Journal of Environmental Management (1999) 55, 219–237Article No. jema.1999.0258, available online at http://www.idealibrary.com on

Dam the news: Newspapers and theOldman River Dam project in Alberta

R. C. de Loe

The Oldman River Dam is a major water control structure built by the Government of Alberta to regulatethe flow of the Oldman River. Completed in 1992, the dam was the subject of intensive media coverage inAlberta, Canada. Newspaper coverage of the dam story in two Alberta papers, the Calgary Herald and theEdmonton Journal, was analysed for the years between 1975 and 1992. This study links coverage withevents that occurred in the case, and analyses the role of the media in the case. While the media playedan important role in shaping public awareness of the dam project, their influence on Government policywas mixed. In the early years of the case (1975–1980), there is evidence that the provincial Governmentchanged its plans in response to public protests documented in media such as the Herald and the Journal.However, after 1987, the Government came to see the media as biased, and not representative of publicopinion. Consequently, their influence on policy makers was negligible. Patterns in coverage of both papers,which included wild swings from year-to-year in the number, emphasis and tone of items, can be explainedwith reference to inherent characteristics of the media. These include: an inability on the part of the papersto consider positive and negative aspects of issues simultaneously for any length of time, and a consequenttendency to provide either a positive or a negative stance; simplification of very complex issues in anattempt to create accessible, newsworthy stories; rapid shifts in the tone of coverage, as attention focusedon different dimensions of the issue, rather than because of new information; a focus on conflict and othersensational aspects of stories; and a tendency towards a rapid loss of interest in a story once journalisticattention shifts elsewhere.

1999 Academic Press

Keywords: newspapers, decision making, Oldman River Dam, Alberta.

Newspapers and other media outlets pro-Introductionvided extensive coverage of the Oldman RiverDam project. The aim of this paper is to

Water management in Alberta underwent a analyse that coverage, in an attempt to un-major transformation starting in the early cover the role of the media in the case. The1970s. In prior decades, when major dams news media are represented by two news-were constructed, support from people in the papers, the Calgary Herald and the Ed-areas served by the dam was usually assured, monton Journal, the largest newspapers inand scrutiny from people in other parts of the province’s two largest cities. The studythe province was virtually non-existent. This period begins in 1975, when the dam waschanged in the early 1970s. When the pro- announced, and concludes in 1992, when itvincial Government proposed and then con- was declared operational.structed two major dams in central and Two linked approaches are used to exploresouthern Alberta—the Red Deer River the role of the news media in the case. First,(Dickson) Dam in 1973, and the Oldman River events in the case are outlined, and, in par-Dam in 1975 (Figure 1)—it met with un- allel, media coverage of those events is ana-

Department of Geography,precedented opposition. The Oldman River lysed. Second, building on this foundation,University of Guelph,Dam project met with especially strong op- two key questions are explored: (1) To what Guelph, Ontario, Canada,

position, and contributed to key changes in extent, and how, did the media shape or define N1G 2W1

environmental management at both the the story through their coverage?; (2) WhatReceived 23 July 1998;federal and provincial levels (Elder, 1992; impact did coverage of the case have on de- accepted 27 November1998Sundstrom, 1994; de Loe, 1997b). cisions made by Government officials? These

0301–4797/99/040219+19 $30.00/0 1999 Academic Press

220 R. C. de Loe

(I)

Cities

Towns

Reservoirs(I) Irrigation(H) Hydro-power

Canada

Cities

Towns

Reservoirs

Irrigation districts

Lethbridge NorthernIrrigation District

LNID

0 30km

Alberta

Red DeerRiver(Dickson)Dam

(H)(H)

(H)(H)

(H)

(H)

Red Deer

Calgary

(I)

(I)

(I)

(I)(I)(I)

(I)

(I)(I)

(I)

(I)

(I)

PeiganIndianReserve

LNID

Oldman RiverDam (ThreeRivers site)

PincherCreek

St Mary Dam

Lethbridge

(I)

MedicineHat

Sou

th S

aska

tche

wan

R

iver

Bow River

Oldm

an River

Red Deer River

Figure 1. Southern Alberta: Rivers, urban areas and irrigation districts. Source: baseline data extractedfrom Alberta Agriculture (1983).

