issue attention cycle refers to the situation in which the public becomes increasingly concerned about a specific issue for a relatively short period of time and then interest fades. Downs discusses the five stages of the issue attention cycle – the pre-problem stage, alarmed discovery and euphoric enthusiasm, realizing the cost of

20 significant progress, gradual decline of intense public interest, and the post-problem stage. He argues that as a society, we have moved through the first two stages and are struggling with the reality that solving the environmental crisis is too expensive and complex (1972). Although fracking is just one small part of a much larger issue, the public interest in fracking may be described in a similar manner.

The public perception of natural gas extraction has evolved since the beginning of the fracking boom. Boudet et al. conducted a nationally representative survey study in September 2012 to examine “top of mind associations, familiarity with the issue, levels of support/opposition, and predictors of such judgments” (2014). Researchers concluded that most Americans were unaware of the fracking process, and therefore could not comment on their support or opposition. Despite Gasland’s premier in 2010 and the subsequent attention to the controversial practice, the 2012 survey results suggest that Americans were still learning about fracking. Boudet et al. noted that study participants that did have an opinion were evenly split between supporting and opposing fracking technology. A more recent study by Phillip Macnaghten examined public perception of fracking in the U.S. and U.K. (2017). He concluded that in addition to having concerns about the fracking process itself, citizens are increasingly concerned about government and industry intentions. Furthermore, numerous surveys have been conducted that suggest more Americans oppose fracking than support it

(Swift, 2016; Pew Research Center, 2019; Kaufman, 2019).

Davis and Hoffer (2012) argue that since the beginning of the fracking boom in

2009, the fracking policy agenda has become increasingly controversial. This is

21 because those in favor of fracking technology have argued against a jurisdictional shift from state government to federal agencies, such as the EPA or the Department of the

Interior (2012). State regulators have authority when it comes to most fracking decisions, and the fossil fuel industry considers federal regulation redundant and restrictive due to (Smith and Ferguson, 2013). For the industry, another key principle is the disclosure of fracking fluids. Rather than mandating that natural gas companies disclose proprietary chemicals used in the fracking process, industry actors argue that this information should be shared on a need-to-know basis (Davis and Hoffer, 2012).

Fracking opponents have pushed for shared responsibility between state and federal agencies to ensure that environmental and public health regulations are not being overlooked (Davis and Hoffer, 2012). Smith and Ferguson (2013) also point out that local government plays an important role in fracking policy. Davis and Hoffer further suggest that interstate actors, such as the Delaware River Basin Commission, should become more involved in protecting the environment and carrying out policy.

In addition to mandatory disclosure of fracking chemicals, Davis and Hoffer argue that pieces of the Energy Act of 2005 and the Safe Drinking Water Act should be amended to eliminate the exemption for the natural gas industry. Davis and Hoffer conclude that fracking policy may change according to the ideas presented by these two coalitions based on institutional agenda setting, fluctuations in the political climate, mobilization efforts by interstate actors, and media attention (2012).

22 2.2 Mass Media

Fracking was not a popular topic in the mass media prior to the spring of 2010

(Mazur, 2014). Matthews and Hansen (2018) indicated that the fracking stories that were broadcasted were presented using a “business style” of reporting. Thus, fracking was portrayed as an accepted practice to maintain status quo energy policy in the

United States. After Gasland was released in 2010 and the domestic fracking boom started ramping up, the media coverage of fracking shifted. As local communities and environmentalists began mobilizing, fracking became a controversial issue, and media platforms subsequently started considering various stakeholders’ perspectives in its reporting (Matthews & Hansen, 2018).

Just as there are different levels of government involved in regulation, there also exist different levels of reporting on fracking at the national, regional, and local levels. As discussed in Matthews and Hansen, national media outlets typically include commentary from powerful stakeholders, such as business elites and politicians

(2018). Rather than relying on the voices of advocacy groups and concerned citizens, the national media favors creating a sense of authority and credibility. Local and regional journalism, on the other hand, focuses on the impacts of fracking on a specific area (Johnstone & Mando, 2014). As expected, reporting at the local level is more frequent, more in-depth, and includes the voices of affected residents (Anderson

& Marhadour, 2007). On the rare occasion that a local/regional story gets picked up by the national news, the local journalistic characteristics usually remain intact (Matthews

23 & Hansen, 2018). The geographic context of media outlets is one of several important variables that determine how fracking issues are communicated to news consumers.

The political leaning of media outlets also contributes to how energy issues are portrayed in the news. Mitchell et al. (2014) conducted a study about how political preferences influence news consumption, social media interaction, and conversations about politics with family and friends. The authors concluded that people who identify as politically liberal or conservative subscribe to different media platforms. Mitchell et al. observe that traditional news sources, including cable news and national newspapers, are typically associated with promoting the ideological values of one political party over the other. Fox News is regarded as the dominant conservative media source, with 47% of consistent conservatives tuning in to learn about current events (2014). On the opposite end of the political spectrum, liberals utilize a variety of news platforms including CNN, MSNBC, the New York Times, and the

Washington Post. Media sources that are relatively neutral include CBS News,

Bloomberg, ABC News, and USA Today. As depicted in Figure 2.1 below, Mitchell et al. (2014) ranked 36 popular news sources based on the ideological composition of their respective audience. Identifying bias within the media allows the American public to pick and choose news sources that match their political beliefs.

24

Figure 2.1 Ideological slant of 36 popular news sources (Mitchell et al., 2014)

Media bias that reinforces existing political beliefs creates challenges for policymakers. Levendusky (2013) shows that everyday citizens being exposed to only one side of an issue leads to a decrease in the willingness to compromise, build a consensus, and identify potential solutions. Furthermore, individuals who are politically engaged and regularly consume partisan news are becoming even more extreme in their beliefs (2013). Understanding how the partisan media further

25 contributes to divisiveness in American politics is important to the fracking debate.

Since the primary determinant of an individual’s stance on fracking is political ideology, recognizing media bias and acknowledging the other side of the story is key in promoting objectivity (Rainie et al., 2015). If the mass media strived to share objective information and report on both the benefits and risks, then perhaps fracking would not be such a controversial issue.

Gearhart et al. (2019) conducted a study to assess how the fracking debate was portrayed on cable news outlets. The authors examined fracking news coverage on

CNN, MSNBC, and Fox News from 2010 to 2017, which resulted in several conclusions. First, cable news networks are not properly educating their audiences about the definitional aspects of the fracking process. Thus, Americans are unable to make informed opinions because the information being presented is shallow and subjective. Second, all three cable news outlets were more likely to utilize thematic framing rather than episodic framing when reporting on fracking. Thematic framing is associated with Third, the authors observed that content differed between news networks. Fox News reported on topics such as energy independence, employment opportunities, and economic benefits associated with fracking. MSNBC focused more on the negative externalities, including human health risks and environmental pollution. CNN remained relatively neutral in its reporting. Rather than exclusively report on the advantages or hazards, CNN presented fracking as a controversial issue

(2019).

26 Framing, priming, and agenda-setting are three terms used in media analysis to describe the impact of reporting on public perception and decision-making. For example, Nelson and Kinder (1996) found that new stories about welfare, affirmative action, and AIDS were framed in a way that influenced public opinion and attitudes towards certain groups of people. In simple terms, framing may be defined as the perspective from which a news story is reported on. Framing may be used intentionally to promote partisan media or unintentionally due to time, space, and information constraints (Olive & Delshad, 2017). Priming refers to the idea that framing can be used to modify public perception of an issue, and agenda-setting is successful framing that captures the attention of the public as well as the government

(Entman, 2007). Selective presentation is also used to describe the process of influencing the public’s interpretation of an issue. Media outlets commonly choose which information to report on in order to support their specific argument (Olive &

Delshad, 2017).

The issue of fracking has been framed in several ways. Media outlets tend to report from either a pro-fracking or anti-fracking perspective, and fracking is generally framed in one of two ways – a threat to environmental quality or an opportunity for economic growth (Matthews & Hansen, 2018; Gearhart et al., 2019). Although other aspects of fracking are reported on, these two narratives dominate the fracking discourse. The most common environmental impact covered in American media is water contamination (Olive & Delshad, 2017), while discussion of economic benefits of fracking highlights lower energy costs, employment opportunities, and ancillary

27 benefits (Gearhart et al., 2019). Fracking has also been framed in other ways, including as a matter of national security, a bridge fuel to a renewable energy future, and as a risk to wildlife (Gearhart et al., 2019; Olive & Delshad, 2017). Olive and

Delshad report that the least common frames in American news articles were earthquakes, strict regulation, and reducing greenhouse gas emissions (2017).

Iyengar (2010) defines thematic framing as a general overview of an issue that emphasizes the collective society. Episodic framing, on the other hand, is event- oriented reporting that provides specific examples of an issue and focuses on the individual experience. Episodic news frames are more common (2010). According to

Gearhart et al. (2019) cable news networks are more likely to utilize thematic framing rather than episodic framing when reporting on fracking. Olive & Delshad (2017) also suggest that national newspapers are dominated by macro-scale reporting on fracking, which coincides with thematic framing. However, local news media tend to utilize episodic framing (Matthews & Hansen, 2018). The two major framing techniques have unique consequences. If episodic frames are used more frequently, then it is less likely that the public will expect the government and other civic organizations accountable to solve the issue at hand. If thematic frames are used consistently, then citizens are more likely to perceive the issue as a collective action problem (Iyengar,

2010). In the context of the fracking debate, mass media outlets are sending mixed messages to news consumers through these various framing techniques.

