Development in the Arctic

Media and Polling Analysis

January 2010

Contact Information:

Belinda Griswold
206.374.7795
belinda@resource-media.org

Zachary Warnow
415.397.5000
zach@resource-media.org
 Oppor tunity and Danger:
Development in the Arctic

Issue Analysis
January 2010

Introduction

Long protected by isolation, the Arctic now stands exposed, threatened by the long reach of global warming
as well as by mounting pressure to tap the region’s oil reserves as petroleum stocks decline elsewhere. With
public opinion mixed on many aspects of development in the Arctic, the advocacy community finds itself at a
communication crossroads. The media portrays the Arctic as both a jewel of unspoiled wilderness and a
treasure trove of resources for development. Traditional approaches to conservation will be challenged by
these conditions. However, there is an opportunity to advocate for responsible, science-based development in
this changing landscape.

In the summer of 2009, Resource Media conducted an in-depth framing analysis on development in the
Arctic, focusing primarily on oil and gas issues.1 The study combined a quantitative media audit of news
coverage of oil and gas development, a comprehensive synthesis of public opinion research, a qualitative
review of media coverage on other key development issues in the region, and extensive interviews with key
stakeholders and Arctic experts. The primary goal of this study is to map public debate about development of
the Arctic to help build a conservation strategy.

1
The research and author team for this analysis and memo consisted of Hunter Cutting, Belinda Griswold, and Zach
Warnow.
Key Findings

Dramatic Change in Media Coverage

In 2008, the combination of the presidential election and the dramatic spike in gas prices created a perfect
storm for media coverage of oil and gas development in the Arctic and advocates were caught playing
defense. In 2009, with news coverage focused on new directions for a new administration, there was an
opening for strong, focused, proactive messages advocating for responsible development and conservation in
the Arctic. Unfortunately these messages appeared infrequently in coverage.

Messages Missing In Action

There is a need for strong, solutions-oriented, values-based messaging from the advocacy community. We
saw unfocused messaging in both years, while many messages that tested highly in public opinion polls were
rare. These messages include calling out the polluting nature of the oil and gas industries, connecting the dots
of Arctic impacts, highlighting the Arctic effect on the lower 48, and protecting the Arctic for future
generations.

Room for New Messengers

Scientists, some of the most credible voices on energy and conservation, were rarely quoted in articles about
oil and gas issues in the Arctic. There’s an opening for the advocacy community to broaden its pool of allied
messengers and work directly with scientists and others as they make the case for science-based, responsible
development and conservation.

No One Connecting the Dots

Showing how impacts to the Arctic have global ramifications that can be felt locally in the lower 48 is a key
opportunity to raise the profile of the Arctic region. As long as impacts to the Arctic are framed as isolated
problems happening in faraway places, it will be difficult to galvanize support and promote sound public
policy.

Framing Still Up for Grabs

In contrast to other environmental issues that have firmly entrenched story frames in the news media,
development in the Arctic remains a largely unframed issue. This puts advocates in position to craft a
compelling narrative and make the case for conservation. The “pause-button” frame evident in coverage of
fishing stories, suggesting a measured, science-based approach to development, could be expanded to
development of the Arctic as a whole. Polling suggests framing around “protection” is more powerful than
framing around “closure.”

Opportunity and Danger: Development in the Arctic Page 2 of 8

January 2010
Digging Deeper

2008—Caught Playing Defense

Coverage of oil and gas issues in the Arctic shifted dramatically from the summer of 2008 to the first six
months of the Obama administration. As the focus shifted away from the gas crises and the election,
different story ledes2 and key messages rose to the top.

In 2008, the combination of the presidential election with the dramatic spike in gas prices created a perfect
storm for media coverage of oil and gas development in the Arctic. Advocates were caught playing defense
and struggled to make themselves heard in a media landscape dominated by stories about the election, in
which candidates staked out their positions and approaches for confronting the energy crisis. The lead
message from the advocacy community in the 2008 data set was a defensive one, “Drilling is not the
solution,” with 12% of the total advocate messages.