questions are complementary. The answers Researchers in the broad area of inquiryto them provide insight into the role of the referred to as ‘agenda setting’ emphasize themedia in environmental management. way in which the mass media shape the issue

agenda, both for the general public, and forpolicy makers (Kosicki, 1993; Rogers, 1993).Analysts following in the tradition es-The mass media andtablished by McCombs and Shaw (1972)—environmental management pioneers in the area of agenda settingresearch—have attempted to match publicopinions, measured in various types of sur-Decision making in environmental man-veys, to media coverage of certain issues inagement—as in most other areas in so-an attempt to show how the media tell usciety—is a complex interaction of issues andwhat to think about (Kosicki, 1993). Whileinterests, operating in a number of differentthe link between cause and effect is tenuousforums. The mass media play a number ofin this work, the implication is that the mediakey roles. Provision of information to thechannel public thinking towards certain is-general public and to policy makers is ansues, and away from others. Other authorsobvious one. Just as important, however, therefer to this phenomenon as ‘framing’mass media also focus attention on someissues (e.g. Fletcher and Stahlbrand, 1992;issues over others, and shape the way inEinsiedel and Coughlan, 1993).which the public and policy makers view

In raising public awareness, media cov-those issues. Consequently, it is important toerage consequently may instigate policyunderstand the role of the mass media inchanges (Fletcher and Stahlbrand, 1992).environmental management, particularly the

way in which they influence decision making. Downs’ (1972) issue-attention cycle—which

Dam the news 221

has policy makers responding to high levels (Fletcher and Stahlbrand, 1992; Baumgart-ner and Jones, 1993).of public concern regarding an issue, and then

abandoning that issue once public concern Taken together, these kinds of factors con-tribute to an explanation of why the mediawanes—is one model of this process. How-

ever, the process by which a government’s focus on certain kinds of issues at particulartimes, and why patterns of coverage rise andactual agenda is formed can be both more

complicated, and less obvious, than the one fall. The fact that media coverage displaysthese characteristics also explains whydescribed by Downs’ model. Baumgartner and

Jones (1993) emphasize that media coverage Baumgartner and Jones (1993) have de-scribed the media as a major source of in-can be a very poor indicator of a government’s

actual agenda. Furthermore, the media are stability in US policy making. As they lurchfrom topic to topic, frequently changing theonly one among many sources of influence on

a government’s policy agenda. For example, tone of coverage dramatically, the media cap-ture public attention and focus it on somewhile interest groups of various types play

an important role in shaping policy debates, issues, which can lead to a change in theagenda of policy makers. Instability is createdgovernment policy agendas are influenced

much more by some interest groups than because public attention can shift when themedia lose interest in a story, sometimesothers. Cracknell (1993) notes that there are

many examples of environmental groups causing a shift in the attention of policymakers—whether or not the problem firstdominating the media debate on an issue,

but failing in the end to influence the policy reported has been solved (Downs, 1972). Sev-eral researchers have mapped long-termagenda.

The ways in which the media set agendas trends showing this pattern in the contextof coverage of environmental issues (e.g.are complex. An obvious consideration is the

inherent bias associated with a particular Parlour and Schatzow, 1978; Einsiedel andCoughlan, 1993; Lacey and Longman, 1993).medium. For instance, because of its political

leanings, a newspaper might downplay or The agenda-setting role of the media, andthe routines of news production which ac-ignore some stories (Burgess and Harrison,

1993; Lacey and Longman, 1993), or frame count for patterns of coverage, reinforce thecomplex link between policy makers, the pub-them in certain ways (Fletcher and

Stahlbrand, 1992; Einsiedel and Coughlan, lic and the media. There are no hard-and-fast rules regarding these relationships. In1993). Burgess and Harrison (1993) also point

towards aspects of the news making process some cases, policy makers take the level andtone of media coverage as a surrogate forwhich influence the agenda setting process.

For instance, they note that the national public attitudes. For example, in Dearden’s(1985) analysis of responses to a perceivedpress responded slowly to the environmental

story, which they analysed in their article, problem of Eurasian Water Milfoil in theOkanagan Valley of British Columbia, Gov-because at first it was categorized by media

personnel as a financial story. Baumgartner ernment officials backed down in the face ofopposition to their plans to control the weedand Jones (1993) explore considerations re-

lating to the news-making process in their using the herbicide 2-4-D. He concluded thatcoverage of the issue in local newspapersstudy of agenda setting in US politics. They

note, for example, that the tone of coverage played a significant role in this decision(Dearden, 1985). However, in other cases,of an issue can shift radically when the story

moves from one ‘beat’ to another, e.g. from such as the one analysed in this paper,policy makers may come to see the mediascience to business. Other characteristics of

the media that bear on the question of agenda as completely unrepresentative of publicopinion.setting include: a tendency to emphasize

either positive or negative sides of a story,but rarely both for any length of time; sim-plification of complex issues; a focus on cer- The data settain types of stories over others, e.g. violentrisks vs. chronic ones; a fascination with con-