28 2.3 Social Media

Whereas mass media is a top-down approach to spreading the news, social media encourages bottom-up communication (Al-Menayes, 2015). Social media is less commonly utilized to consume and engage with the news than for other purposes such as research and entertainment (Nielsen & Schrøder, 2014). However, social media is changing how people learn about the news. Sharing news via social media has become extremely easy with “repost,” “share,” and “retweet” capabilities. News sharing on social media platforms exposes people who do not normally consume the news to local and global current events. Additionally, social media users may be exposed to news stories that may challenge their personal opinions and political beliefs (Kümpel et al., 2015). Social media can also be used to promote political participation and civic engagement (Kümpel et al., 2015). Loader et al. (2014) reports that younger generations have shied away from the traditional political process, instead choosing to use social media to participate in protests and social movements and voice their political opinions.

Similar to mass media outlets, social media use has led to political polarization

(Bail et al., 2018). Although social media has been a useful tool to share news, one major drawback is that social media platforms create “echo chambers” (Bail et al.,

2018; Garimella & Weber, 2017). This refers to the idea that users reinforce personal beliefs through their social media activity, while avoiding content that contradicts their views. For example, social media users can “unfriend” or “unfollow” peers who post about political topics that differ from their beliefs. According to Garimella and

29 Weber’s Twitter analysis, online political polarization has increased 10-20% over the last several years (2017).

The relationship between social media and social impact has been examined in many studies (Mir & Zaheer, 2012; Eltanawy & Wiest, 2011; Kwahk & Ge, 2012).

Vasi et al. (2015) demonstrated how Twitter has become an important tool within the anti-fracking movement, as users can easily share information and generate opposition to the practice. Hopke (2015) examined Twitter activity associated with Global

Frackdown, an annual international day of action organized by Food and Water Watch to advocate for an outright ban on fracking and an increase in renewable energy technologies. Food and Water Watch is a non-governmental organization that seeks to hold government agencies and corporations accountable for decisions related to food and water (Food & Water Watch, 2020). In this study, more than 9,000 tweets that included “#globalfrackdown” were analyzed for language and framing of the movement, and five general frames were established – movement convergence and solidarity, declarative engagement, targeted engagement, prefabricated messaging, and multilingual tweeting. Hopke concludes that Twitter plays a unique role compared to other Internet-based communications, allowing Global Frackdown activists to tweet in real-time about events and bring together local advocacy groups (2015).

YouTube is another social media outlet relevant to the fracking controversy.

Jaspal et al. (2014) explores how fracking is portrayed in fifty YouTube videos, including news reports, documentary films, homemade videos, and professionally produced marketing material. In addition to the two dominant narratives of risks and

30 benefits, the authors found that YouTube videos also cover the social and psychological challenges associated with natural gas drilling. As a result, Jaspal et al.

(2014) call the original Gasland documentary a “game changer,” since it brings attention to fracking as a human issue rather than an energy issue. As predicted by the authors about their own data, the trailer for Gasland had the most views and comments of the videos analyzed.

2.4 Documentary Films

According to Mandalit Del Barco, we are currently living through the

“undeniable golden age” for documentary filmmaking (2019). At its core, a documentary is a nonfiction film (Eitzen, 1995). In the past, large corporations and government entities funded documentaries for educational purposes, although broadcast television eventually took over in funding, creating, and distributing documentaries (Fraser, 2012). Over the last decade, many independent filmmakers embraced the form, and have turned to streaming platforms, such as Netflix, to promote their work (Osur, 2016).

Plantinga (2005) explains the two traditional categories of a documentary films– Documentary as Indexical Record (DIR) and the Documentary as Assertion

(DA). DIR documentaries are photographs and sound recordings pieced together that reflect traces of reality, which allow viewers to form their own opinions. DA documentaries, on the other hand, may be defined as documentaries that take an assertive stance about how the actual world operates (Platinga, 2005). Plantinga offers

31 a third category, asserted veridical representation (AVR). AVR documentaries are meant to provide a critical perspective of an issue, communicate reliable information, and recreate videography as phenomenological approximations of reality when appropriate (Plantinga, 2005).

Film theorists have discussed the identifying characteristics of documentary films. According to the framework presented by Nichols (2010), the three documentaries can be described as participatory and performative. Participatory documentaries include first-person storytelling and interviews with the subjects.

Performative documentaries emphasize the importance of personal experiences and evoke strong emotion. Gasland, Gasland 2, and FrackNation most closely align with the participatory and performative modes of documentary filmmaking.

Documentary filmmakers can have diverse goals and motivations in their work. Among those goals are to enlighten or educate the audience, provide entertainment, or reveal a hidden truth (Desktop Documentaries, 2013). Another common goal many documentary filmmakers share is to generate social change

(Finneran, n.d.), including changes in policy, behavior, and/or public perception

(Barrett & Leddy, 2008). Documentaries that attempt to generate societal change have certain characteristics. Finneran (n.d.) lists eight considerations for creating a successful documentary that contributes to social change – storytelling, strategy, audience, partnerships, media engagement, resources/funding, evaluation, and distribution.

32 According to Finneran (n.d.), genuine stories that focus on the human experience allow viewers to connect with the subjects, which can trigger emotional responses, generate empathy, and inspire change. Finneran argues that implementing a well-thought out strategy will capture the target audience and alter public perception in the intended manner. Additionally, filmmakers should partner with as many interested parties as possible and utilize media to increase the likelihood of wide-scale public engagement and behavior change. Since documentary filmmaking aimed at generating social change can be expensive, Finneran suggests that funding is another extremely important consideration. Furthermore, once the documentary is created and distributed for public viewing, evaluating the change in perception towards an issue is vital in measuring success. If social change is the goal, then documentarians have numerous variables to consider during the filmmaking process in order to ensure success.

The Fledging Fund published a report in 2008 that summarizes the steps to achieve and assess the magnitude of social change related to documentary films. This report reinforces Finneran’s approach and outlines a six-step methodology with specific metrics to evaluate a documentary’s social impact – compelling story, awareness, engagement, stronger movement, and social change (Barrett & Leddy,

2008). For example, the Fledgling Fund uses participation in facilitated discussions, social media chatter, local campaigns, website hits, and op-eds to measure engagement with a particular documentary. Although these six variables are crucial to creating a successful social impact documentary, Barrett and Leddy (2008) argue that evaluating

33 documentaries in the context of timing, public consciousness, and current culture around the issue is equally important. While only a small number of documentaries lead to concrete policy change, it is important to note that some documentary projects aim to target another dimension of social impact, such as awareness and education or building a stronger movement.

In addition to Barrett and Leddy (2008), several other reports have been published that discuss evaluation techniques for social impact documentaries and reach similar conclusions, such as Chattoo (2014) and Clark and Abrash (2011).

Figure 2.2 depicted below illustrates the six creative media dimensions of impact, and

Table 2.1 outlines the evaluation framework for assessing a documentary’s social impact according to Barrett and Leddy (2008).

34

Compelling Story

Awareness

Engagement

Stronger Movement

Social Change

Figure 2.2 Dimensions of social impact of documentary films (Barrett and Leddy, 2008)

35

Table 2.1 Sample measures for dimensions of impact (Barrett and Leddy, 2008)

Why Important? Sample Measures -Festival acceptance -Theatrical release Foundation for distribution, Compelling -Broadcast/Internet outreach, and community Story -Awards engagement strategies -Film reviews/online buzz -Sales Critical building block for -Audience size Awareness individual and social -Diversity of audience change -Press coverage

Indication of change in -Participation in/response to: attitudes, beliefs, and -Facilitated dialogues Engagement behavior and a shift from -Social network sites awareness to individual -Take action campaigns action -Website hits -Op-eds and response letters -Number of advocacy organizations Evidence that film or utilizing film media can move -Collaboration among organizations individuals to collective Stronger -Viewer part in movement action and strengthen Movement -Screenings with decision/policymakers capacity of advocacy -Mention in policy discussions and organizations in their legislative press strategic work -Longevity of the film/media -Policy/legislative change Social (international, national, state, and local) Ultimate goal Change -Behavior change -Shift in public dialogue

36 Vasi et al. (2015) utilizes Gasland as a case study to assess the social impact that one documentary film had on the issue of fracking. The authors describe documentary films as cultural artifacts that provide discursive opportunities to generate public attention and new political preferences around an issue. In this context, discursive opportunities refer to the instance when social movement ideas reflect what is culturally accepted. After analyzing web and YouTube searches, national newspaper articles, and Twitter data, Vasi et al. concluded that Gasland created more favorable discursive opportunities surrounding the anti-fracking movement at both the national and local levels. There was a strong correlation between online public attention and social media chatter around the issue of fracking and the release of Gasland. However, the documentary did not significantly impact mass media coverage on a large scale. For the first time, a documentary film was proven to influence mobilization and policy change through framing fracking as a risk to human health and environmental quality. Twitter users were able to promote local screenings of the documentary and share information with peers, which directly resulted in communities organizing around anti-fracking efforts. At the national level,

Gasland educated the public about a relatively unknown social issue and made fracking a household term.

37 Chapter 3

METHODOLOGY

This study seeks to extend the work done by Vasi et al. (2015). The overarching goal of this study is to explore the popularity of fracking-focused documentaries, measured using online public attention, mass media coverage, and social media chatter, in comparison to one another.

3.1 Overview

Vasi et al. (2015) utilized two approaches to address the impact of Gasland.

First, how did Gasland influence online public attention, social media chatter, and mass media coverage with respect to fracking? Second, how did local screenings of

Gasland directly and indirectly affect local anti-fracking mobilizations and local policy decisions? While the first analysis measures online media presence on a national scale, researchers chose to focus on the Marcellus Shale states (Pennsylvania,

Ohio, New York, and West Virginia) to measure local impact. Specifically, anti- fracking activist behavior and municipal ordinances in 3,322 cities were observed to assess whether or not Gasland screenings contributed to a change in public perception and policy. The authors concluded that Gasland screenings directly resulted in an increase in anti-fracking mobilization and events in the short-term, which led to local policy change including bans and moratoria on the fracking process (Vasi et al., 2015).

