More to come...

I’m working on non-shale gas assignments through May 2015.

Look for posts here again prior to the release of the updated version Under the Surface, due out in paperback in June from Cornell University Press. The new release will include chapters on the Home Rule movement and other factors that shaped policy in New York, and EPA investigations in Dimock Pennsylvania and elsewhere that sparked a national fight over industry control.

-- Tom Wilber

Audiences at public talks show texture of fracking debate. Next up: Revolution Books, Joint Landowners Coalition

My nature and disposition are better suited for reporting and writing than public speaking. But it’s hard to write a book about an issue like fracking and then duck out of the fray.

So I do what I can as a speaker -- a role I find both challenging and fruitful. As a reporter, I seek out sources as part of my work-a-day routine. Less frequently do they seek me out (although the frequency is increasing in the Internet age.) The dynamic is different at public talks. Here I encounter in one spot a freewheeling mix of those there to listen and those there to tell me something, with protocols and expectations that tend to change from group to group. Speaking invitations have taken me to some diverse venues including geology conventions, libraries, bookstores, universities, a retirement communities, and a brewery. Some audiences tend to be neutral, some opinionated, and some committed to specific positions for or against gas drilling. Some are more informed than others. Some have unique experiences or are tied to the outcome of the story in a compelling and personal way. Some spontaneously become sources: the young couple in Greenville, Pennsylvania who await drilling crews to begin Utica Shale exploration on their property with large measures of both hope and anxiety and little concrete information; or community members in Oberlin, Ohio mystified about the workings and functions of a nearby disposal well; or a geology expert in Buffalo who offers technical insights in the interest of boosting clarity and credibility in my work. Spontaneous public turbulence is vital to all journalism. It can complicate a simple story line, but it also aerates and enriches reporting by broadening a reporter’s knowledge base and empathy for stakeholders.

In upcoming weeks, I will be participating at events hosted by groups at opposite ends of the fracking spectrum. On Wednesday, I will give a talk at Revolution Books in Manhattan– a store that provides customers “who refuse to accept the horrors of today’s world” with “the books and the deep engagement with each other about why the world is the way it is and the possibility of a radically different way the world could be.” I expect the audience will include anti-fracking activists who feel Big Energy’s grip on natural resources and influence on global politics comes at the expense of public health and the environment.

On May 30, I will moderate a forum in Albany hosted by the Joint Landowners Coalition of New York, a group that sees shale gas development as an economic engine and means for national independence. The forum will include speakers from the industry, medical community, and academia who will “debunk myths” about shale gas development. I expect the audience will include some people who feel that environmental and health risks are merely a fabrication of liberal interests challenging the system of free enterprise.

I have agreed to both of these forums, partly to serve the discussion and partly to observe the discussion. As a journalist, I think it’s critical to be engaged in and witness to all aspects of this debate and to learn as much as I can as I go. I will not take sides on whether the risks of shale gas development outweigh the rewards. But I am not exactly a disinterested observer. I feel strongly that fighting for transparency in matters of overwhelming public interest is fundamental to the work of any journalist, and there is a critical need for transparency, and aggressive reporting, in matters related to the energy industry.

I also believe that the press serves as an agent for reform and a popular counterbalance to concentrations of wealth and power. Some call this watchdog journalism, which is a fitting and non-political name. But I don't shy away from this: This brand of watchdog journalism embodies liberal ideals that have been associated with the traditional media since the days of Joseph Pulitzer and Upton Sinclair. Journalists are not there to take sides, but to equip society – commoners as well as elites -- with the tools it needs for self-governance, and that begins with a spotlight on matters of public interest.

Reporting of shale gas story influenced by Internet trends PR, advocacy, fill niche as journalistic void grows

This post considers the latest news about methane migration in Pennsylvania. But to tell that story, I first have to tell another story.

In 2010, the number of public relations specialists in the U.S. had risen to an all time high of 320,000. By contrast, the number of reporters had fallen to a low of 58,500. The fantastic trajectory of the PR business will hold strong at least through 2020 with a 21 percent growth curve, according to Statistics at the Department of Labor. Over the next decade, the number of new PR jobs alone will exceed the payroll of the entire news industry.

