The Newsroom
Fracking for Dummies
Suggested by Madeline Yakimchuk
The two sides on this debate are not actually in a conversation with each other. They are covering totally different points so they can't be compared. We need someone to fill in the blanks on each side.

Those who are for resource development because of the jobs don't talk about the jobs that could come from mitigation, from cleaning up the planet, or from social services, health, education, if we put our money there. The truth from this camp is that people having salaries keeps the economy healthy. They leave us to assume that resource development jobs are the only ones that could exist. That is their lie. What they totally leave out is whether or not fracking is necessary for energy self sufficiency, or is it really all just about jobs?

Those who are for Fracking bans because of the environment don't talk about threats to the environment that come from other sources, threats that may even be greater but which involve individual and daily acts, meat eating for example, or flying to Cuba twice every winter. Their truth is that we must be better stewards of the planet if we are to survive. Their lie is that it is only big bad industry that sins. What they totally leave out is what the day to day world will be like in 2-5 years if we don't frack... just so that we go into it with our eyes wide open.

I have a feeling that so long as two people stand back to back, talking in opposite directions, we will never know what we should support, what we should ban, and what we have to change. We need journalism to put these two sides face to face, in mutual context, with the full facts and the full options on each side.
24 %
The Newsroom is exclusive to Ricochet members. When you become a member, you won’t only be participating in a revolutionary experiment in media, you'll also become a part of our editorial team and take an active part in our coverage. Welcome to interactive news.