However, this defensive posture did not hold up well. Some insight can be gleaned from a poll conducted in
Western states in August 2008 (the height of the gas price spike), which found that after priming respondents
with the information that drilling wouldn’t impact gas prices for 7-10 years, only 13% said that we shouldn’t
drill for oil anywhere. When polled without priming, even more respondents chose the no-drilling option
(20%), suggesting that the defensive posture of explaining why drilling won’t work can backfire, coming
across as nay saying when Americans are desperately looking for solutions.

2
Story lede was defined as the headline and first two paragraphs of the story, in order to capture the impression
received by a reader that just glanced at the story or did not read the full piece.

Opportunity and Danger: Development in the Arctic Page 3 of 8

January 2010
2009—Lost Opportunity?
In 2009 coverage moved off the national stage and became a story that played more strongly in local (i.e.
Alaskan) papers and some Western regional papers in the continental U.S. The percentage of Alaskan stories
we found talking about oil and gas in the Arctic rose from 36.4% to 59.1% (of the total number of articles in
the data set), while the number of national stories fell from 37.5% to 19.7%. Without the gas price spike and
the presidential election to draw attention to oil and gas supplies in the Arctic, focus on Northern
development dropped way down on the public radar.

Another standout change from the 2008 was the shift in story topics and advocate messaging. In 2009, the
dominant story lede was “Obama administration/New direction” (25.8%). With both the election and the gas
crisis gone (if not forgotten) from the public conversation, there was an opening for strong, focused,
proactive strategies advocating for clean energy, responsible development and conservation in the Arctic.
Looking at the lead messages from the advocacy community, however, we see a very scattered field, with
“Process” messages3 and backward-looking messages about a “Bush giveaway” leading the pack (12% and
11%, respectively, of total advocate messages). Messages promoting the need for and the value of
“wilderness” were also high-ranking. Finally, messages invoking climate change were frequent, but given
public apathy about climate change, it is not clear that these messages are effective.

Another trend worth noting was the emergence of stories focused on lawsuits (11%) This trend carries with it
the risk of defining the environmental agenda as obstructionist, exactly when change is being promoted by
the new Administration.

3
“Process” messages connote messages that are basically “value-free”, messages that refer to administrative, legal or
legislative processes or calendar issues, for example.

Opportunity and Danger: Development in the Arctic Page 4 of 8

January 2010
Missing Messages
Public debate is framed as much as by the messages that are missing as by the messages that are in play. In
2009, a few important, proactive messages were missing from the advocacy community’s talking points,
messages that have the potential to resonate strongly with the American public. Four key messages were
either completely absent or practically non-existent, as highlighted in this table.

Opportunity and Danger: Development in the Arctic Page 5 of 8

January 2010
Missing Messengers
In 2009, scientists accounted for just 4% of the total messages in the sample. Yet scientists are continually
ranked as among the most credible voices on energy and environment issues. A 2007 poll of Midwesterners
ranked scientists as the number one most trusted voice on energy issues.

The sample also contained very few messages from recreationists (hunters, anglers and other outdoor users),
local business owners and native peoples, all of who have the potential to be strong allies capable of
delivering pro-conservation messages.

Opportunity and Danger: Development in the Arctic Page 6 of 8

January 2010
Connecting the Dots
Missing from media coverage of the Arctic is a clear and compelling narrative—a story frame that connects
the dots between the various Arctic impacts, both to each other and to the “lower 48.” We looked specifically
for messages linking multiple Arctic impacts to each other and talking about the combined threats. Between
both years, we found only seven occurrences out of close to 2,000 total messages, amounting to just 0.4% of
the total messages.

Framing the Story

While some potential story frames are beginning to emerge in stories about the Arctic, none have yet taken
hold and development in the Arctic largely remains an unframed issue. However, of the emerging frames, the
“gold rush” frame seems to dominate, posing a serious problem. This frame capitalizes on the notion that in
the face of great changes in the Arctic (melting sea ice opening trade routes, melting permafrost opening
areas drilling, etc.), a new era of development is set to begin, and time is of the essence. A potential counter-
frame might be the “pause-button” frame found in the fishing stories (see below), which argues for a
measured, science-based approach to development.