38 Although this is an important finding, information about local screenings of other fracking documentaries is largely unavailable. Emails were sent to representatives from both Gasland 2 and FrackNation asking for a list of local screenings, but there was no response. In addition to lack of data, the second research question would be difficult to study because FrackNation is a pro-fracking documentary. Comparing local anti-fracking and pro-fracking mobilization efforts and subsequent policies is beyond the scope of this research. Therefore, this particular study focuses on answering the first research question as it relates to Gasland 2 and

FrackNation.

As previously discussed, cultural products such as issue-focused documentaries have contributed to promoting the agenda of several social movements, which are frequently discussed in mass and social media. One method of measuring a social movement’s emergence and popularity is through online activity (Vasi & Suh,

2012). Studying Gasland’s digital footprint over the three years following its initial release allowed researchers to better understand its wide-reaching impact. In addition to online mentions of “Gasland” and “fracking,” Vasi and his co-authors followed online discussions related to water contamination, bans, and moratoria. However, the change in mentions of the terms “water,” “bans,” and “moratorium” on Twitter and in newspapers following Gasland’s release and award nominations were inconsistent.

“Gasland influenced the social media discussion about fracking by supporting diagnostic frames related to water pollution and, to a lesser degree, supporting prognostic frames regarding local bans and moratoria. Yet, Gasland’s influence on

39 mass media’s discussion about fracking was weaker: mass media discussion did not become more focused on water problems or on bans and moratoria” (Vasi et al.,

2015). Due to these inconsistencies and the fact that FrackNation does not explore these issues compared to the Gasland documentaries, search terms “water,” “ban,” and

“moratorium” are excluded from this analysis.

The titles of the three documentaries under investigation will be the three major search terms used to construct the analysis. Additionally, the search term

“fracking” will be added to the online public attention data to measure the interest of each of the documentaries relative to the overarching issue. The slang term “fracking” was chosen because it is more well known compared to the formal term “hydraulic fracturing” (Vasi et al., 2015). In order to measure Gasland 2 and FrackNation’s online media presence, three separate variables are considered – public attention, mass media coverage, and social media chatter. Utilizing these three specific variables will allow us to directly compare our findings with Vasi et al.’s original findings about

Gasland.

3.2 Timeline

Vasi et al. (2015) studied Gasland’s influence on online public attention from

January 2010 to April 2013. Gasland first aired at the Sundance Film Festival at the end of January 2010, but was not released on HBO until June of the same year (HBO, n.d.). However, January 2010 is the starting point of analysis. For the sake of simplicity, a time scale of three years will be used to examine each documentary’s

40 online presence. Gasland 2 premiered at the Tribeca Film Festival in April 2013, and was released on HBO in July 2013 (HBO, n.d.). Therefore, the timeline of analysis for

Gasland 2 is April 2013 to April 2016. Lastly, FrackNation aired on the AXS TV channel on January 22, 2013, which coincided with the release of Promised Land, a drama that also highlights the fracking controversy (Begos, 2013). The timeline of analysis for FrackNation is January 2013 to January 2016.

In order to answer the proposed research questions, the comparison analysis will include data from January 2010, when Gasland first aired, to April 2016, the end of the analysis period for Gasland 2. Since FrackNation and Gasland 2 were released three years later than Gasland, online stories and posts for both documentaries are almost nonexistent from 2010 to 2013. However, including data prior to 2013 gives a visual representation of just how popular Gasland was after it was released. Therefore, the general timeline of this study is 2010 to 2016, with a concentration on the time period from 2013 to 2016.

3.3 Public Attention

For the purposes of this study, public attention refers to a social issue remaining in the collective consciousness/public eye for a certain period of time.

Controversial social issues such as fracking gain public attention in several ways, which is why the public attention variable is used as a general measure of knowledge.

Utilizing Google Trends, an extension of the Google search engine, public attention is measured using both Google and YouTube searches. Search results from YouTube,

41 the most popular video-sharing platform, are included because documentary films can be viewed on YouTube. All three documentaries will be analyzed according to the respective timelines presented in section 3.2. Data will be downloaded from Google

Trends and imported into Microsoft Excel for analysis.

Because Google Trends recognizes proper titles, the term “Gasland Part II” will be used instead of “Gasland 2.” Once the singular search term is properly entered, in this case “Gasland Part II,” the time period will be adjusted to reflect April 2013 to

April 2016. From left to right, the dropdown menus across the top of the Google

Trends platform will read “United States,” “4/1/13 – 4/30/16,” “All categories,” and

“Web Search.” A similar process will be repeated to measure the popularity of

YouTube searches. Rather than utilize the compare tool on Google Trends, data will be downloaded separately for each search term to ensure that search popularity of the documentaries is compared to all other searches made over that time period. Gasland

2’s popularity relative to fracking based on Google searches, and Gasland 2’s popularity relative to fracking based on YouTube searches will be assessed separately.

After changing the timeline, the same procedure will be followed for assessing

FrackNation’s online public attention.

Gasland, Gasland 2, and FrackNation’s online public attention will be compared using average popularity relative to other topics. Google Trends uses a scale from 0 to 100 to measure relative popularity – a search term that receives a score of

100 is among the most popular topics for that week. Average popularity for Google and YouTube searches will be examined independently. Furthermore, averages will be

42 computed based on weekly search data, rather than monthly data. The comparison data will be used in conjunction with Vasi et al.’s findings to draw conclusions about the online public attention of Gasland 2 and FrackNation.

3.4 Mass Media

A commonly accepted definition of mass media is any means of communication, such as television, radio, and newspapers, which reaches a large number of people (The Chicago School of Media Theory, n.d.). In this study, national newspaper articles are used as a proxy for mass media coverage. Vasi and his co- authors utilized the LexisNexis database to search for newspaper articles that mention

“Gasland” and “fracking,” separately. In other words, the number of newspaper mentions of “Gasland” was compared to the number of newspaper mentions of

“fracking.”

Nexis Uni, a subsidiary platform of LexisNexis specifically designed for university students, will be used to search for newspaper mentions of Gasland 2 and

FrackNation. Searches will be restricted to newspaper articles published within the

United States according to the respective timeline of each documentary. However, searches will be conducted month by month in order to capture the trend over time.

Since Gasland 2’s formal title is Gasland Part II, both terms will be used to search for articles that mention the sequel. Additionally, quotation marks will be included around the titles of the documentaries to ensure that search data for Gasland and Gasland 2 remain separate. Monthly search data will be entered into Microsoft Excel for

43 analysis, and the total number of newspaper mentions of all three documentaries will be compared.

3.5 Social Media

Vasi et al. (2015) employs Twitter data to quantify social media chatter about fracking and Gasland. A sample size of tweets will be collected using the advanced search tool on Twitter. Similar to newspaper data collection, quotation marks will be included around the search terms on Twitter to keep Gasland and Gasland 2 tweets separate. Three separate sets of tweets for each documentary will be analyzed – the first 100 tweets posted the day after the documentary was released to the public, the first 100 tweets posted a month after the premier, and the top 100 most popular tweets ever posted. Tweets posted the day of the premier for all three documentaries were mostly discussing plans to watch, which is why the day after the premier was chosen.

The starting point for analysis differs compared to the previous two sections. For example, Gasland 2’s timeline begins in April 2013 after the documentary premiered at the Tribeca Film Festival. Since most Twitter users did not have access to the documentary until it aired on HBO, July 2013 is the starting point for analyzing tweets.

Original tweets made by Twitter users are included in the sample, while retweets and replies were excluded to avoid confusion. Tweets posted by the producers of the documentaries as well as the streaming platforms (HBO and AXS

TV) were also excluded to reduce bias. Double tweets from the same user were only

44 counted once. Additionally, tweets made verbatim from seemingly related accounts were only counted once. After three separate lists of tweets are compiled, two rounds of coding will occur. First, tweets are coded to determine whether the Twitter user agreed, disagreed, or remained neutral about the content of the documentary in question. Tweets that take a stand in favor of the documentary and/or recommend fellow Twitter users to watch the documentary are coded as “agree.” Tweets that question the validity of the film are coded as “disagree.” Neutral tweets are those that convey information about screenings and/or do not take a definitive stand about the content of the documentary. If the coder could not make a decision because the content of the tweet was confusing, then the tweet was coded as “unsure.” Using

Gasland 2 as an example, the following three tweets included in Table 3.1 represent the differences between how tweets were coded.

Table 3.1 Example tweets according to agree, neutral, and disagree codes

Date Code Example Tweet Twitter User Posted “@gaslandmovie finally got a chance to watch Agree Gasland 2 tonight. Horrifying. Thank you again 8/23/13 @Clemfield2622 for fighting the good fight.” “Gasland 2 showing tonight at 6pm at the Royal Neutral 8/27/14 @toddbazzett Oak Public library. Free admission.” “Probably really late but Gasland 2 is kind of Disagree biased, not all wells are like this. Need the light 7/9/13 @AllenGammel and the dark side of things. #gasland”

45 The second round of coding involves analyzing how the tweets were framed.

Utilizing an inductive coding technique, six codes were specified regarding the content of the tweets – general promotion, news story/blog post/interview, emotional response, call to action, community/screening event, and miscellaneous. General promotion tweets typically contain recommendations to watch the documentary. News story/blog post/interview tweets include a link to an outside news source about the documentary. Tweets that were categorized as emotional response contained strong language that reflected the opinion of the Twitter user. Call to action tweets were those that attempted to persuade fellow Twitter users to participate in the political process to influence fracking policy. If a tweet promoted a community discussion or screening event of the documentary, then it was coded as community/screening event. Lastly, tweets that did not fall into one of these five categories were coded as miscellaneous.

Examples of tweets according to these six codes are listed below in Table 3.2.