For professional reporters and those who value their vocational contributions to society, it’s only going to get worse. The reporting payroll is projected to decline by another 6 percent by 2020. That means the public will be receiving more information billed as news that has been shaped, spun, or fabricated by professionals working within the narrow parameters of particular corporate interests. This growing rubric of the Fourth Estate will use the traditional tools – press releases and phone calls -- to leverage stories into news outlets. It also has at its disposal Facebook, Blogger, and Twitter – powerful tools to bypass the working press altogether.

At the same time free content on the Internet has eroded the number of staff writers and newscasters and lent traction to corporate interests, it has given rise to a volunteer corps of citizen journalists, muckrakers, and filmmakers. Josh Fox and Michael Moore have become role models for a new breed of advocacy journalists who, once merely consumers in the Market Place of Ideas, now have new access as vendors via social networks. By way of example, I have written about Vera Scroggins, an amateur videographer who lugs equipment over hill and dale, into town and country, recording municipal meetings, toxic spills, and interviews with residents. She filmed operations of shale gas operators that were beyond the wherewithal of the sparse professional reporting staff in rural northern Pennsylvania, and posted footage on the Internet, providing a repository of information otherwise unavailable. Participation of people like Vera is a good thing. It’s empowered the populous by giving everybody a voice -- access to the public stump in the square, and the ability to share information.

But it comes with a cost. The indy and PR news sources that thrive on the Internet are a welcome boon to free speech, but they also tend to undermine the traditional free press, which is unable to generate on-line revenue sources needed to sustain professional reporting. Beyond that economic consideration, there is the matter of content: Independent news largely comes unfiltered for noise, bias, and confusion. When newspaper reporters get a fact wrong, large or small, they are called on it. If necessary, corrections are issued, and their frequency is considered in a reporter’s annual performance evaluation. Additionally, reporters’ work has to pass muster with a staff of editors. These editors undoubtedly have varying political views, but they are all professionally committed to serving the expectations of a diverse readership. Editorial staff is separate from the news staff, both in the physical segregation of office space and in clearly defined roles.

As the public turns to free content on the Internet at the expense of paid content by professional reporters, the type of credibility and checks and balances that professional journalists have traditionally brought to the public are disappearing. The depth of reporting, and the newspaper’s traditional role as advocate for open government and transparency in matters of public interest are also suffering with the decline of revenue available for investigative journalism. It’s not just about the revenue, it’s about the source of revenue – from an independent readership and viewers – that makes the press such an effective watchdog.

Now for the other part of this story.

The gas industry claims that drilling is not a public health threat, and that fracking fluid is harmless. In support of these claims it cites lack of evidence tying operations to pollution and illness. What’s missing is full disclosure. The industry operates on private property without the level of regulatory oversight that other industries face. (It is exempt from both federal Safe Drinking Water Act and  hazardous waste laws that require disclosure of what goes into and what comes out of the ground.) When something goes wrong, it is often a matter between the company and the homeowner to resolve. When legal pressure necessitates, the industry can make the problem go away with settlements that contain non-disclosure clauses.

A recent example came to light with a personal injury claim against Range Resources and other operators by a family in Mt. Pleasant Township, Pa. Range Resources agreed to pay the Hallowich family $750,000 to settle a lawsuit for personal injury damages related to operations near their home. The case was settled by the parties in 2011, no official complaint was filed, and the records were sealed.  

We only know this because the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette and the Washington Observer-Reporter filed and won a suit to get the records unsealed. The unsealed documents also revealed that the PA Department of Environmental Protection did not maintain records of an investigation into a complaint about water contamination at a neighboring property, and that the investigator, Mark Kiel, soon left the agency to work for the gas drilling company he had been investigating. For every case that gets unsealed, there are hundreds, if not thousands of cases sealed in documents that are never opened because their public relevance goes unchallenged, and that’s largely because mainstream media outlets have fewer resources to do that then they did in the golden age of investigative journalism.

