, Volume 55, Issue 6, pp 531–539 | Cite as

Birth and Death(?) of the Anti-Fracking Movement: Inferences from Quantity of Coverage Theory

  • Allan MazurEmail author
Social Science and Public Policy


Public opposition to fracking is one of numerous movements expressing concern about health or environmental risks of a (usually) new technology. These have at their core an esoteric dispute between technical experts, but laypeople also become actively involved, usually as volunteers. They may live close to pertinent sites, motivated by fears for their families and property, or they may be people living farther away, attracted to the opposition for ideological reasons. (Opposition to fracking is a politically liberal position.) Activism is increasingly motivated when the issue is “hot” and diminishes when it cools down. According to Quantity of Coverage Theory (QCT), the “hotness” of an issue – therefore the degree of activism -- largely depends on its presence in the mass media. The American anti-fracking movement arose fairly quickly around 2010–11. News coverage peaked during 2012–14 and is now diminishing. Similar peaks and declines are observed in British and German news media, consistent with the power of central American media to influence news coverage in other industrial nations. Inferentially, from declining news coverage, the anti-fracking movement is waning, perhaps dying. Lacking direct measures of activism, QCT provides a lens through which to see the rise and fall of the movement.


Hydraulic fracturing Fracking News media Public opposition Methane 

Further Reading

  1. Andrews, K., & Carena, N. 2010. Making the News: Movement Organizations, Media Attention, and the Public Agenda. American Sociological Review, 75, 841–866.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Applebome, P. 2008. The light is green, and yellow, on drilling. New York Times, A21.Google Scholar
  3. Barnes, B. (2013). “Documentaries: Where Sundance goes, Oscars follow.” New York Times (December 27).Google Scholar
  4. Bigi, B. 2017. Fracking in the German press: Securing energy supply on the eve of the ‘Energiewende’ – A quantitative framing-based analysis. Environmental Communication, 11, 231–247.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Boykoff, M., & Yulsman, Y. 2013. Political economy, media, and climate change: sinews of modern life. WIREs Climate Change, 4, 359–371.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Buttny, R. 2015. Contesting hydrofracking during an inter-governmental hearing: Accounting by reworking or challenging the question. Discourse & Communication, 9, 423–440.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Buttny, R., & Feldpausch-Parker, A. 2016. Communicating hydrofracking. Environmental Communication, 10, 407–417.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Ceccoli, S. 2017. Explaining attitudes toward U.S. energy extraction. Social Science Quarterly., 99, 644–664. Scholar
  9. Christenson, D., Goldfarb, J., & Kriner, D. 2017. Costs, benefits, and the malleability of public support for ‘fracking. Energy Policy, 105, 407–417. Scholar
  10. Costa, D., Pereira, B., Gois, J., Danko, A., & Fiuza, A. 2017. Understanding public perception of hydraulic fracturing: A case study in Spain. Journal of Environmental Management, 204, 551–562. Scholar
  11. Croke, K. 2010. Debra Winger’s Latest Role: Activist. Journal News - White Plains, NY.Google Scholar
  12. Davis, C. 2016. Fracking and environmental protection: An analysis of U.S. state policies. The Extractive Industries and Society, 4, 63–68. Scholar
  13. DOE. 2017. Staff report to the secretary on electricity markets and reliability. U.S. Department of Energy.Google Scholar
  14. Dokshin, R. 2016. Whose backyard and what’s at issue? Spatial and ideological dynamics of local opposition to fracking in New York state, 2010 to 2013. American Sociological Review, 81, 1–28.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Downs, A. 1972. Up and down with ecology – the “issue-attention cycle”. Public Interest, 28(summer), 38.Google Scholar
  16. Eaton, A., & Kinchy, E. 2016. Quiet voices in the fracking debate: Ambivalence, nonmobilization, and individual action in two extractive communities (Saskatchewan and Pennsylvania). Energy Research & Social Science, 20, 22–30. Scholar
  17. Evensen, D., & Brown-Steiner, B. 2017. Public perception of the relationship between climate change and unconventional gas development (‘fracking’) in the US. Climate Policy, 10, 1–12. Scholar
  18. Evensen, D., & Stedman, R. 2016. Scale matters: Variation in perceptions of shale gas development across national, state, and local levels. Energy Research & Social Science, 20, 14–21. Scholar
  19. Goldenberg, S. 2011. Energy lobby reignites Oscar interest in film on gas drilling. Guardian, 22, 22.Google Scholar
  20. Harvey, F. 2012. Gas fracking gets the green light. Guardian, 17, 1.Google Scholar