46 Table 3.2 Example tweets according to the six framing codes

Date Code Example Tweet Twitter User Posted General Watching Gasland documentary on @HBO. 6/22/10 @BrianPopowitz Promotion Recommended.” News “Producer files $5M suit against ‘Gasland’ Story/Blog resident, lawyerskallanishenergy.com/ 8/10/17 @Kallanish Post/Interview 2017/08/10/…#gasland” Emotional “Just watched #gasland on HBO, I can’t stop 6/22/10 @kasigill Response crying. Oh my! WHY?” “#gasland Call to action – call write, tweet or Call to Action see your representatives about what you have 6/22/10 @CatScott seen tonight! Even if it’s not your backyard.” “NY TONIGHT: #Gasland director Community/ @joshfoxfilm will join me for a Q&A after Screening 9/27/16 @Greg_Palast the 8:15pm Cinépolis Chelsea show! Tix: Event bit.ly/BDMCBNY” “Filmmaker Josh Fox (Gasland) takes stage. Says #Bernie is the only candidate whose Miscellaneous 4/25/16 @VirginiaAlvino identified global warming as #1 security threat.”

47 Chapter 4

RESULTS

4.1 Online Public Attention

Similar to Vasi et al. (2015), Gasland 2 and FrackNation were compared to the search term “fracking” across the Google and YouTube platforms. Since Google

Trends presents data comparatively, separate searches were conducted for all three search terms. Therefore, web and YouTube searches are compared to all other search topics, not just to each other. According to Figures 4.1 and 4.2 below, the documentaries were more popularly searched on YouTube compared to Google. For more detailed trend lines, see the Appendix.

48

Figure 4.1 Web search comparison between Gasland 2, FrackNation, and “fracking”

49

Figure 4.2 YouTube search comparison between Gasland 2, FrackNation, and “fracking”

In addition to comparing online public attention of the 2013 documentaries and the search term “fracking,” searches for Gasland 2 and FrackNation were compared to the original Gasland documentary. The timeline was amended to January 2010 to

April 2016 since Gasland was released three years earlier. Average search popularity was also calculated according to each documentary’s respective timeline. Figures 4.3 and 4.4 depict web and YouTube search trends for all three documentaries, and Figure

50 4.5 is the online public attention graph published in Vasi et al. (2015). Tables 4.1 and

4.2 compare average search popularity for web and YouTube searches.

Figure 4.3 Web search comparison between Gasland, Gasland 2, and FrackNation

Table 4.1 Average web search popularity for Gasland, Gasland 2, and FrackNation

Average Popularity Documentary Timeline (Web Searches) Gasland 1/2010 to 1/2013 6.4 Gasland 2 4/2013 to 4/2016 3.6 FrackNation 1/2013 to 1/2016 3.1

51

Figure 4.4 YouTube search comparison between Gasland, Gasland 2, and FrackNation

Table 4.2 Average YouTube search popularity for Gasland, Gasland 2, and FrackNation

Average Popularity Documentary Timeline (YouTube Searches) Gasland 1/2010 to 1/2013 12.7 Gasland 2 4/2013 to 4/2016 15.1 FrackNation 1/2013 to 1/2016 9.8

52

Figure 4.5 Web and YouTube searches for Gasland and “fracking” (Vasi et al., 2015)

The data depicted in Figure 4.5 shows that YouTube search popularity for

Gasland is much higher than YouTube search popularity for both Gasland 2 and

FrackNation. There is likely a discrepancy between the data due to the way data was collected from Google Trends. Vasi et al. (2015) completed simultaneous web and

YouTube searches for “fracking” and Gasland to compare the search terms relative to one another, while the present study conducted separate searches to compare the three documentaries and “fracking” to every other search term.

53 4.2 Mass Media

From April 2013 to April 2016, Gasland 2 was mentioned in national newspapers 73 times. Examples of newspapers included in the analysis are the

Washington Post, New York Times, Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, Chicago Daily Herald, and more. June and July 2013 were the two months with the greatest number of mentions, most likely because the documentary aired on HBO in early July. There were 11 mentions of the documentary in June 2013 and 17 mentions in July 2013.

Figure 4.5 below depicts the monthly trend of national newspaper mentions over the three year time period for Gasland 2.

54

National Newspaper Mentions of Gasland 2

18

16

14

12

10

8 6 Number of Mentions Number 4

2

0

Figure 4.6 National newspaper mentions of Gasland 2, April 2013 to April 2016 (LexisNexis)

FrackNation received significantly less newspaper coverage compared to

Gasland 2. From January 2013 to January 2016, there were a total of 27 national newspaper mentions of FrackNation. There were seven references each to the documentary in January and April 2013. Newspaper coverage plateaued after July

2013, following Gasland 2’s public release. Figure 4.6 below illustrates

FrackNation’s national newspaper coverage from January 2013 to January 2016.

55

National Newspaper Mentions of FrackNation

8

7

6

5

4

3 Number of Mentions Number 2

1

0

Figure 4.7 National newspaper mentions of FrackNation, January 2013 to January 2016 (LexisNexis)

The number of national newspaper mentions varied drastically between these two documentaries and Gasland. According to the LexisNexis database, there were

526 newspaper articles that mentioned Gasland in the first three years after its premier at Sundance. Because the graph existed previously thanks to Vasi et al. (2015), the monthly trend of newspaper mentions of Gasland was not graphed. Table 4.3 below summarizes the number of national newspaper mentions for all three fracking

56 documentaries and Figure 4.8 depicts national newspaper mentions of Gasland and

“fracking” published in Vasi et al. (2015).

Table 4.3 Total number of national newspaper mentions for Gasland, Gasland 2, and FrackNation (LexisNexis)

Newspaper Mentions Documentary Timeline (U.S.) Gasland 1/2010 to 1/2013 526 Gasland 2 4/2013 to 4/2016 73 FrackNation 1/2013 to 1/2016 27

Figure 4.8 National newspaper mentions of Gasland and “fracking” (Vasi et al., 2015)

57 4.3 Social Media

For Gasland, Gasland 2, and FrackNation, tweets posted a day after the premier, a month after the premier, and the top 100 were coded for position and framing. Tables 4.4 through 4.6 and Figure 4.9 summarize the results of the first round of coding for position. In all three cases, Twitter users were more likely to agree than disagree with the content of the documentary in question. However, there were more neutral tweets posted in total for all three documentaries. Since there was a total of

900 tweets analyzed, the content of the Twitter posts varied. Tables 4.7 through 4.9 and Figure 4.10 capture the coding data for dominant frames used within those tweets.

Table 4.4 Position results for Gasland tweets

Agree Neutral Disagree Unsure Day After 52 47 1 0 Month After 42 56 1 1 Most Popular 29 64 6 1 Total 123 167 8 2

Table 4.5 Position results for Gasland 2 tweets

Agree Neutral Disagree Unsure Day After 60 23 13 4 Month After 43 55 2 0 Most Popular 31 64 3 2 Total 134 142 18 6

58 Table 4.6 Position results for FrackNation tweets

Agree Neutral Disagree Unsure

Day After 55 41 0 4 Month After 40 55 2 3 Most Popular 39 50 10 1 Total 134 146 12 8

Position Results for Gasland, Gasland 2, and FrackNation Figure 4.9 Position results for Gasland, Gasland 2, and FrackNation Agree Neutral Disagree 70

Gasland Gasland 2 FrackNation 60

50

40

Number of Tweets Tweets of Number 30

20

10

0 Day After Month Most Day After Month Most Day After Month Most After Popular After Popular After Popular

Figure 4.9 Position results for Gasland, Gasland 2, and FrackNation

59 Table 4.7 Framing results for Gasland tweets

General News Emotional Call to Community Misc. Promotion Story Response Action Event Day After 24 24 40 6 2 4 Month After 31 35 20 2 8 4 Most Popular 22 36 12 4 9 17 Total 77 95 72 12 19 25

Table 4.8 Framing results for Gasland 2 tweets

General News Emotional Call to Community Misc. Promotion Story Response Action Event Day After 33 21 30 8 1 7 Month After 33 10 17 4 30 6 Most Popular 30 22 16 2 26 5 Total 96 53 63 14 57 18

Table 4.9 Framing results for FrackNation tweets

General News Emotional Call to Community Misc. Promotion Story Response Action Event Day After 46 16 28 2 1 7 Month After 29 20 23 0 17 11 Most Popular 33 24 24 5 5 9 Total 108 60 75 7 23 27

60

Framing Results for Gasland, Gasland 2, and FrackNation

General News Emotional Call to Community Miscellaneous Event Promotion Story Response Action 120 Gasland Gasland 2 FrackNation

100

80

60

Number of Tweets Tweets of Number 40

20

0

Figure 4.10 Framing results for Gasland, Gasland 2, and FrackNation

61 Chapter 5

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION

5.1 Online Public Attention

Web Searches. Compared to the original Gasland documentary, Gasland 2 and

FrackNation had a different impact on online public attention. With respect to web searches specifically, the only time both documentaries received significant attention was immediately following the public premiers in January and July 2013. Popularity of web searches for fracking also increased during those two months, indicating that the premiers of Gasland 2 and FrackNation could have potentially increased attention to the issue of fracking. However, there are too many confounding variables unaccounted for that could also explain the increase in searches for fracking. For example, fracking stories in the news and published research could prompt people to search for more information online. Specifically, numerous studies were published in

2013 about the risks fracking imposes on water resources as well as wastewater injection leading to minor earthquakes (Warner et al., 2013; Vengosh et al., 2013; Lutz et al., 2013; Ellsworth, 2013). Furthermore, the immediate but brief impact Gasland 2 and FrackNation had on web searches suggests that people were not interested in the documentaries for very long. There are numerous variables that contribute to a documentary having a long-lasting and widespread impact, including sufficient

62 expertise, funding, partnerships, press coverage, and advocacy work (Chattoo, 2014;

Barrett and Leddy, 2008).