Meanwhile, both the DEP and gas companies are able to keep matters of public interest unfolding in Susquehanna County from full public view. Last week, the DEP issued a brief statement that exonerated gas company WPX of causing methane pollution in three wells in the Township of Franklin Forks. Yet the agency is not releasing any results related to the investigation or to its conclusions. It is known that the Franklin Forks area and the nearby Salt Springs State Park contain rich methane reservoirs in both deep and shallow formations (hence the attractiveness of the area to petroleum operators). Although the DEP released its conclusions that the gas affecting the water wells was not from nearby gas wells or production zones being tapped by WPX, it did not explain the source or course of pollution at concentrations five times greater than the threshold for explosion risks.

It’s been a high-visibility case dominated by interest groups. Yoko Ono and other celebrities supporting anti-fracking groups visited the site in January to press their case against allowing fracking in neighboring New York state. On the other side of the fence, the industry group Energy In Depth issued a press release titled “DEP Debunks Methane Claims in Franklin Township,” which seized on the conclusion of the DEP investigation as proof that the industry is being vilified. Meanwhile, the landowner of one of the affected wells – the Manning family – is suing WPX for the pollution. Given the trend, it would be unsurprising if this gets settled behind closed doors.

Franklin Forks may have been less of a story if not for events that have unfolded in Dimock Township, about a dozen miles to the south. More than four years after the explosion of a residential water well called attention to the problem, the DEP is still investigating recurring water pollution problems in the middle of a gas field being developed by Cabot Oil & Gas. Wells providing water to several dozen homes have been taken off line or fitted with filtration equipment to remove gas and other pollution since the water well of Norma Fiorentino exploded on New Year’s Day, 2009. Under the Rendell administration, the DEP cited Cabot for various violations related to the problems.

Now Governor Tom Corbett’s DEP is investigating cases involving two homes in an area where the agency has banned drilling of new wells in the wake of chronic water problems. Recent tests showed dangerous levels of methane flowing into residential water wells near the junction of Carter Road and State Route 3023. Yet the problem, in the eyes of the DEP, remains elusive.  “We are slowly getting some test results back,” DEP spokeswoman Colleen Connolly said. “However  - as per our attorney, DEP does not share test results from private water wells with anyone but the private well owner.”

To be clear, the agency has a policy of releasing incomplete data to homeowners, a policy that has produced much criticism but little action. Officials justify the long-standing practice of excluding some fields as a sound method to filter noise from relevant data. Critics argue that the agency cherry picks the data, and the unreleased fields might be useful indicators of drilling contamination and other problems. Moreover, homeowners have a right to all results of water quality tests that can flag health risks.

The fight over the cause and consequences of methane seeping into private water wells in Susquehanna County is one example of an issue that could stand a little more legal leverage from professional news outlets. While some outlets, including the Scranton Times-Tribune, do what they can with declining resources to report the story, readers would be well served by a legal challenge to the DEP’s refusal to release ground water analysis paid for by tax-payer money concerning matters of overwhelming public interest. News outlets, of course, have to choose their battles and they have less discretion than ever as their revenues fall. In the meantime, we do our best with half-page press releases issued by regulatory agencies, rhetoric from talking heads for or against fracking, or hyperbolic “I told you so” by PR firms and activists representing stakeholders.  

More on Pulitzer’s legacy in context of fracking debate --- Are core media values changing with tools, expectations?

 Anti-fracking protesters crowd the Albany Capitol.
PHOTO JAMES PITARRESI 

Last week I wrote about the role and influence of the media in the anti-fracking debate during a time when the tools and form of reporting are evolving almost as fast as the fracking story.

In response, anti-fracking activist Michael LeBron raised some good points, which give me another chance to circle back to one of my favorite subjects – the function of media. In my July 7 post, Does Gasland controversy reflect reporting in the 21st Century, I cited this quote by Joseph Pulitzer as the embodiment of values once embraced by traditional daily newspapers:

Always fight for progress and reform, never tolerate injustice or corruption, always fight demagogues of all parties, never belong to any party, always oppose privileged classes and public plunderers, never lack sympathy with the poor, always remain devoted to the public welfare, never be satisfied with merely printing news, always be drastically independent, never be afraid to attack wrong, whether by predatory plutocracy or predatory poverty.

