Evaluating the Risks

Blog Post by Alexis Jones, October 1, 2021

When evaluating risks in a journalist piece, detailing the risks is just as important as communicating and framing those risks. 

The steps of evaluating a risk according to Bob Wyss’ in Covering the Environment: How Journalists Work the Green Beat, include identification, exposure assessment, risk management, and communication. Gathering the proper information about risks is critical; however, how that risk is communicated is key for a reporter to effectively detail those risks to their reader. Communicating risks effectively requires a plethora of guidelines and questions to keep in mind. Colin Jerolmack, writer of The New York Times article They Couldn’t Drink Their Water. And Still, They Stayed Quiet, states some of the communication don’ts through his analysis of how the Crawley’s and communities water problems were handled. 

The Crawley’s and some of their community members were left to deal with methane coming from their faucets due to a lack of action by their community leaders and the fracking company that created the problem in the first place. Those affected in Hughesville, PA were not given adequate information about the risk from the petroleum company as the company ‘[failed] to report defective, insufficient or improperly cemented casing’ of the gas well” (as cited in Jerolmack, 2021). Control of the situation was also taken away from them when the fracking company controlled their water supply. The Crawley’s did not even trust the source who could have communicated these risks because the Crawley’s were assured that if this issue occurred, it would be taken care of; however, “no one [took] care of it” (Mr. Crawley, as cited in Jerolmack, 2021). These communications flaws did not provide community members with the proper information to handle the risk and resulted in creating a larger issue. 

Jerolmack frames the risks of fracking by stating concerns with community protection and accountability using the Crawley family and community anecdote. Mr. Everett, a Republican state representative, did not handle the methane water issue like the Crawley’s were promised after their neighbor found methane in his water. The petroleum company also did not handle the situation adequately as they denied taking responsibility for the issue and only installed a white plastic pipe in the ground to vent the groundwater. This did not solve the issue. Jerolmack frames the issue of Mr. Everett and the petroleum company as an accountability issue by including that the Crawley’s were not opposed to fracking even after this incident, but rather just wanted the proper parties to take action to fix the issue like promised. This accountability issue alludes to the greater issue of fracking by showing a risk of fracking (contaminated water) and by showing that fracking companies care more about making a profit, than protecting the people they are making their profit off of. 

Fracking as an issue is furthermore framed in a muted tone by telling the story of a community seeking protection rather than a community wanting to stop fracking. Mr. Crawley did not want to talk to Responsible Drilling Alliance because he did not want to put his neighbor, whose well the problem originated from, or his community in the spotlight for fracking protestors to intervene. 

Jerolmack meets the general standards of good journalism by providing emotion, meeting the SIFT requirements, and addressing the average reader audience. Using the story of the Crawleys and provide a concrete example of fracking gone wrong provides an emotional connection for the reader. This piece passes the SIFT due to it being published by The New York Times and its evidence coming from the Pennsylvania D.E.P. both of which are reputable sources. Jerolmack is able to reach the average reader and address his target audience of concerned community members by sharing the Crawley’s personal anecdote. He also provides strong facts and reasoning to drive his argument by using the Crawley’s story and Pennsylvania D.E.P. findings to meet his goals of bringing awareness to the risks of fracking and the need for company accountability. This piece was entertaining as it allowed the reader to make personal connections with community members of Hughesville, PA.

Jerlomack provides a strong piece of journalism that aligns with the requirements of good journalism and an op-ed as established by Wyss while also successfully providing an example of how to communicate risks to an audience. 

References Jerolmack, C. (2021, September 17). They couldn’t drink their water. and still, they stayed quiet. The New York Times. https://www.nytimes.com/2021/09/17/opinion/sunday/fracking-pennsylvania-water-contamination.html?mc_cid=aeb6cf5650&mc_eid=a525934c27