Gasland reached maximum search popularity in June 2010 when the documentary was released on HBO for public viewing. As Vasi et al. (2015) points out, web searches increase in February 2011 when Gasland was nominated for an

Academy Award. Web searches increase significantly one more time in July 2013, when Gasland 2 premiered. When FrackNation was released in January 2013, there was only a slight uptick in searches for Gasland. This suggests that the premier of

FrackNation failed to draw significant attention to Gasland. According to weekly search data, the average popularity of web searches for Gasland was 6.4. Average search popularity for Gasland 2 and FrackNation was comparable at 3.6 and 3.1, respectively. As Vasi et al. discusses, Gasland stirred up controversy and made fracking a household term, which may explain the higher web search popularity.

YouTube Searches. YouTube search popularity for the two films was extremely variable compared to web searches. Although search popularity fluctuated over the three-year time period for both documentaries, searches for Gasland 2 consistently exceeds searches for FrackNation. Similar to the web searches, YouTube searches for both documentaries also reached maximum popularity once each in

January and July 2013. YouTube searches for Gasland 2 outstrips searches for the general term “fracking” on numerous occasions. On the other hand, searches for

FrackNation only surpasses searches for “fracking” three times. Since YouTube is a

63 video-sharing platform, it is unsurprising that search popularity for the documentaries was higher compared to web searches (Vasi et al., 2015).

YouTube searches for Gasland reaches maximum search popularity once, in

July 2013 when Gasland 2 also reaches maximum search popularity, which is not visible on the graph due to overlapping trend lines. It is important to note that the singular instance that YouTube search popularity for Gasland reached 100 occurred outside of the timeline of analysis. Similar to web searches, Gasland’s trend line peaks in June 2010 and February 2011. Summarized in Table 4.2, average YouTube search popularity for Gasland 2 was the highest at 15.1. Search popularity for Gasland was

12.7, and search popularity for FrackNation was the lowest at 9.8.

Since Gasland was the first major documentary released bringing attention to the issue of fracking, web and YouTube search popularity was expected to exceed search popularity for Gasland 2 and FrackNation. However, that was not the case according to the Google Trends data. It seems as though average YouTube search popularity for Gasland should be higher than 12.7 because of the significant YouTube attention measured by Vasi et al. Gasland was the most popular documentary searched for on the web, but Gasland 2 was more frequently searched for on YouTube. One theory that could potentially explain this is because of the controversial scene in

Gasland where the homeowner lights his tap water on fire, viewers were expecting an even more provocative scene in Gasland 2. Another possibility is that Gasland viewers were eager to watch the sequel via YouTube, inflating the search popularity of

Gasland 2. Furthermore, YouTube was established relatively recently in 2005 to share

64 amateur videos (Dickey, 2013). As YouTube became more popular, video-sharing capabilities were expanded. According to Dickey, YouTube became “mainstream” in

2009, and movies became available in 2010. Presumably, YouTube was less widely used in 2010 at the time of Gasland compared to 2013 when Gasland 2 and

FrackNation were released.

Comparison. Figure 4.5 depicts the trends in online public attention for Gasland and “fracking,” which was originally published in Vasi et al. (2015). According to

Vasi et al., web searches for Gasland failed to meet maximum popularity over the three year time period. However, Gasland’s web search popularity consistently remained well above zero, suggesting that interest in the film persisted over time. The consistent interest is just one piece of evidence that Gasland’s social impact was larger compared to the other documentaries. Similar peaks in both web and YouTube searches exist at January 2010 and February 2011, confirming the validity of the results of the present study. YouTube search popularity significantly surpasses web search popularity for Gasland from January 2010 to April 2013. Additionally,

YouTube searches for Gasland exceed YouTube searches for “fracking” for most of the three-year time period, indicating just how popular the documentary was. Due to its popularity, Gasland had national and local implications, leading to changes in policy and public perception (Vasi et al., 2015). In summary, Gasland and Gasland 2 received more online public attention compared to FrackNation.

65 5.2 Mass Media

Newspaper Mentions. According to the Lexis-Nexis database, there were 73 national newspaper mentions of Gasland 2 from April 2013 to April 2016 and 27 mentions of FrackNation from January 2013 to January 2016. The trend line for

Gasland 2 follows an interesting pattern; dropping to zero mentions almost every other month until May 2015. Comparable to online public attention, Gasland 2 received the most mass media coverage in July 2013 when 17 newspaper articles were published. However, 73 mentions over three years in all American newspapers does not amount to much mass media coverage. FrackNation was mentioned even less frequently in national newspapers. There were seven mentions each in January and

April 2013, which was the maximum number of monthly mentions. The peak in April

2013 makes sense because Gasland 2 premiered at the film festival that month and journalists compared the two documentaries. After April 2014, newspaper mentions drop to and remain at zero.

As expected, Gasland received the most mass media coverage, appearing in

526 national newspapers from January 2010 to January 2013. According to Vasi et al., newspaper mentions of Gasland remain steady over the three-year period. Newspaper mentions of both “fracking” and Gasland increase in June 2010 and February 2011, which is consistent with the online public attention trends. Newspaper mentions of

“fracking” are significantly more popular than mentions of Gasland. Since fracking is a divisive political issue that affects every single American citizen in some capacity

66 and Gasland is just one resource that provides information about the issue, it makes sense that the term “fracking” was mentioned more often than Gasland.

Online Public Attention and Mass Media Comparison. Online public attention data, national newspaper mentions, and Vasi et al.’s findings suggest that

Gasland had a more stable impact compared to the other two documentaries. Based on newspaper mentions, Gasland 2 and FrackNation received very little mass media coverage. Additionally, web search popularity of the two documentaries was concentrated in the time period immediately following the public release. Gasland had a more extensive reach, according to the large number of newspaper mentions, which lasted for a longer period of time, demonstrated by relatively consistent online public attention.

Gasland 2 likely received more online public attention and newspaper coverage than FrackNation because it was attached to the original Gasland documentary. Although Fox was involved with theater prior to 2010, Gasland is what made him famous. FrackNation was produced by less well-known documentarians whose most popular film is not FrackNation. Fox has made a name for himself in the environmental field and has established credibility through his activism. Thus, Fox’s followers have contributed to the continued support of Gasland 2.

Another variable that could explain the difference in popularity between the

Gasland documentaries and FrackNation is budget. With more financial resources, documentarians can hire professionals to help create the documentary and advertise in a way that will maximize social impact. Producers of FrackNation emphasized that the

67 documentary was funded by a kickstarter campaign, raising more than $200,000 from members of the public and was consequently marketed as a documentary “by the people, for the people” (FrackNation, 2013). However, there were a few journalists who questioned whether financial contributors were tied to the natural gas industry

(Horn, 2013). Although it is unclear where the funding came from to produce Gasland and Gasland 2, Fox likely spent more than $200,000 in production expenses. An interesting idea for further research would be to obtain budgets from both production teams to compare how financial resources were utilized.

In addition to funding, another potential reason FrackNation was less popular than Gasland and Gasland 2 is the overarching message presented in the films. The

Gasland documentaries were created around a call to action to alter consumption behavior and shift to renewable sources of energy in order to avoid the negative externalities associated with fracking. FrackNation, on the other hand, was advocating for the status quo – continuing to extract and consume fossil fuels at the current rate.

Promoting “business as usual” is less controversial and perhaps less interesting to viewers.

Although numerous social movement theories and perspectives are relevant to the current project, one in particular stands out that may explain why Gasland had a more significant impact. Relative deprivation theory suggests that people who are at a disadvantage compared to society as a whole are likely to join social movements to end their grievances (Walker & Pettigrew, 1984). Fracking was portrayed as an issue of environmental injustice in Gasland and Gasland 2. According to the films, those

68 living in rural areas with a low socioeconomic status were disproportionally affected by natural gas industry activity. Gasland gave selected homeowners the opportunity to tell their stories about how their lives have changed since the beginning of the fracking boom, which ultimately sparked the anti-fracking movement. Homeowners dealing with similar challenges and those that sympathized with the message utilized social media to spread awareness and gain support.

5.3 Social Media

Social media chatter also played a role in spreading the word about all three documentaries, which was assessed in this study using Twitter activity. Tweets were coded for whether or not the user agreed with the documentary (position) and the content of the tweet (framing). There are a few interesting trends in the position coding worth discussing. First, for all three documentaries, there were more “neutral” tweets in total than “agree” or “disagree” tweets. Since all three documentaries stirred up some controversy, the substantial number of “neutral” tweets was surprising

Additionally, there were very few tweets coded as “disagree.” Of the 300 tweets analyzed for each documentary, less than 20 contained language that indicated the

Twitter user disagreed with the content of the documentary. People were more likely to tweet about their support of the documentary, rather than publicly refute it.

One plausible explanation why “agree” tweets were more popular than

“disagree” tweets is the audience. A small portion of the tweets analyzed indicated that some viewers were learning about fracking for the first time. However, it is very

69 likely that viewers with preconceived opinions about the fracking process tuned in based on their interest. The Gasland documentaries are more appealing to those individuals that have adopted an anti-fracking perspective, while FrackNation attracted natural gas industry supporters. Similar to the American public choosing which media outlets to subscribe to based on political preferences, documentary viewers often have the same luxury. Arguably, Gasland, Gasland 2, and FrackNation were “preaching to the choir,” which could have inflated the number of “agree” tweets posted.

The number of tweets coded as “agree” decreased over time, while “neutral” tweets became more popular for all three documentaries. For example, the day after

Gasland 2 premiered, 60 of the tweets analyzed were classified as “agree.” One month later, 43 tweets that supported Gasland 2 were posted, and only 31 of the most popular tweets of all time were coded as “agree.” On the other hand, “neutral” tweets increased from 23 to 55 to 64 over the same time period. One possible explanation for this is that people tweet in real time. Rather than doing research about the new information that was learned and checking credibility, Twitter users were quick to trust the stories being told. Another potential reason that tweets became more neutral over time is that organizations started hosting community screenings and facilitated discussions about the documentaries. There were a significant number of tweets that advertised such events, which were coded as “neutral.” “Community/screening event” was one of the six framing codes used to categorize the content of the tweets analyzed.