  21. Heikkila T., Weible C. 2016. “Contours of coalition politics on hydraulic rfacturing within the United States of America. Pp. 29–52 in: Weible C., Heikkila T., Ingold K., Fischer M. (eds) Policy Debates on Hydraulic Fracturing. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.
  22. Henley, J. 2013. Fracking firm starts drilling for oil as villagers swell rural protest in Balcombe. Guardian, 31, 2.Google Scholar
  23. Howell, E., Li, N., Atkin, H., Scheufele, D., Xenos, M., & Brossard, D. 2017. How do U.S. state residents form opinions about ‘fracking’ in social contexts? A multilevel analysis. Energy Policy, 106, 345–355. Scholar
  24. Jaspal, R., & Nerlich, B. 2013. Fracking in the UK Press: Threat Dynamics in an Unfolding Debate. Public Understanding of Science.
  25. Kaplan, T. 2014. Citing health risks Cuomo bans fracking in New York state. The New York Times, 17.Google Scholar
  26. King, G. B. S., & White, A. 2017. How the news media activate public expression and influence national agendas. Science, 358(10), 776–780. Scholar
  27. Lewinski, M. 2016. Shale gas debate in Europe: Pro-and-con dialectics and argumentative polylogues. Discourse & Communication., 10(6).
  28. Lis, A. 2017. “Politics and knowledge production: Between securitisation and riskification of the shale gas issue in Poland and Germany.” pp. 93–111 in Energy Security in Europe. Springer.Google Scholar
  29. Mazur, A., & Lee, J. 1993. Sounding the global alarm: Environmental issues in the US national news. Social Studies of Science, 23, 681–720.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Mazur, A., & Welch, E. 1999. The Geography of Environmentalism. Environmental Science & Policy, 2, 389–396.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Mazur, A. 2006. Risk Perception and News Coverage across Nations. Risk Management, 8, 149–174.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Mazur, A. 2009. American generation of environmental warnings: Avian influenza and global warming. Research in Human Ecology, 16, 17–26.Google Scholar
  33. Mazur, A. 2014. How did the fracking controversy emerge in the period 2010-2012? Public Understanding of Science., 25, 207–222. Scholar
  34. Mazur, A. 2017. Technical controversies over public policy: From fluoridation to fracking and climate change. London:Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. McCombs, M., & Shaw, D. 1972. The agenda-setting function of mass media. Public Opinion Quarterly, 36, 176–182.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Neil, J., Schweichart, T., Zhang, T., Lukito, J., Kim, J., & Golan, G. 2016. The dash for gas: Examining third-level agenda-building and fracking in the United Kingdom. Journalism Studies, 19, 1–27. Scholar
  37. Nerlich, B., Forsyth, R., & Clarke, D. 2012. Climate in the news: How differences in media discourse between the US and UK reflect national priorities. Environmental Communication, 6, 44–63.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Nisbet, M. 2010. Knowledge into action: Framing the debates over climate change and poverty. In: P. D'Angelo (ed.), Doing News Framing Analysis, pp. 43–83. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  39. Nisbet, M., & Newman, T. 2015. Framing, the media, and environmental communication. In: A. Hansen and R. Cox (Eds.), The Routledge Handbook of Environment and Communication, pp. 325–338. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  40. Olive, A., & Delshad, A. 2017. Fracking and framing: A comparative analysis of media coverage of hydraulic fracturing in Canadian and US newspapers. Environmental Communication, 11, 784–799. Scholar
  41. Partridge, T., Thomas, M., Harthorn, B. H., Pidgeon, N., Hasell, A., Stevenson, L., & Enders, C. 2017. Seeing futures now: Emergent US and UK views on shale development, climate change and energy systems. Global Environmental Change, 42, 1–12. doi: Scholar
  42. Raimi, D. 2017. The fracking debate: The risks, benefits, and uncertainties of the shale revolution. New York:Columbia University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Sperling, N. 2012. Matt Damon and John Krasinski’s zigzag path to “Promised Land.” Los Angeles Times (December 13).Google Scholar
  44. Staski, A. 2017. “Global controversies in local settings: anti-fracking activism in the era of Web 2.0.” Journal of Risk Research 1–17.
  45. Steger, T., & Drehobl, A. 2017. The anti-fracking movement in Ireland: Perspectives from the media and activists. Environmental Communication, 1–13.
  46. Vasi, I., Walker, E., Johnson, J., & Tan, H. 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, 934–959. Scholar
  47. Vaughn, A. 2017. Slinging mud: Inside (and outside) the UK’s biggest fracking site. Guardian, 2.Google Scholar
  48. Wilber, T. 2012. Under the surface. Ithaca, NY:Cornell University Press.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Syracuse UniversitySyracuseUSA

Personalised recommendations