I then questioned whether these ideals are falling from favor amid reporting generated by citizen journalist often aligned with or motivated by specific causes, or politically canted coverage from outlets like Fox News. (And I will here add MSNBC.)

Lebron is a New York City resident, artist, and board member of Damascus Citizens for Sustainability who has been an anti-fracking activist since the early days of the dispute, when water wells began going bad in Dimock, Pa. in 2009. This is what he had to say:

Tom, I'm not sure what you are saying. From the quote you selected, it sounds to me like Joe Pulitzer was an advocate for advocacy journalism!

If it could only be said that truth resides in objectively measurable phenomena and with a public that has the patience to take the time needed to observe them. This begs the question as to whether or not - in the absence of having all the relevant phenomena that is observable at the ready (indeed, who decides what is relevant?) - it is possible to observe in a way that is lacking in subjective bias and that will lead to "the truth". But isn't good science more about asking the right questions, questions that lead to ... not answers, but better answers? Ask Tony Ingraffea. [the Cornell University engineering professor and industry consultant now opposed to fracking.]

Having said that, in a society where great concentrations of wealth hang on selected definitions of "truth" and use all the tools at its disposal to aggressively frame them, "better answers" be damned if they depress 3rd quarter results, "advocates" * must provide a counterbalance by seizing the tools of journalism that have been democratized to such a great degree by the advent of the digitization era. In this age, mankind's survival may depend on it.

* and btw, aren't FOX, MSNBC, etc advocates? Why are the Michael Moores and Josh Foxes always the ones to be characterized as advocates? It is sort of like the distinction between "collateral damage" which is what the United States does, and "terrorism" which is what the folks without the drones and smart bombs do, but I digress.

Some of us think that ALL journalists are advocates. What is called "good" or "old fashioned" journalism is simply a journalism that is skilled at masking - or simply oblivious to - its own subjectivism, and that advocacy journalism is much more honest and ethical because it accepts its inevitable subjectivity.

My response to Michael:

You raise some great points. My quote of Pulitzer reflects a broad ideological baseline once paraphrased in newsroom as “comforting the afflicted and afflicting the comfortable.” This was the starting point for mainstream newspapers aimed at working class readers, and yes, there is no doubt that it’s a liberal one. I feel need to apologize for that. The media has always been a critical watchdog of power and an agent of reform in truly free countries. Somewhere along the line, I’m going to say during the Rush Limbaugh/Karl Rove/ Fox News era, big institutions saw they could effectively attack this liberal line and present it as bias, rather than as a natural watchdog function necessary for a government “of the people.”

 Pulitzer and his newspaper

Getting back to Pulitzer as an activist. Yes, he was an activist along very broad lines -- the popular press being a just equalizer for the commoner, a counterweight to the influence of wealth and power that became dangerously centralized during the Gilded Age. Pulitzer’s career spanned a time when newspapers served the working class in pre-union days of unparalleled accumulation of wealth and exploitation. But I don’t see that Pulitzer was advocating that reporters be married to any particular cause. On the contrary, he was urging them to be “drastically independent.” Everybody has his or her own interpretation and comfort level with this. I personally feel I operate better allowing myself a bit of distance between both sources and story, and my training and disposition lend themselves to this approach. I admit judging this tends to be a fine line for reporters who are diving headlong into personal and compelling story lines. While examining and critiquing the very important work of Josh Fox, I will always be open to views from people who disagree, and also to the possibility that my own views are not infallible. This is just my frame of reference, and it doesn’t diminish what Fox or Michael Moore (or any of their followers) have done.

