Discourse Analysis
Purpose and Instructions
This checkpoint aims to document some of the dominant discourses that shape your final project dataset.
Part 1: Identify Discursive Sites
Find six news articles, blog posts, op-eds, etc. that reference your dataset. Pay attention to the political lean of the publication. Download each as PDFs, and then open the PDF in an annotation software. Highlight statements in the article referring to the value, use, or quality of your dataset. In the highlighted statements, underline specific words or phrases in the sentence that shape the tone of the sentence and indicate the author’s (or other’s) sentiments towards the dataset. Leave a comment next to the underlined word or phrase, indicating the tone that word or phrase suggested. Note that words don’t need to be sensationalist or flashy to suggest a tone. Phrases like “according to” suggest a detached or direct tone. You may wish to reference this set of “tone” words. Finally, circle terms that make up one half of a binary opposition (accurate/inaccurate, bias/unbiased, etc.)
Part 2: Analyze Three Quotes
Select three quotes from your analysis that capture a variety of predominant sentiments towards this dataset. Be sure to cite each. Fill them in below. Following each, write a short caption to describe how the statement is reflective of broader sentiments towards the dataset. Be sure to distinguish between the author’s sentiments towards the dataset, and how the author conveys others’ sentiments towards the dataset.
Example:
“The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency has released its Toxic Release Inventory for 2016 and the raw numbers don’t show a whole lot of difference over the past five years, but they show a significant decline over the past decade.”
“17 Groups Petition EPA For Public Reporting Of Chemical Releases From Fracking, Other Oil And Gas Operations.” 2012. CNBC. October 24, 2012. https://www.cnbc.com/2012/10/24/17-groups-petition-epa-for-public-reporting-of-chemical-releases-from-fracking-other-oil-and-gas-operations.html.
The Toxic Release Inventory is often portrayed as documenting “raw” information about the annual state of pollution in the US. The data is leveraged by journalists and activists to convey evidence of changing environmental health conditions in the US. While certain environmental advocates and activists celebrate the publication of this data as a form of governmental transparency and accountability, they also lament its failure to address particular environmental issues warranting public concern:
“The Toxics Release Inventory brings daylight to dark corners by requiring companies to quantify and report their pollution to a public data base for everyone to see,” said Environmental Integrity Project Director Eric Schaeffer. “That makes it easier for communities to measure the environmental impact of local industries, motivates companies to reduce their emissions, and gives all of us insight into how well our environmental laws are working. The EPA estimates the oil and gas industry releases 127,000 tons of hazardous air pollutants every year, second only to power plants and more than any of the other industries already reporting to TRI. Why shouldn’t oil and gas companies be required to report these toxic releases under our Right-to-Know laws, like so many other industries already do?”
“Dealing with Emissions and Waste Can Cost Businesses Multiple Millions.” 2018. AP NEWS. February 11, 2018. https://apnews.com/article/496364d1d8aa48c29bda249e1e1313ff.
So while the data is often cast in a revelatory way, it is also critiqued for its shortcomings. In such cases, the data’s “raw”-ness gets implicitly called into question as they fail to reveal a comprehensive state of environmental health conditions.
Quote 1
Fill your response here.
Quote 2
Fill your response here.
Quote 3
Fill your response here.