Qualitative Audit
In order to get a more complete picture of the issues facing the Arctic, the study examined 50 articles from
five other areas of development in the Arctic: coal, shipping, hard rock mining, fishing and Canadian
coverage oil and gas issues. We found very sparse coverage of coal and mineral mining in the Arctic. While
advocates are very concerned about coal reserves, this issue has received relatively little media attention.
With regards to hard rock mining, while there was significant media coverage of the proposed Pebble Mine,
in sub-Arctic Alaska, discussion of mining in the Arctic proper is
practically invisible. “The right thing to
In contrast, shipping and commercial fishing in the Arctic received do is to stand
considerable media attention. Melting sea ice has led to the opening of
the Northern Passages, and many stories focus on new trade routes and
down, close the
discuss the “race to the Arctic.” The coast guard voice is fairly waters of the Arctic
prominent in the shipping stories, and security and sovereignty are
and let science
spotlighted. Shipping stories tended to focus on the ban of commercial
fishing in the Arctic, the closing of the Bering Sea to bottom trawling catch up.”
and the threat that warming waters pose to the industry. The “pause- -- Director of the Marine
button” strategy was highly visible in stories about the Arctic closure, Conservation Alliance
with quotes on the need to let science determine how best to proceed present in most articles about the
subject.

Canadian coverage of oil and gas development in the Arctic was similar to coverage in U.S. outlets.
References to the Arctic as the “land of climate change” are moderately frequent and recurring narratives
include the “gold rush” story line, international tensions couched in “cold war” language, and the loss to
native peoples. However, in the Canadian coverage, the international frame was dominant, containing, for
example the only mention of the Arctic Council.

Opportunity and Danger: Development in the Arctic Page 7 of 8

January 2010
Potential Opportunities

Connect the Arctic to the Rest of the World

Raising the profile of the Arctic region in the lower 48 may require “The Arctic is our
showing how impacts in the Arctic have global ramifications,
impacts that can be felt in readers’ backyards. As long as impacts to planet's air conditioner,
the Arctic are framed as isolated problems happening in faraway and it plays a key role
places, it will be difficult to galvanize support for responsible
development and conservation. The New York Times quote on the
in regulating global
right illustrates one way to connect the Arctic to the rest of the world. climate…Expanding
Invoking the Pacific Flyway for sportsmen as well as pollack fishing industrial uses in a
(Artctic as the world’s fish basket) for consumers are other
examples. region that is poorly
understood and already
Take on Oil Profits in Next Gas Crisis
under enormous stress
Pointing to the record profits earned by oil companies ranked 3rd in a
group of fifteen competing messages each making the case for “why could have dire
Congress should enact stronger protections for ANWR and make the consequences, not only
area off-limits to oil and gas drilling.” Sensitivity needs to be used in
areas where the oil industry is a major employer. However, the
for the Arctic but for the
opening is there to focus the spotlight narrowly on profits, as the best planet as a whole.”
way to highlight the industry as a “bad actor.”

Brand “Special Places”

The Arctic region is a vast area, far too big for most people to wrap their heads around. To make a strong
case for its protection, it will be important to shatter the myth that it is composed of nothing but snow and
ice, and creating “special places” could be a key strategy in this endeavor. One of the reasons that ANWR
enjoys the protections it has is the hard work of many to show the public what ANWR holds: the landscape,
ecosystems, biodiversity and more. Consideration should be given to employing this same strategy for other
key areas in the Arctic while keeping in the mind the considerable resources this approach requires.

Frame around protection not closure

Existing polling shows that the public is extremely wary of permanently closing parts of the Arctic. Even in
the case of ANWR, which has successfully risen to the “special places” level for most of the public, there has
been an increasing trend over the years for opening it up to oil exploration, with 35% supporting this in 2002
and 43% supporting this in 2008. Yet while another poll shows that while only 20% favor closing ANWR
permanently, 56% favor stronger protections. There is room to advocate for conservation, but a frame built
around protection, rather than permanent closure, is likely to gain more traction.

Opportunity and Danger: Development in the Arctic Page 8 of 8

January 2010