The principal data set used in this analysisflict, competition and criticism; a tendency topresent stories in a way that encourages sales is coverage of the Oldman River Dam story

222 R. C. de Loe

Edmonton

Calgary

Population of Edmonton, Calgary and Albera

Edmonton

Calgary

Alberta

438 152

403 325

1 627 874

1971a

541 992

592 808

2 237 724

1981b

616 741

710 675

2 545 553

1991b

aCities defined as Statistics Canada Metropolitan areabCities defined as Statistics Canada Census Division

Major Daily Newspaper Circulation in Edmonton and Calgary

Edmonton Journal 1903

Start ofPublication

147 298a

1971

164 428a

1981

157 231c

1991

Edmonton Sun 1978 -- 46 295b 96 680c

Calgary Herald 1883 98 113a 131 385a 134 553a

Calgary Sun 1980 -- 44 679b 71 166c

Calgary Albertan 1902 34 549a -- --aMonday to SaturdaybMonday to Friday, and SundaycDaily

Figure 2. Population and newspaper circulation in Edmonton and Calgary, Alberta, Canada. Source: GaleDirectory (1971, 1981, 1991) and Statistics Canada (1971, 1981, 1991).

in the Calgary Herald and the Edmonton in the province. During the study periodJournal. Supplementary data are derived (1975–1992), several daily and weekly news-from interviews with key participants and papers were published in Calgary and Ed-observers, and from numerous studies and monton. In Calgary, during this period, thereports prepared by the various stakeholders. Herald was the daily newspaper with the

longest publication record and the largestcirculation (Figure 2). In Edmonton, theJournal was published for the longest time,Newspaper coverage of theand had the largest circulation during theOldman River Damstudy period. Both the Herald and theJournal are part of the Southam chain. TheLike most of the rest of Canada, Alberta’snext largest papers in each city—the Calgarypopulation became increasingly urban fol-Albertan, the Calgary Sun and the Edmontonlowing the end of the Second World War. BySun—did not publish for the entire studythe late 1960s, more than 70% of Albertansperiod, and had smaller circulation numbers.resided in communities with 1000 or moreTherefore, coverage of the Oldman River Daminhabitants (Smith, 1984). Two centres dom-in the Edmonton Journal and the Calgaryinate the urban system: Calgary, in southernHerald was used as the data set for thisAlberta, and Edmonton, in central Albertastudy.(Figure 2). The combined population of these

A comprehensive clipping service has beentwo cities has been slightly more than halfprovided to Members of the Legislative As-of the provincial population since the earlysembly (MLAs) in Alberta by staff at the1970s (Figure 2).Legislature Library since 1972. Items in thisNewspapers which serve these com-collection are circulated to the Premier, Cab-munities are an important source of in-

formation about environmental management inet ministers and MLAs; all items are also

Dam the news 223

100

1975

0Number of items

N = 374

1992

20 40 60 80

1976

1977

1978

1979

1980

1981

1982

1983

1984

1985

1986

1988

1989

1990

1991

1987

InitialannouncementPhase I reportreleased

Phase II reportreleasedECA reportreleasedDecision tobuild

Decision tobuild at ThreeRivers site

ConstructionbeginsFirst majorcourt decision

EIAordered

EIAcompleted;dam oper-ational

Calgary Herald

1000Number of items

N = 315

20 40 60 80

Edmonton Journal

Negativecoverage

Othercoverage

Positivecoverage

Figure 3. Coverage of the Oldman River Dam project in the Calgary Herald and Edmonton Journal,1975–1992.

microfiched to form a permanent record. The five basic types (i.e. ‘News article’, ‘Editorial’,‘Column’, ‘Special Feature’ or ‘Letter to theprimary data set assembled for this analysis

includes all items relating to the Oldman Editor’). A definition of these items, and theirdistribution during the study period, is shownRiver Dam project topic in the Library’s clip-

ping file, from January 1975 to October 1992. in Table 1. Second, items were classed intoone of three main categories based on theThis comprises 374 items in the Herald and

315 items in the Journal. (Coverage of the tone of the information which they presentedabout the dam projects: positive, negative andcase continued after October, 1992, but by

then the dam was declared operational, and ‘other’ (Table 2). Resources did not permitthe use of an additional classifier, other thanthe final court battles aimed at preventing

its use were lost.) Figure 3 shows the dis- the author, to test coder reliability.Baumgartner and Jones (1993) argue thattribution of items dealing with the Oldman

River Dam in each newspaper during the classifying items according to tone providesinsights into the nature of coverage at a par-study period.

