University of South Carolina Scholar Commons Theses and Dissertations 2017 Hydraulic Fracturing In the United States: A Framing Analysis Kenneth Stephen Cardell Jr. University of South Carolina Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarcommons.sc.edu/etd Part of the Journalism Studies Commons Recommended Citation Cardell Jr., K.(2017). Hydraulic Fracturing In the United States: A Framing Analysis. (Doctoral dissertation). Retrieved from https://scholarcommons.sc.edu/etd/4429 This Open Access Dissertation is brought to you by Scholar Commons. It has been accepted for inclusion in Theses and Dissertations by an authorized administrator of Scholar Commons. For more information, please contact [email protected]. Hydraulic Fracturing in the United States: A Framing Analysis By Kenneth Stephen Cardell Jr. Bachelor of Arts University of South Carolina Upstate, 2012 Submitted in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements For the Degree of Master of Arts in Journalism College of Information and Communications University of South Carolina 2017 Accepted by: Sei-Hill Kim, Director of Thesis Andrea Tanner, Reader Brooke McKeever, Reader Cheryl L. Addy, Vice Provost and Dean of the Graduate School © Copyright by Kenneth S. Cardell Jr., 2017 All Rights Reserved ii DEDICATION To my parents, with love and gratitude, Sherry and Jeff Goodman & Ken and Penny Cardell. Thanks for a lifetime of encouragement; without each of you this accomplishment would not have been possible. iii ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS I would like to thank everyone who contributed to the completion of this thesis research. First, I would like to thank the chair of my thesis committee, Dr. Sei-Hill Kim, for his guidance and patience during the research process. His understanding of both quantitative content analysis, as well as news framing analysis were invaluable throughout the writing of this thesis. I would also like to thank Drs. Andrea Tanner and Brooke McKeever, for their support as members of my thesis committee. Dr. Tanner’s guidance as a professor of mass communication theory served as a foundation for this research project, while Dr. McKeever’s understanding of science communication research served as the catalyst which inspired me to study the issue of hydraulic fracturing. iv ABSTRACT This research considers the issue of hydraulic fracturing, a controversial method of extracting natural gas from shale and coal deposits. The technology, commonly referred to as “fracking,” has only been employed on an industrial scale since the late 1990s and is increasingly becoming the focus of news coverage. In this thesis research, a representative sample of both national and regional newspaper coverage on the issue of hydraulic fracturing is analyzed, looking at several key elements of framing. This study also examines differences in issue framing between the national elite press and regional news sources, as well as based upon partisanship. The analysis found that hydraulic fracturing tends to be framed as an issue of technological uncertainty, economic impact, or public accountability/governance, within both national and regional news coverage. Within the discourse, support for fracking is most often described in terms of economic benefit, whereas opposition to fracking is largely expressed through concerns over ecological damage and the lack of political/regulatory oversight. Further, findings suggest the tone of fracking stories has primarily been positive at both the national and regional levels, as well as among both liberal and conservative leaning new sources. v TABLE OF CONTENTS Dedication .......................................................................................................................... iii Acknowledgements ............................................................................................................ iv Abstract ................................................................................................................................v List of Tables ................................................................................................................... viii Chapter 1: Introduction .......................................................................................................1 Chapter 2: Framing ..............................................................................................................8 2.1: News Framing of Hydraulic Fracturing ...............................................................8 2.2: Frames ................................................................................................................11 2.3: Issue Attributes ..................................................................................................18 2.4: Tone ...................................................................................................................23 Chapter 3: Methods ............................................................................................................31 3.1: Sample ...............................................................................................................31 3.2: Coding ................................................................................................................34 Chapter 4: Findings ............................................................................................................41 4.1: Frames ................................................................................................................41 4.2: Issue Attributes ..................................................................................................46 4.3: Tone ...................................................................................................................53 Chapter 5: Discussion ........................................................................................................60 5.1: Frames ................................................................................................................62 5.2: Issue Attributes ..................................................................................................68 vi 5.3: Tone ...................................................................................................................75 Chapter 6: Conclusions ......................................................................................................78 6.1 Limitations and Future Research ........................................................................78 6.2 Implications of Research.....................................................................................79 References ..........................................................................................................................80 vii LIST OF TABLES Table 2.1 Description of Frames ........................................................................................26 Table 2.2 Complete List of Attributes ...............................................................................27 Table 3.1 Detailed Description of Sample .........................................................................37 Table 3.2 Inter-Coder Reliability Data ..............................................................................38 Table 4.1 Distribution of Frames .......................................................................................57 Table 4.2 Distribution of Attributes ...................................................................................58 Table 4.3 Distribution of Story Tone .................................................................................59 viii CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION With the rapid depletion of global petroleum reserves, the search for alternate sources of energy has intensified. In the US, with oil and natural gas production from conventional deposits leveling off, much focus has been placed on the production of petroleum resources from unconventional hydrocarbon reservoirs. Hydraulic fracturing, often referred to as “fracking,” a recent development in well drilling technology, allows energy companies to tap underground reserves of hydrocarbon rich shale previously considered too expensive to extract (Heinberg & Post Carbon Institute, 2013; Mathur & Hasset, 2013). Over the past decade, oil and natural gas produced from shale deposits have significantly increased domestic petroleum production totals. The U.S. Energy Information Administration estimates that U.S. natural gas production from shale deposits will more than double from 14 trillion cubic feet in 2015 to 29 trillion cubic feet in 2040, while crude oil production from shale deposits will increase from 4.2 million barrels per day in 2017 (25% of total U.S. crude oil production) to nearly 7.1 million barrels per day in 2040 (35% of total U.S. crude production), production increases made possible by hydraulic fracturing technology (U.S. Energy Information Administration, 2017). The economic benefits of oil and natural gas produced from shale are numerous. According to research published by the Oxford Institute for Energy Studies, in 2011 the 1 US produced 8,500,983 million cubic feet of natural gas from shale gas wells, representing a value of approximately $36 billion (Hassett & Mathur, 2013). According to a study examining the economic impact of the shale gas industry in the US, 600,000 jobs were supported by the shale gas industry in 2010, and current predictions suggest that number will increase to 870,000 in 2015, and to over 1.6 million by 2035 (IHS, 2011). According to the U.S. Department