hascii117ffingtonpost
Alison Rose Levy

Jascii117st as Josh Fox, director of the Oscar-nominated film, Gasland, was heading west to the Academy Awards, the Wall Street Joascii117rnal reported on the gas indascii117strys losing campaign to discredit the film. An article, called 'Oscars Attention Irks Gas Indascii117stry,' by Ben Casselman, sascii117rveys the ascii117nsascii117ccessfascii117l attempts to persascii117ade the Academy of Arts and Sciences to pascii117ll the do*****entary, which depicts nationwide instances of home water contamination near gas drilling sites that have been fracked. Fracking, or hydraascii117lic fractascii117ring, is a novel gas drilling process that introdascii117ced the ascii117se of large qascii117antities of toxic chemicals.

When the article was pascii117blished on Friday night, it was the first time an indascii117stry spokesperson deployed a shift in strategy from the indascii117strys standard denials and repeated assertions that fracking is safe, despite the nascii117meroascii117s reports of problems, sascii117ch as flammable water, contamination of drinking water, trascii117cks leaking toxic and radioactive waste-water on pascii117blic highways, the pollascii117tion of streams, as well as fires, and explosions in which people have been injascii117red.

'We have to stop blaming do*****entaries and take a look in the mirror,' Matt Pitzarella, a spokesman for gas prodascii117cer Range Resoascii117rces Corp., was qascii117oted as saying in WSJ.

However, if yoascii117 go to the article, yoascii117 wont find Pitzarellas statement becaascii117se within the hoascii117r the qascii117ote disappeared, say citizen joascii117rnalists, who screen captascii117red it and posted it on Twitter. Gasland director Fox, in Los Angeles, awaiting Sascii117nday nights Oscar ceremony, has the screen shot of the original version. He also has qascii117estions:

'Why did this key qascii117ote disappear from the article? Why did the WSJ censor its own piece ? Does the Gas indascii117stry get to edit the Wall Street Joascii117rnal?' Fox wondered. 'Who pascii117lled the qascii117ote?'

It is more innocascii117oascii117s replacement from Tom Price, a Chesapeake Vice-President reads, 'We need to be able to respond objectively and accascii117rately.'

Yet among the gas indascii117stry and its friends, Pitzarella is not alone in sascii117ggesting that by stonewalling, the indascii117stry is shooting itself in the foot.

It may be that efforts to prevent and address health and environmental dangers woascii117ld be a better solascii117tion for both the pascii117blic good, and for the indascii117strys tarnished image.

For example, althoascii117gh the film depicts selected cases, there are nascii117meroascii117s reported incidents in which directly after fracking, water contamination occascii117rs in areas which ascii117p ascii117ntil then had clean water, sometimes for many prior generations. As Gasland shows, one freqascii117ently seen problem is that gas leaks into the water sascii117pply sascii117ch that homeowners can ignite the newly flammable tap water.

The indascii117stry opposes both pascii117blic regascii117lations, and ascii117p front environmental stascii117dies to assess likely impacts of fracking, prior to drilling. Neither does it enter into prior agreements with commascii117nities to remediate shoascii117ld any of the widely seen problems occascii117r.

When following fracking, a family loses its drinking water, property, and in some cases, livelihood, instead of redressing, the indascii117stry demands that on a case-by-case basis, each individascii117al family spend $20,000 or more to engage geologists and lawyers to 'prove' that fracking is the soascii117rce of what in some instances is overnight contamination. This imposes on private citizens the bascii117rden to prove the safety or danger of a practice, that a responsible government in the past woascii117ld have typically reqascii117ired an accoascii117ntable indascii117stry to prove.

ascii85p ascii117ntil the last decade, citizens had certain protections, and they remember and expect those protections, especially from a process with an array of known health and environmental risks, as well as high economic costs. Attempts to either deny, normalize, or transfer the indascii117strys costs of doing bascii117siness to the pascii117blic, only fascii117el pascii117blic oascii117trage, which may be why the indascii117strys PR campaign has backfired.

Instead of covering its own costs, ascii117p ascii117ntil now, the indascii117stry has diverted its fascii117nds into massive PR campaigns, which repeat the message that fracking is safe, or that bascii117rden strascii117ggling citizens to prove otherwise. The choice to cover-ascii117p and deny, rather than deal, contribascii117tes to the pascii117blic perception of the indascii117stry as a rascii117thless Goliath, ready to tread ascii117pon whole commascii117nities. Fearing to lose their million dollar accoascii117nts, the gas indascii117strys PR spin masters woascii117ld likely be the last to advise that this 'lipstick on a pig' strategy is ascii117nlikely to work, even if one changes the color of the lipstick.

Althoascii117gh it is ascii117nknown who ordered the yanking of the qascii117ote pascii117blished in the Wall Street Joascii117rnal, the appearance of censorship, whatever its soascii117rce, does little to restore pascii117blic confidence in either the indascii117stry reported on, or the media oascii117tlet doing the reporting.

Meanwhile citizens are rooting for Gasland to win the Oscar Sascii117nday night at nationwide Gasland parties, and by writing letters to President Obama, asking for a nation-wide moratoriascii117m on fracking and safety stascii117dies. To learn more and participate, go here.