The number of tweets that fell into this category increased between the day after and

70 the month after the premier for all three documentaries, although only slightly for

Gasland. Although these tweets showed no indication of whether the Twitter user agreed or disagreed with the content of the documentary, sharing information about a public event promoting the documentary may not be considered neutral. If this study were extended or reproduced, then researchers should take this into consideration when analyzing tweets.

Another framing code used to characterize tweets about the documentaries was

“emotional response.” One of the strategies used to gain support for a social movement is to play on people’s emotions (Jasper, 1998). According to Jasper, affective and reactive emotions contribute to mobilizing protest efforts. These documentaries were created in part to elicit an emotional response, and Twitter users commonly posted about how the documentary made them feel after watching. The shift from stage two to stage three of the issue attention cycle may have also contributed to Twitter users’ emotionality (Downs, 1972). While some viewers were learning about fracking for the first time and experiencing the alarmed discovery and euphoric enthusiasm stage, others were realizing how difficult it would be to solve the fracking controversy, and the emotions associated with both situations were represented in the tweets analyzed. “Emotional response” was the second most popular framing code for Gasland 2 and FrackNation and the third most popular for

Gasland. However, the numbers of “emotional response” tweets were similar for all three documentaries, ranging from 63 for Gasland 2 to 75 for FrackNation.

71 Tweets became less emotional over time, which corresponds to the increase in neutral tweets. One possible explanation for the intense emotional response on Twitter immediately following the premier of the documentaries is that people realized that fracking is not just an energy issue, but also a human issue. In addition to lowering energy expenses for consumers, fracking can affect the state of our environment and public health. Furthermore, learning about the fracking process and the pros and cons for the first time can be shocking. An individual that has some background information about the controversy surrounding fracking is less likely to have an extreme emotional response to viewing these documentaries.

In addition to the “emotional response” tweets, the significant number of tweets coded as “news story/blog post/interview” further indicates the emotion and controversy surrounding the documentaries. Twitter users frequently posted links to blogs and news sources that discussed the implications and overall response to the films. Table 4.7 shows that the most popular content found in Gasland tweets was news stories and opinion pieces. Although some news articles were posted about

Gasland 2 and FrackNation, as previously discussed, Gasland received a significant amount of attention in national newspapers. Therefore, the gap in news-related tweets between Gasland and the 2013 documentaries makes sense because of the difference in mass media coverage.

The most popular type of tweet for both Gasland 2 and FrackNation was tweets coded as “general promotion.” Instead of sharing specific news stories related to the documentaries, Twitter users posted general messages of support, encouraging

72 other users to watch. Of the 300 tweets analyzed for each documentary, 108 were categorized as “general promotion” for FrackNation and 96 for Gasland 2. On the other hand, the least popular framing code for all three documentaries was “call to action.” Recommendations to watch the films were not included under the “call to action” category. Instead, “call to action” tweets were characterized by a call for change in behavior, writing to elected officials, and generating political change.

Perhaps “call to action” tweets were unpopular because fracking is such a large-scale issue that people believe their actions on social media will have no effect on the future of the natural gas industry.

Another key component in understanding how the documentaries were portrayed on Twitter is the timeline and popularity of the Twitter platform itself.

Twitter was publicly launched in July 2006, but did not become widely used until

2010 (Widrich, 2016). Since Gasland was released in 2010, those that viewed the documentary may not have been familiar with Twitter at the time. More people belonged to Twitter in 2013 when Gasland 2 and FrackNation aired. Therefore, the

Twitter response to the 2013 documentaries may have been more representative of the nation’s perspectives on fracking.

Since only original tweets were coded, another potential continuation of this study would be to include retweets and replies in the analysis. Although retweets do not add anything new to the Twitter conversation, replies could be used to capture more of an active discussion about the issues presented in the documentaries.

73 5.4 Conclusion

In summary, the producers of Gasland, Gasland 2, and FrackNation succeeded in creating films that generated online public attention and discussion on social media and within mass media about the issue of fracking. Understanding and evaluating the extent of a documentary’s social impact can help documentarians to better create films in the future that will successfully alter public perception and result in social change.

The first major takeaway from this study is that the Gasland documentaries received more online public attention and mass media coverage compared to

FrackNation. Second, Gasland’s impact on online public attention and mass media coverage was longer lasting and more consistent than Gasland 2 and FrackNation.

Taken together, these findings suggest that the Gasland documentaries had a larger social impact compared to FrackNation. Third, Twitter users that posted about the documentaries were more likely to agree than disagree with the content of the documentary in question, but tweets became more neutral over time. Lastly, Twitter users commonly expressed their strong emotional responses to the documentaries and posted general promotion tweets, which frequently included links to news articles and blog posts about the documentaries. Analyzing the Twitter response was important to this research to give context to the documentaries’ social impact.

Since this was an interdisciplinary research project that tied together environmental issues, energy politics, film studies, and mass/social media, not every topic was covered in detail. If time and resources were unlimited, partnering with film studies and social mobilization experts would be useful in fully understanding how

74 these three documentaries influenced public perception. Including relevant literature related to social mobilization theory could also help explain why Gasland had a more substantial impact compared to Gasland 2 and FrackNation (Jenkins, 1983; Canel,

1997). Another idea for a continuation of this study is to explore the psychology behind anti-fracking versus pro-fracking mobilization efforts and comparing the movements’ use of social media. Limited research has been done related to the socio- psychological impacts of fracking (Soyer et al., 2020) and pro-fracking social media use. Social media has become a powerful tool used to spread the word and discuss the underlying motivations for becoming involved in social movements, and examining fracking-specific mobilization would add to the existing literature.

Furthermore, documentary films have been utilized as a means of public education. The Gasland documentaries and FrackNation covered educational topics including the definition of fracking, the pros and cons of the technology, and the controversial politics surrounding the process. Assessing how successful the documentaries were at teaching viewers about the fracking process would be another interesting topic for further research. For example, administering quizzes pre and post documentary viewing could be used to measure the learning that occurs. Additionally, questions to gauge whether or not viewers detected bias in the films could be included in the post-quiz, which would add another dimension to the research.

Although these documentaries could be used as a tool to educate, each film is making a specific political argument about fracking and consequently contains bias.

While some viewers are able to detect bias and consider the other side of the

75 argument, others are quick to accept the stories being presented in the films as true.

This can be problematic because viewers are forming opinions about controversial topics based on exposure to only one side of an issue. In the case of the Gasland documentaries and FrackNation, viewers interested in truly learning about the fracking controversy should watch all three films, practice critical thinking, and conduct additional research to form an educated opinion. As discussed in the literature, documentary films are one small piece of a much larger social movement meant to generate attention and discussion around a specific issue, and therefore should be considered in such context (Finneran, n.d.). While documentaries can be very informative, these films may be more valuable in bringing like-minded people together.

The Gasland documentaries and FrackNation presumably contributed to further polarization around energy and environmental issues. As previously discussed, individuals’ political interests likely played a role in which documentary viewers decided to watch and discuss on social media. Liberal-leaning viewers who watched the Gasland documentaries likely became firmer in their pro-environment beliefs, while conservatives who watched FrackNation likely became firmer in their pro- industry perspective. Social media platforms have made it incredibly easy to express political opinions and challenge others with different beliefs. According to a Pew

Research Center study, 79% of respondents agreed that social media helps users get involved with issues that matter to them (Duggan & Smith, 2016). The same study concluded that 84% of respondents believe that people post things on social media

76 when discussing politics that they would never say in person (2016). Instead of having an open and honest discussion face-to-face about political issues, people are choosing to hide behind social media. While Facebook and Twitter are useful in connecting people globally to discuss controversial issues, social media is not generating tangible political change. Rather, the people participating in the online discussions, writing to elected officials, voting, becoming involved in advocacy work, and mobilizing at the local level is the driving force behind solving controversial issues and generating political change.

77 REFERENCES

Al-Menayes, J. J. (2015). Motivations for Using Social Media: An Exploratory Factor Analysis. International Journal of Psychological Studies, 7(1).

Aloulou, F. (2015, February 13). Shale gas and tight oil are commercially produced in just four countries. Retrieved February 26, 2020, from www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/ detail.php?id=19991.

American Exploration & Production Council. (2019, March 25). Did you know? – U.S. Energy Production Employs Millions of Americans. Retrieved April 20, 2020, from www.axpc.org/2019/03/25/did-you-know-u-s-energy-production-employs- millions-of-americans/.

Anderson, A., & Marhadour, A. (2007). Slick PR? The Media Politics of the Prestige Oil Spill. Science Communication, 29(1), 96–115.

APHA. (2012, October 30). The Environmental and Occupational Health Impacts of High-Volume Hydraulic Fracturing of Unconventional Gas Reserves. Retrieved January 8, 2020, from www.apha.org/policies-and-advocacy/public-health-policy- statements/policy-database/2014/10/02/15/37/hydraulic-fracturing.

Bail, C. A., Argyle, L. P., Brown, T. W., Bumpus, J. P., Chen, H., Hunzaker, M. B. F., … Volfovsky, A. (2018). Exposure to opposing views on social media can increase political polarization. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 115(37), 9216–9221.

Barrett, D., & Leddy, S. (2008). Assessing Creative Media’s Social Impact. The Fledgling Fund. Retrieved from www.thefledglingfund.org/wp content/uploads/2015/ 10/Impact-Paper.pdf.

Beebeejaun, Y. (2013). The Politics of Fracking: A Public Policy Dilemma? Political Insight, 4(3), 18–21.

Begos, K. (2013, January 21). 'FrackNation' film attacks fracking critics. USA Today. Retrieved from www.usatoday.com/story/money/business/2013/01/21/fracknation- documentary-attacks-critics/1851609/.

