Fracking In America Essay
In the early 1990s the United States was seeking energy independence with finding and obtaining our own natural gases. “For years now the U.S. has tried to lower its dependence on foreign oil from it energy needs, with stability in the middle east in question, drilling at home has never been more attracted” (Black). George P. Mitchell created a new system that would help us get closer to our nations goal, called hydraulic fracturing. Hydraulic fracturing, better known as “fracking”, is when high-pressured liquids are forced into the ground causes a subterranean layer of earth (The Marcellus Formation) to fracture causing oils and natural gases to be released. Fracking has been a very controversial topic for years in many aspects. In the television series Fault Lines, directed by Al Jareeza and written by Sam Black, the episode “Fracking in America” perfect exhibits our international debate and the direction our
…show more content…
country is headed in terms of energy independence. The claim in this documentary is achieved by the three modes of persuasion and classic television strategies that make this episode intriguing and leave the audience wanting more.
Something that can set television shows apart from others are credible producers and punctual writers. Al Jareeza and Sam Black fit these categories in numerous ways. Al Jareeza is a worldwide satellite television network that is set in Doha, Qatar. They are among one of the largest new broadcasters in the world, with over eighty different bureaus in many countries. They are also a very credible new site with many projects going out at a single time. Sam Black III is a popular documentary writer in the United States. He has been nominated for multiple Emmys under the categories “Outstanding Investigative Journalism” and “Best Documentaries”. He has been the producer and writer of many programs such as My Trip to Al-Qaeda and Client 9: The Rise and Fall of Eliot Spitzer. Having these people working together already exhibits a well put-to-together product that will inform and convince their audience.
In this documentary, we see many scientist who are specialist in their field and they are perfect examples of logos used through ethos. That was a strategy that the writers used to strengthen their argument through the thoughts of credible people in this topic. The first person we see is Terry Engelder, a geologist that works for the Pennsylvania State University School of Geosciences. Engelder shares a special passion and interest the Marcellus gas shale, which is where fracking takes place. He has credibility to the topic because he has studied them so anything he says will automatically sounds more intelligent. “Man has evolved from one energy to the next… right now I think we’re going to be moving towards into an age that will be the gas age” (Black). This helps the audience understand how fast humans go through resources and sets up the argument to why we need to stop fracking in our country. Our next scientist is Sandra Steingraber, a biologist, cancer survivor, and an anti-fracking advocate. She attended Illinois State University to received he PhD and is a distinguished scholar at Ithaca College in Ithaca. “Pennsylvania has opened its doors to fracking almost an unregulated Wild West kind of way and we were shocked and horrified and we have decided to have a moratorium. So, for four years we have forbidden fracking in New York until we assess the environmental health risks” (Black). Steingraber is an anti-fracking advocate, that alone is logos enough. She is a biologist and is against fracking. Her comment strengthens and confirms the intended claim that the producers are trying to convey. Finally, John Stolz is biologist at Duquesne University and he discussions the movement we must start if we continue changing our environment so drastically. “If you want to build a road or if you want to build a department store, you have to do an environmental impact study … If you're disturbing a wetland you have to restore wetlands somewhere else this industry is exempt from it” (Black). Using these quotes definitely work for television shows because the more people you hear speak in a show on one topic the more information you will get from different perspectives.
Through the television show we hear some stories from ordinary people who have been affected by fracking in Dimock, Pennsylvania. Telling stories has always been a way to share pathos and sympathize with the audience even though you do not even know them personally. Janet McIntyre is a woman who is has lived in Dimock all her life and now has a small family. After Cabot drilling and oil company moved into Dimock, her family soon became very ill. They were disturbed when their tap water was flammable, had a chemical odor, and was now purple. “You know, we're forced to go without water or to drink what we have. Every day, I wake up thinking about water. Water for coffee, I think about water. Water. Water. Christ sakes I go to bed thinking about water, you know? And how much water I got to have the next day and no matter what the gas companies [say, they] rides the DP’s side and we have to live with that” (Black). The department of environmental protection and the department of health will now side with the McIntyres’. As an audience member that is frustrating to watch because we see the evidence but, they still have gotten justice. It is a clear representation of manipulating human nature in their advantage. The argument against Cabot grows when we meet Scott Ely, also a resident in Dimock, Pennsylvania. He let Cabot drill on his land when they first came to the state, he lost a lot of money after this and ended up working for Cabot that next year. Ely explains the unprofessionalism that this company used in their equipment and production. “We had a unit over there catch on fire… and then we had a failure on this wall here…” (Black). Ely mentions that thousands of gallons were split on his site due to faulty set up of the well sites. Using people that are just like normal civilians make the argument more real to the audience, even if these stories are false or if they are just actors. These are supposed to provoke an emotional reaction and sympathy for these people who have been wronged by fracking.
