What the Frack Are We Talking About? The Interrelated Roles of Science, Media, and Strategic Communication in the Public Debate of Fracking in North Carolina and New York

A scientifically complex policy issue with implications for the environment, the economy, and the community, fracking has become a hot-button political issue across the United States. Proponents of fracking point to the economic benefits and argue that it is a safe method for extracting natural gas, a cleaner alternative to coal, and an untapped resource in many areas of the United States. Opponents, on the other hand, argue that the process produces significant environmental and health effects, such as contamination of water supplies and air pollution. Yet state level legislation and regulation must be pursued even without scientific consensus. North Carolina has a small amount of shale gas available, yet fast-tracked legislation to allow fracking in the state, while New York, which sits on the natural gas-rich Marcellus Shale, put into place a ban on fracking.;Using the Advocacy Coalition Framework, I implemented a multi-method approach, incorporating content analysis of media coverage, fieldwork, and interviews with stakeholders in each state to examine the myriad roles of scientific and technical information, media, and strategic communication in the public debate of fracking. In bringing interdisciplinary research from media effects, political communication, sociology, and public relations to this framework, I have been able to analyze the different factors we must account for when studying public debate over environmental policy issues, such the strategic communication actions of stakeholders, the role of the media, and the deliberate use of scientific and technical information in developing a policy image.;I develop a model that provides a structure for examining the main factors (scientific and technical information, media, and strategic communication) of the public debate that influences public policy for environmental issues that have strong scientific components. It also provides a mechanism for better understanding not only how the roles and influence of these factors can shift during the course of the debate, but also how they can shift in relation to each other.