Having worked at mainstream newspapers for decades, I can safely say that being both open minded and critical were points of pride and value in the newsroom, and that those (not on the Op Ed desk) who held strong views were very aware when their own thinking might be encroaching on a story. The newsroom culture was also marked by free thinkers from diverse backgrounds with broad knowledge of the communities and beats that they covered, and a way of connecting with their readers’ interests. Yes, there is plenty of what Fox criticizes as “he-said-she-said” journalism (often made necessary by keeping up with the most relevant and provocative issues of public interest on relentless deadlines), but I will argue there is a place for that along side of the investigations.

Times are changing, and I am not a person who fears change and who is looking at the good old days through the rosy mist of nostalgia. The new degree of freedom, power, and immediacy the Internet brings to challenge, express, and explore views is a good thing. I hope that the good things that traditional institutional reporting brings – resources, experience, talent, reach, and competiveness -- can coexist with the decentralized and very able voices of citizen journalists. If they can, I believe we are heading into another golden age of reporting.

Does Gasland controversy reflect reporting in 21st Century

Vera Scroggins, citizen journalist and anti-fracking activist

PHOTO JAMES PITARRESI 

Most people following the fracking controversy are familiar with the movie Gasland. It’s told through the first-person narration of Josh Fox, a native of Milanville, Pa. who sets out on a cross-country quest to learn about high volume hydraulic fracturing after a company offers to lease his family’s land to drill for natural gas.

When Gasland aired on HBO in the summer of 2010, it offered the American mainstream public the first feature-length look into shale gas development, and it wasn’t pretty. A hallmark of the movie is a scene where Mike Markham, who lives in a natural gas field in Weld County, Colorado, holds a lighter under tap water to demonstrate the consequences of nearby drilling operations. A cloud of yellow flame explodes in the sink as Markham leaps back.

Gasland was nominated for an Academy Award, not just because of its exposure of an unregulated industry causing undisclosed problems, but because it was a compelling work of art. Fox has since led rallies against fracking (the process of injecting the ground with a chemical solution that makes extracting gas and oil from rock economical) and has become a champion in the movement against the perpetuation of fossil fuel dependency.

Methane migration is a phenomenon of gas moving through the ground into enclosed spaces, creating hazards along the lines demonstrated at the Markham household, or worse. Methane migration is sometimes but not always related to gas drilling, with the burden of proof typically falling to the landowner. Predictably, Fox has been a target of the oil and gas industry for his depiction of methane migration at the Markham home. The time and energy spent to discredit him -- through films such as Truthland and Frack Nation -- are an indication of his influence. Fox, who was a featured speaker at rallies after his film was released, has also drawn criticism from those who argue that fracking has opened access to carbon resources that are less damaging to the environment than coal, and which provide the means for an immediate transition away from foreign oil dependence. I have also heard the argument that true environmentalists (who are also consumers of cheap abundant energy) should be weighing the impacts of unregulated mineral extraction in other countries against what’s happening in their own American back yards.

Among other things, Fox’s critics point to an assessment by the state of Colorado Oil & Gas Conservation Commission that concluded Markham’s water well was polluted by methane unrelated to gas drilling. Did Fox sensationalize, or even misrepresent, the Markham circumstances to serve his purposes? The Colorado agency has a stake in Fox’s portrayal of its regulatory effectiveness, and viewed through Fox’s perspective, the agency’s rebuttal of his work has no bearing on the accuracy of Gasland. That’s because his film is both an expose of the gas industry and the regulatory bodies that oversee it. Both are in collusion and neither is to be trusted, according to Fox. (He cites examples ranging from the Haliburton Loophole – which spells out fracking’s exemption from the federal Safe Drinking Water Act, to instances buried in the COGCC rebuttal that document other drilling-related methane migration cases in Weld County.)

Others, such as Andrew Revkin, a long-time science writer for the New York Times and now blogger for the Times’ Dot Earth, have given Fox low grades for his presentation. In Revkin’s view, Fox’s work is lax in distinguishing impacts of fundamentals such as drilling versus fracking - (methane migration is most commonly associated with drilling); or in explaining the differences between risks of pollution related to above-ground storage and handling of fracking chemicals versus subterranean impacts – shortcomings Revkin characterizes as “Josh's conflation of many things.” Fox has attacked Revkin for supporting shale gas as an alternative to coal, and specifically for endorsing a plan by Andrew Cuomo to begin permitting drilling and fracking in certain parts of New York State. (This post was partially inspired by Fox’s debate with Revkin, and subsequent conversations with them.)