People love to know secrets, the thrill of knowing something that you are not supposed to know is exciting. The way you phrase things can make them sound top secret. They mention the Safe Water Drink Act in 1974, which allowed oil companies to put toxic chemicals back into the ground. “The regressive lobbying the gas industry has secured exemptions from a host of U.S. federal environmental laws and regulations for instance the safe drinking water act. this permits them to inject known carcinogens and toxins into the ground. Public disclosure of certain fracking chemicals strictly voluntary in most states publicly the industry maintains that submitting and well casings are safe even though their own studies prove that's not always the case” (Black). We never are told if oil companies are lying about this or if they are simply oblivious to the fact that these chemicals affect drinking water. This ties in the next “secret” that will upset some tax payers. The speaker in the show is discussing lobbying in a government and how “The governor is firmly in their corner exempting the gas companies from paying taxes on production” (Black). This would make any big business owner who is paying taxes probably very upset. Why are gas companies not forced to pay taxes like the rest of us? In Pennsylvania, at least the government has an agreement with oil companies that is touched on very much other than that we do not have to pay taxes. From Pennsylvania Governor (Tom Corbett), “It is beyond belief that there are still people who would trade this progress for a return to the status quo after all the predictions of disaster and the fearful warnings from people with no understanding of the industry, Pennsylvania is reaping a bounty” (Black). The documentary brings up a question, is there a scandal between the government and oil companies in Pennsylvania? This makes the television show about natural gases and oil drilling into a drama! People love drama and they used the “scandal” (which is not really a scandal at all) to play the circumstances as once in a life time.
What makes quality television?
What makes a documentary worth watching? Watching this documentary was the last thing from boring but, when looking at the topic you would think otherwise. “What makes a good documentary film? The essential element of a good documentary is simply, the story. The audience must have an intellectual and emotional tie to the film. The audience must have a “pull” to get to the end of the film, not an excuse to get away from it” (Dunlop 1). The science and the facts behind this are not nearly as interesting as the drama between the people, the DEP (Department of Environment Protection), the health department, the oil companies, and the government. Making the emotional ties to the people who have suffered and making a connect between stories makes it very interesting for anyone who has feelings and can sympathize with a person. The “pull” is when you find out the government, who is also in charge of the DEP, could have something to do with these incidents. These strategies make this information film easier and more enjoyable to
watch.
In the television series Fault Lines, directed by Al Jareeza and written by Sam Black, the episode “Fracking in America” perfect exhibits the cons of fracking in our nation. While having credible authors and producer make seem like a crucial factor, using credible sources with logical comments will make any piece of work flow better and sound more eloquent. Not only does the writer use the three modes of persuasion but he also uses an interesting story line that sets this documentary apart from the rest. Playing with drama and having a scandal make this program more enjoyable to watch. This documentary has more than enough evidence that fracking is bad for our environmental, but the use of real life situation, professional personnel, scandal, and drama set this documentary apart from the rest.
country is headed in terms of energy independence. The claim in this documentary is achieved by the three modes of persuasion and classic television strategies that make this episode intriguing and leave the audience wanting more.
Something that can set television shows apart from others are credible producers and punctual writers. Al Jareeza and Sam Black fit these categories in numerous ways. Al Jareeza is a worldwide satellite television network that is set in Doha, Qatar. They are among one of the largest new broadcasters in the world, with over eighty different bureaus in many countries. They are also a very credible new site with many projects going out at a single time. Sam Black III is a popular documentary writer in the United States. He has been nominated for multiple Emmys under the categories “Outstanding Investigative Journalism” and “Best Documentaries”. He has been the producer and writer of many programs such as My Trip to Al-Qaeda and Client 9: The Rise and Fall of Eliot Spitzer. Having these people working together already exhibits a well put-to-together product that will inform and convince their audience.
In this documentary, we see many scientist who are specialist in their field and they are perfect examples of logos used through ethos. That was a strategy that the writers used to strengthen their argument through the thoughts of credible people in this topic. The first person we see is Terry Engelder, a geologist that works for the Pennsylvania State University School of Geosciences. Engelder shares a special passion and interest the Marcellus gas shale, which is where fracking takes place. He has credibility to the topic because he has studied them so anything he says will automatically sounds more intelligent. “Man has evolved from one energy to the next… right now I think we’re going to be moving towards into an age that will be the gas age” (Black). This helps the audience understand how fast humans go through resources and sets up the argument to why we need to stop fracking in our country. Our next scientist is Sandra Steingraber, a biologist, cancer survivor, and an anti-fracking advocate. She attended Illinois State University to received he PhD and is a distinguished scholar at Ithaca College in Ithaca. “Pennsylvania has opened its doors to fracking almost an unregulated Wild West kind of way and we were shocked and horrified and we have decided to have a moratorium. So, for four years we have forbidden fracking in New York until we assess the environmental health risks” (Black). Steingraber is an anti-fracking advocate, that alone is logos enough. She is a biologist and is against fracking. Her comment strengthens and confirms the intended claim that the producers are trying to convey. Finally, John Stolz is biologist at Duquesne University and he discussions the movement we must start if we continue changing our environment so drastically. “If you want to build a road or if you want to build a department store, you have to do an environmental impact study … If you're disturbing a wetland you have to restore wetlands somewhere else this industry is exempt from it” (Black). Using these quotes definitely work for television shows because the more people you hear speak in a show on one topic the more information you will get from different perspectives.