78 Bomberg, E. (2017). Fracking and framing in transatlantic perspective: a comparison of shale politics in the US and European Union. Journal of Transatlantic Studies, 15(2), 101–120.

Boudet, H., Clarke, C., Bugden, D., Maibach, E., Roser-Renouf, C., & Leiserowitz, A. (2014). “Fracking” controversy and communication: Using national survey data to understand public perceptions of hydraulic fracturing. Energy Policy, 65, 57–67.

Bureau of Labor Statistics. (2018). About the Oil and Gas Extraction Subsector. Retrieved January 8, 2020, from www.bls.gov/iag/tgs/iag211.htm.

Canel, E. (1997). New social movement theory and resource mobilization theory: The need for integration. Community power and grassroots democracy: The transformation of social life, 189.

Catsoulis, J. (2013, January 10). Movie Review: A Flip Side to the Attack on Fracking. The New York Times. Retrieved from www.nytimes.com/2013/01/11/ movies/fracknation-a-documentary.html.

Chattoo, C. B. (2014). Assessing the Social Impact of Issue-Focused Documentaries: Research Methods and Future Considerations. Center for Media & Social Impact: American University.

Chow, D. (2013, July 8). Living on 'Gasland:' Q&A with Documentary Filmmaker Josh Fox. Retrieved March 19, 2020, from www.livescience.com/38032-gasland- documentary-fracking.html.

Cielec, L. (2019, March 5). Pennsylvania and New York: Two States, Two Fracking Policies, Two Very Different Pictures. Retrieved January 25, 2020, from www.blog.midwestind.com/fracking-regulations-states/.

Clark J., Abrash B. (2011) Social Justice Documentary: Designing for Impact.

Davis, C., & Hoffer, K. (2012). Federalizing energy? Agenda change and the politics of fracking. Policy Sciences, 45(3), 221–241.

Del Barco, M. (2019, February 19). The Documentary Is In - And Enjoying - An 'Undeniable Golden Age'. Retrieved February 5, 2020, from www.npr.org/2019/02/ 19/696036323/the-documentary-is-in-and-enjoying-an-undeniable-golden-age

Desktop Documentaries. (2013). What is the purpose of a documentary? Retrieved March 17, 2020, from www.desktop-documentaries.com/what-is-the-purpose-of-a- documentary.html.

79 Dickey, M. R. (2013, February 15). The 22 Key Turning Points In The History Of YouTube. Retrieved March 21, 2020, from www.businessinsider.com/key-turning- points-history-of-youtube-2013-2#youtube-got-serious-about-original-content-in- october-2011-18.

Dirks, T. (n.d.). Documentary Films. Retrieved March 28, 2020, from www.filmsite.org/docfilms.html.

Djerf-Pierre, M., Cokley, J., & Kuchel, L. J. (2015). Framing Renewable Energy: A Comparative Study of Newspapers in Australia and Sweden. Environmental Communication, 10(5), 634–655.

DNC Communications. (2016). Party Platform. Retrieved January 25, 2020, from www.democrats.org/where-we-stand/party-platform/.

Dosemagen, S. (2016, April 7). Can social media help to save the environment? Retrieved January 8, 2020, from www.weforum.org/agenda/2016/04/can-social- media-help-to-save-the-environment.

Downs, A. (1972). Up and down with ecology - the "issue attention cycle". Public Interest.

Duggan, M., & Smith, A. (2016, October 25). The tone of social media discussions on politics. Retrieved April 29, 2020, from www.pewresearch.org/internet/2016/10/25/ the-tone-of-social-media-discussions-around-politics/.

Eitzen, D. (1995). When Is a Documentary?: Documentary as a Mode of Reception. Cinema Journal, 35(1), 81.

Ellsworth, W. L. (2013). Injection-Induced Earthquakes. Science, 341(6142).

Eltanawy, N., & Wiest, J. B. (2011). Social Media in the Egyptian Revolution: Reconsidering Resource Mobilization Theory. International Journal of Communication, 5.

Entman, R. M. (2007). Framing Bias: Media in the Distribution of Power. Journal of Communication, 57(1), 163–173.

Environmental Defense Fund. (2020). Retrieved March 18, 2020, from www.facebook.com/EnvDefenseFund/?__tn__=,d,P-R&eid=ARBZ06ldJZAFReUa Pfdx7GThq9SXpt7delTw752HnTCpTCkhUabvLit9qQavGv8LSexYIfDsmRLYbeJg.

80 Finneran, P. (n.d.). Documentary Impact: Social Change Through Storytelling. HotDocs. Retrieved from www.s3.amazonaws.com/assets.hotdocs.ca/doc/HD14_ Documentary_Impact_Report.PDF.

Fitzgerald, R. (2017, August). States, Local Government Battle for Control over Fracking. Retrieved April 21, 2020, from www.csg.org/pubs/capitolideas/ enews/cs7_3.aspx.

Food & Water Watch. (2020). Food & Water Watch. Retrieved April 20, 2020, from www.foodandwaterwatch.org/.

Food & Water Watch. (2019, August 12). Local Resolutions Against Fracking. Retrieved March 18, 2020, from www.foodandwaterwatch.org/insight/local- resolutions-against-fracking.

FrackNation. (2013).

FracTracker Alliance. (2017, March 23). 34 states in U.S. have active oil & gas activity - based on 2016 analysis. Retrieved January 9, 2020, from www.fractracker.org/2017/03/34-states-active-drilling-2016/.

FracTracker Alliance. (2018, December 3). Clean Energy Action Maps: The Resistance – Movements Against Fossil Fuels. Retrieved January 25, 2020, from www.fractracker.org/resources/clean-energy-action/.

Fraser, N. (2012). Why documentaries matter. Oxford: Reuters Institute for the Study of Journalism.

Garimella, V., & Weber, I. (2017). A Long-Term Analysis of Polarization on Twitter. Proceedings of the Eleventh International AAAI Conference on Web and Social Media, 528–531.

Gasland. (2010).

Gasland Part II. (2013).

Gearhart, S., Adegbola, O., & Huemmer, J. (2019). Wheres the fracking bias?: Contested media frames and news reporting on shale gas in the United States. Energy Research & Social Science, 51, 168–175.

Gertner, J. (2013, December 21). George Mitchell, Father of Fracking. Retrieved January 8, 2020, from www.nytimes.com/news/the-lives-they lived/2013/12/21/ george-mitchell/.

81 Gompertz, W. (2012, March 29). Robert Redford: Documentaries have replaced journalism. Retrieved March 28, 2020, from www.bbc.com/news/entertainment-arts- 17534932.

Graells-Garrido, E., Lalmas, M., & Quercia, D. (2013). Data Portraits: Connecting People of Opposing Views. Cornell University.

Greshko, M., Parker, L., Howard, B., Stone, D., Borunda, A., & Gibbens, S. (2019, May 3). A running list of how President Trump is changing environmental policy. Retrieved January 10, 2020, from www.nationalgeographic.com/news/2017/03/how- trump-is-changing-science-environment/#close.

Ground Water Protection Council, & ALL Consulting. (2009). Modern Shale Gas Development in the United States: A Primer. Retrieved from www.energy.gov/sites/ prod/files/2013/03/f0/ShaleGasPrimer_Online_4-2009.pdf.

Hadavi, T. (2020, January 7). How fracking changed America forever. Retrieved April 20, 2020, from www.cnbc.com/2020/01/06/the-impact-of-fracking-on-us-consumers- and-local-communities.html.

HBO. (n.d.). Gasland Part II. Retrieved January 9, 2020, from www.hbo.com/ documentaries/gasland-part-ii.

Hille, K. (2017, April 6). NASA Celebrates Earth Day by Letting Us All #AdoptThePlanet. Retrieved January 8, 2020, from www.nasa.gov/feature/ goddard/2017/nasa-celebrates-earth-day-by-letting-us-all-adopttheplanet.

Hopke, J. E. (2015). Hashtagging Politics: Transnational Anti-Fracking Movement Twitter Practices. Social Media Society, 1(2), 1560552.

Horn, S. (2013, June 9). Exposed: Phelim McAleer's 'FrackNation' Deploys Tobacco Playbook in Response to Josh Fox's 'Gasland 2'. Retrieved March 8, 2020, from www.thinkprogress.org/exposed-phelim-mcaleers-fracknation-deploys-tobacco- playbook-in-response-to-josh-fox-s-gasland-2-78a53b301480/.

Iyengar, S. (2010). Is anyone responsible?: how television frames political issues. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Jaspal, R., Turner, A., & Nerlich, B. (2014). Fracking on YouTube: Exploring Risks, Benefits and Human Values. Environmental Values, 23(5), 501–527.

Jasper, J. M. (1998). The Emotions of Protest: Affective and Reactive Emotions in and around Social Movements. Sociological Forum, 13(3).

82 Jenkins, J. C. (1983). Resource mobilization theory and the study of social movements. Annual Review of Sociology.

Johnstone, B., & Mando, J. (2014). Proximity and journalistic practice in environmental discourse: Experiencing ‘job blackmail’ in the news. Discourse & Communication, 9(1), 81–101.

Kaufman, A. C. (2019, September 4). Voters Back Ban On Fracking, New Poll Finds. Retrieved March 30, 2020, from www.huffpost.com/entry/fracking-ban- polling_n_5d701602e4b09bbc9ef95ef9.

King, C. (2011, April 1). How to Connect Globally With Social Media. Retrieved April 21, 2020, from www.socialmediaexaminer.com/international-social-media/.

Kümpel, A. S., Karnowski, V., & Keyling, T. (2015). News Sharing in Social Media: A Review of Current Research on News Sharing Users, Content, and Networks. Social Media Society, 1(2).

Kwahk, K.-Y., & Ge, X. (2012). The Effects of Social Media on E-Commerce: A Perspective of Social Impact Theory. 45th Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences.