The controversy surrounding Josh Fox is about fracking. But it also tells us plenty about the changing form and expectations of journalism. For most of the 20th Century, during the golden age of newspapering, reporters learned their craft on a newspaper’s payroll, where they were naturally selected by the merit of their stories, gauged both by public interest and trust built with readers and sources. After years of proving themselves to be reliable on cop and municipal beats, reporters eventually advanced to investigative stories. Those with established resumes also tended to land the most attractive magazine assignments. (The same pattern held true for broadcast journalism.)

The Internet has given rise to a volunteer corps of citizen journalists and a decline in the number of staff writers and newscasters. While Fox is a professional film maker with resources and some journalistic experience, he is also a principal role model for many citizen journalists who, once merely consumers in the Market Place of Ideas, now have access to participate as vendors. My book, Under the Surface, credit people such as Vera Scroggins, an amateur videographer who lugs equipment over hill and dale, into town and country, recording municipal meetings, interviews with residents, and fracking spills that were beyond the wherewithal of the sparse professional reporting staff in rural northern Pennsylvania, where the fledgling shale gas industry took root in 2009. She posted footage on the Internet, providing a repository of information otherwise unavailable. Participation of people like Vera is a good thing. But there is a cost. Filters for noise and confusion – i.e. credibility -- that professional journalists have traditionally brought to the public are disappearing with the attrition of the professional journalism corps (due largely to the failure of broadcast and print media to economically adapt to the proliferation of free content on the Internet).

There are plenty of citizen journalists who are motivated by political or ideological interests. There is no dishonor in this. Both journalism and activism have traditionally been intertwined, as a free press has always been an agent for reform and even revolution. Editorial comment has long been a vital subset of journalism. But making a distinction between the two functions is, in my view, an essential aspect of the type of transparency that journalists ask of sources and subjects, and that our readers have come to expect.

I have a guiding ideology of my own, and it’s embodied in the school of journalism that celebrates Joseph Pulitzer. Pulitzer advised:

Always fight for progress and reform, never tolerate injustice or corruption, always fight demagogues of all parties, never belong to any party, always oppose privileged classes and public plunderers, never lack sympathy with the poor, always remain devoted to the public welfare, never be satisfied with merely printing news, always be drastically independent, never be afraid to attack wrong, whether by predatory plutocracy or predatory poverty.

I openly wonder whether this old-school newspaper approach is falling from public favor in the era that has brought us Fox News and a proliferation of advocacy journalism on the Internet.

The controversy surrounding Josh Fox is also about politics. OK. I know what some readers are thinking, because I have heard it many times in this debate: Politics! That surely has no role in the discussion of something as important as our energy future and the merits and drawbacks of hydraulic fracturing. But before we dismiss political thinking as inferior to cold, hard science, keep in mind that scientists do not make the decisions in this country. Politicians do. Science has many masters, and politicians are served by science that supports their ideological worldviews. In a free country these views are (ideally and with some exceptions) representations of the views of the electorate.

We’ve seen since the birth of our country, through the Civil War, labor movement and Civil Rights eras, that political polarization is a painful part of self governance. In that vein I offer (along with the words of Pulitzer) this from Supreme Court Justice William Brennan Jr. Brennan wrote for the court that dismissed libel charges against the New York Times in 1964. The court ruled in favor of the Times 9-0, even though the work in question, an advertisement titled Heed Their Rising Voices, contained factual errors about the arrest of civil rights protesters in Alabama. This, according to Brennan, is why:

A profound national commitment to the principle that debate on public issues should be uninhibited, robust, and wide-open, and that it may well include vehement, caustic, and sometimes unpleasantly sharp attacks on government and public officials.

So let the fracking debate continue. As long as muckrakers are allowed to shed air and light into all corners of public affairs, and average citizens are represented, I have faith the country will follow the right course.