Through the television show we hear some stories from ordinary people who have been affected by fracking in Dimock, Pennsylvania. Telling stories has always been a way to share pathos and sympathize with the audience even though you do not even know them personally. Janet McIntyre is a woman who is has lived in Dimock all her life and now has a small family. After Cabot drilling and oil company moved into Dimock, her family soon became very ill. They were disturbed when their tap water was flammable, had a chemical odor, and was now purple. “You know, we're forced to go without water or to drink what we have. Every day, I wake up thinking about water. Water for coffee, I think about water. Water. Water. Christ sakes I go to bed thinking about water, you know? And how much water I got to have the next day and no matter what the gas companies [say, they] rides the DP’s side and we have to live with that” (Black). The department of environmental protection and the department of health will now side with the McIntyres’. As an audience member that is frustrating to watch because we see the evidence but, they still have gotten justice. It is a clear representation of manipulating human nature in their advantage. The argument against Cabot grows when we meet Scott Ely, also a resident in Dimock, Pennsylvania. He let Cabot drill on his land when they first came to the state, he lost a lot of money after this and ended up working for Cabot that next year. Ely explains the unprofessionalism that this company used in their equipment and production. “We had a unit over there catch on fire… and then we had a failure on this wall here…” (Black). Ely mentions that thousands of gallons were split on his site due to faulty set up of the well sites. Using people that are just like normal civilians make the argument more real to the audience, even if these stories are false or if they are just actors. These are supposed to provoke an emotional reaction and sympathy for these people who have been wronged by fracking.
People love to know secrets, the thrill of knowing something that you are not supposed to know is exciting. The way you phrase things can make them sound top secret. They mention the Safe Water Drink Act in 1974, which allowed oil companies to put toxic chemicals back into the ground. “The regressive lobbying the gas industry has secured exemptions from a host of U.S. federal environmental laws and regulations for instance the safe drinking water act. this permits them to inject known carcinogens and toxins into the ground. Public disclosure of certain fracking chemicals strictly voluntary in most states publicly the industry maintains that submitting and well casings are safe even though their own studies prove that's not always the case” (Black). We never are told if oil companies are lying about this or if they are simply oblivious to the fact that these chemicals affect drinking water. This ties in the next “secret” that will upset some tax payers. The speaker in the show is discussing lobbying in a government and how “The governor is firmly in their corner exempting the gas companies from paying taxes on production” (Black). This would make any big business owner who is paying taxes probably very upset. Why are gas companies not forced to pay taxes like the rest of us? In Pennsylvania, at least the government has an agreement with oil companies that is touched on very much other than that we do not have to pay taxes. From Pennsylvania Governor (Tom Corbett), “It is beyond belief that there are still people who would trade this progress for a return to the status quo after all the predictions of disaster and the fearful warnings from people with no understanding of the industry, Pennsylvania is reaping a bounty” (Black). The documentary brings up a question, is there a scandal between the government and oil companies in Pennsylvania? This makes the television show about natural gases and oil drilling into a drama! People love drama and they used the “scandal” (which is not really a scandal at all) to play the circumstances as once in a life time.
What makes quality television?
What makes a documentary worth watching? Watching this documentary was the last thing from boring but, when looking at the topic you would think otherwise. “What makes a good documentary film? The essential element of a good documentary is simply, the story. The audience must have an intellectual and emotional tie to the film. The audience must have a “pull” to get to the end of the film, not an excuse to get away from it” (Dunlop 1). The science and the facts behind this are not nearly as interesting as the drama between the people, the DEP (Department of Environment Protection), the health department, the oil companies, and the government. Making the emotional ties to the people who have suffered and making a connect between stories makes it very interesting for anyone who has feelings and can sympathize with a person. The “pull” is when you find out the government, who is also in charge of the DEP, could have something to do with these incidents. These strategies make this information film easier and more enjoyable to
watch.
In the television series Fault Lines, directed by Al Jareeza and written by Sam Black, the episode “Fracking in America” perfect exhibits the cons of fracking in our nation. While having credible authors and producer make seem like a crucial factor, using credible sources with logical comments will make any piece of work flow better and sound more eloquent. Not only does the writer use the three modes of persuasion but he also uses an interesting story line that sets this documentary apart from the rest. Playing with drama and having a scandal make this program more enjoyable to watch. This documentary has more than enough evidence that fracking is bad for our environmental, but the use of real life situation, professional personnel, scandal, and drama set this documentary apart from the rest.