Lallanilla , M. (2018, February 10). Facts About Fracking. Retrieved March 18, 2020, from www.livescience.com/34464-what-is-fracking.html

Leiserowitz, A., Smith, N. & Marlon, J.R. (2010) Americans’ Knowledge of Climate Change. Yale University. New Haven, CT: Yale Project on Climate Change Communication. www.environment.yale.edu/climate/files/ClimateChangeKnowledge 2010.pdf.

Levendusky, M. (2013). How partisan media polarize America. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.

Loader, B., Vromen, A., & Xenos, M. (2014). The networked young citizen: social media, political participation and civic engagement. Information, Communication & Society, 17(2).

Losz, A., & Elkind, J. (2019). The Role of Natural Gas in the Energy Transition. Columbia SIPA Center on Global Energy Policy. Retrieved from www.energypolicy. columbia.edu/research/commentary/role-natural-gas-energy-transition.

Macnaghten, P. (2017). Public perception: Distrust for fracking. Nature Energy, 2(5).

83 Mall, A. (2013, February). NRDC Policy Basics: Fracking. Retrieved January 8, 2020, from www.nrdc.org/sites/default/files/policy-basics-fracking-FS.pdf.

Matthews, J., & Hansen, A. (2018). Fracturing Debate? A Review of Research on Media Coverage of “Fracking.” Frontiers in Communication, 3.

Mazur, A. (2014). How did the fracking controversy emerge in the period 2010- 2012? Public Understanding of Science, 25(2), 207–222.

McElroy, M. B., & Lu, X. B. (2013, February). Fracking's Future. Harvard Magazine. Retrieved January 9, 2020, from www.harvardmagazine.com/2013/01/frackings- future. Melikoglu, M. (2014). Shale gas: Analysis of its role in the global energy market. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 37, 460–468.

Mitchell, A., Gottfried, J., Kiley, J., & Matsa, K. (2014). Political Polarization & Media Habits. Pew Research Center. Retrieved from www.journalism.org/2014/10/21/ political-polarization-media-habits/.

Mir, I., & Zaheer, A. (2012). Verification of social impact theory claims in social media context. Journal of Internet and Banking Commerce.

Mooney, C. (2014, November 17). Why is it hard to get anywhere on fracking? Because people are too full of themselves. The Washington Post. Retrieved from www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2014/11/17/everybody-thinks-theyre-on- the-right-side-of-the-fracking-debate/.

Mufson, S. (2014, July 2). How Two Small New York Towns have Shaken Up the National Fight Over Fracking . The Washington Post. Retrieved from www.washingtonpost.com/business/economy/how-two-small-new-york-towns-have- shaken-up-the-national-fight-over-fracking/2014/07/02/fe9c728a-012b-11e4-8fd0- 3a663dfa68ac_story.html.

National Institute of Environmental Health Science. (2019, January 25). Hydraulic Fracturing & Health. Retrieved January 25, 2020, from www.niehs.nih.gov/health/ topics/agents/fracking/index.cfm.

Nelson, T. E., & Kinder, D. R. (1996). Issue Frames and Group-Centrism in American Public Opinion. The Journal of Politics, 58(4), 1055–1078.

Nichols, B. (2010). Representing reality: issues and concepts in documentary. Bloomington, IN: Indiana Univ. Press.

84 Nielsen, R. K., & Schrøder, K. C. (2014). The Relative Importance of Social Media for Accessing, Finding, and Engaging with News. Digital Journalism, 2(4), 472–489.

Oates, W. (2009, September 21). Environmental Federalism. Resources.

Olive, A., & Delshad, A. B. (2017). Fracking and Framing: A Comparative Analysis of Media Coverage of Hydraulic Fracturing in Canadian and US Newspapers. Environmental Communication, 11(6), 784–799.

Osborn, S., Vengosh, A., Warner, N., & Jackson, R. (2011). Methane contamination of drinking water accompanying gas-well drilling and hydraulic fracturing. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 108(20), 8172–8176.

Osur, L. (2016). Netflflix and the Development of the Internet Television Network. Syracuse University.

Pew Research Center. (2017, October 20). Political Polarization in the American Public. Retrieved January 25, 2020, from www.people-press.org/2014/06/12/political- polarization-in-the-american-public/.

Pew Research Center. (2019, December 30). Majorities See Government Efforts to Protect the Environment as Insufficient. Retrieved March 30, 2020, from www.pewresearch.org/science/2018/05/14/majorities-see-government-efforts-to- protect-the-environment-as-insufficient/.

Plantinga, C. (2005). What a Documentary Is, After All. The Journal of Aesthetics and Art Criticism, 63(2), 105–117.

Rainie, L., Funk, C., Kennedy, B., Anderson, M., …Page, D. (2015, July 1). Politics and Science: What Americans Think. Retrieved January 10, 2020, from www.pewresearch.org/internet/wp-content/uploads/sites/9/2015/07/2015-07- 01_science-and-politics_FINAL-1.pdf.

Rinkesh. (2016, December 25). Pros and Cons of Fracking. Retrieved January 25, 2020, from www.conserve-energy-future.com/pros-and-cons-of-fracking.php.

RNC Communications. (2016, July 18). The 2016 Republican Party Platform. Retrieved from www.gop.com/the-2016-republican-party-platform/

Salim, S. (2019, January 4). How much time do you spend on social media? Research says 142 minutes per day. Retrieved January 8, 2020, from www.digitalinformation world.com/2019/01/how-much-time-do-people-spend-social-media-infographic.html.

85 Schaefer, M. W. (2017, November 5). 15 Amazing ways social media is changing the world. Retrieved April 21, 2020, from www.businessesgrow.com/2016/04/11/social- media-is-changing-the-world/.

Shearer, E. (2018, December 10). Social media outpaces print newspapers in the U.S. as a news source. Retrieved January 8, 2020, from www.pewresearch.org/fact- tank/2018/12/10/social-media-outpaces-print-newspapers-in-the-u-s-as-a-news- source/.

Smith, M. F., & Ferguson, D. P. (2013). “Fracking democracy”: Issue management and locus of policy decision-making in the Marcellus Shale gas drilling debate. Public Relations Review, 39(4), 377–386.

Soyer, M., Kaminski, K., & Ziyanak, S. (2020). Socio-Psychological Impacts of Hydraulic Fracturing on Community Health and Well-Being. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 17(4).

Stephenson, M. (2015). Shale Gas and Fracking: the Science Behind the Controversy. Elsevier Science Publishing Co Inc. Stroud, N. J. (2010). Polarization and Partisan Selective Exposure. Journal of Communication, 60(3), 556–576.

Swift, A. (2016, March 30). Opposition to Fracking Mounts in the U.S. Retrieved March 30, 2020, from www.news.gallup.com/poll/190355/opposition-fracking- mounts.aspx.

The Chicago School of Media Theory. (n.d.). Mass Media. Retrieved January 18, 2020, from www.lucian.uchicago.edu/blogs/mediatheory/keywords/mass-media/.

The Sky is Pink. (2012).

Toupin, L. (2019, October 10). U.S. Federal vs. State Environmental Regulations: What to Follow? Retrieved April 21, 2020, from www.enablon.com/blog/u-s-federal- vs-state-environmental-regulations-what-to-follow/.

Triple Divide. (2013).

Uhrmacher, K., Schaul, K., Scherer, M., Stein, J., Meckler, L., Firozi, P., … Gearan, A. (2019). We’re asking 2020 Democrats where they stand on key issues. The Washington Post. Retrieved from www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/politics/policy- 2020/.

86 U.S. Energy Information Administration. (2019, November 1). Which states consume and produce the most natural gas? Retrieved March 2, 2020, from www.eia.gov/tools/ faqs/faq.php?id=46&t=8.

U.S. Energy Information Administration. (2019, August 28). The United States uses a mix of energy sources. Retrieved April 20, 2020, from www.eia.gov/energyexplained/ us-energy-facts/.

Vasi, I. B., Walker, E. T., Johnson, J. S., & Tan, H. F. (2015). “No Fracking Way!” Documentary Film, Discursive Opportunity, and Local Opposition against Hydraulic Fracturing in the United States, 2010 to 2013. American Sociological Review, 80(5), 934–959.

Vengosh, A., Warner, N., Jackson, R., & Darrah, T. (2013). The Effects of Shale Gas Exploration and Hydraulic Fracturing on the Quality of Water Resources in the United States. Procedia Earth and Planetary Science, 7, 863–866.

Walker, I., & Pettigrew, T. F. (1984). Relative deprivation theory: An overview and conceptual critique. British Journal of Social Psychology, 23(4), 301–310.

Warner, B., & Shapiro, J. (2013). Fractured, Fragmented Federalism: A Study in Fracking Regulatory Policy. Publius: The Journal of Federalism, 43(3), 474–496.

Warner, N. R., Christie, C. A., Jackson, R. B., & Vengosh, A. (2013). Impacts of Shale Gas Wastewater Disposal on Water Quality in Western Pennsylvania. Environmental Science & Technology, 47(20), 11849–11857.

West Virginia Rivers. (n.d.). Citizens' Guide to Fracking Permits in West Virginia. Retrieved January 9, 2020, from www.downstreamstrategies.com/documents/reports_ publication/citizens-guide-to-fracking.pdf.

Widrich, L. (2016, March 17). How Twitter evolved from 2006 to 2011. Retrieved March 26, 2020, from www.buffer.com/resources/how-twitter-evolved-from-2006-to- 2011.

Wiener, J. B., & Rogers, M. D. (2002). Comparing precaution in the United States and Europe. Journal of Risk Research, 5(4), 317–349.

Wiseman, R. (2014, February). Advantages & Disadvantages of Federalism. Retrieved April 20, 2020, from www.bloomp.net/articles/benefits-of-federalism.htm.

87 Appendix – one

DETAILED ONLINE PUBLIC ATTENTION GRAPHS – one

88

89

90