Coverage in the two newspapers was clas- ticular time, and clues as to the critical pointsin an issue’s development. These insights andsified by the author as follows. First, each

item in the data set was assigned to one of clues will be hidden when analysts measure

224 R. C. de Loe

Table 1. Summary of coverage of Oldman River Dam Case, by type of item, 1976–1992

Calgary Herald

Type of Itema Year

1976 1977 1978 1979 1980 1981 1982 1983 1984 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992

News article 7 7 11 4 3 1 1 6 5 5 30 49 32 80 45 27Feature 1 2 2 2 1 3Column 1 3 1 1 1 2 2Editorial 1 1 2 4 4 1 3Letter 1 1 3 4 9 2 1 2

Total N=374 9 7 11 4 4 1 0 1 11 11 10 43 52 38 87 52 35

Edmonton Journal

Type of Itema Year

1976 1977 1978 1979 1980 1981 1982 1983 1984 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992

News article 6 3 11 2 5 1 1 8 1 7 33 37 20 58 32 25Feature 1 1 2 1 1Column 1 5 1 1 1 2 2Editorial 2 5 1 1 2Letter 1 1 3 15 13 1 1

Total N=315 6 3 11 2 6 1 1 0 11 2 11 59 53 22 61 36 30

aNews articles usually are taken from wire services (e.g. Canadian Press), or are written by the paper’s staff reporters or stringers. Columns areregular features written under the by-line of certain writers. Special features are in-depth analyses or expositions. Editorials are statementsrepresenting the position of the newspaper’s editorial board. Finally, letters to the editor are comments written by readers and others, andpublished by the paper.

Table 2. Classification scheme for tone of items in newspapers

Category News articles Columns, editorials, special featuresand letters to the editor

Negative • Mostly negative information about the dam. • Writer’s negative opinions about thedam.

• Mostly negative information about thedam.

Positive • Mostly positive information about the dam. • Writer’s positive opinions about thedam.

• Mostly positive information about thedam.

Other • Balanced: roughly equal amounts of positive • Balanced: writer attempts to presentand negative information about the dam, OR both sides of an issue, OR

• Neutral: purely factual (neither positive nor • Peripheral: about the case, but notnegative), OR directly positive or negative

• Peripheral: about the case, but not directly information about the dam.positive or negative information about thedam.

only the amount of coverage, and not its tone. is a straightforward way of categorizing itemsby tone (Baumgartner and Jones, 1993).Classifying items according to whether or not

they provide positive or negative information The scheme presented in Table 2 draws a

Dam the news 225

distinction between news articles and the also many of them were key players in theOldman River Dam case. For example, in-four other kinds of items. It recognizes that

while news articles commonly aim for ‘ob- terview subjects included both leaders of theprincipal opposition group (Friends of thejectivity’ (even if they do not necessarily

achieve it), the other kinds of articles typ- Oldman River), and Assistant Deputy Min-isters from the Provincial Government de-ically present an explicit point of view; hence,

the criteria are slightly different. In addition partments of Environment and Agriculture.The interviews focused on issues and chal-to positive and negative, the classification

scheme presented in Table 2 recognizes an lenges confronting irrigation and water man-agement in southern Alberta. Eleven‘other’ category. This category contains three

types of items: interview subjects referred specifically to therole of the media in events that occurred.

• Those which present a balanced per- Insights from these interviews are used inspective, i.e. both positive and negative the second half of the paper.information;

• Those which present information that byitself is neither positive nor negative (re-ferred to as neutral); and Overview of newspaper

• Those which relate to the dam issue, but coverage in the Oldman Riverare peripheral to it.Dam case

The subtype ‘balanced’ is straightforward. Anexample of an item from the subtype ‘neutral’

Southern Alberta (Figure 1) is a semi-aridwould include a news article that simply re-region. While the soils are fertile and sun-ported that a construction contract had beenshine is plentiful, moisture from precipitationtendered. For the subtype ‘peripheral’, anis not reliable. Years of abundant rainfall canexample would be an article reporting thatbe followed by years of drought. In responsethe Minister of the Environment had referredto this climatic regime, Governments, privateto dam opponents as drug smoking an-investors and farmers in the region havearchists; this reflects on the Minister, butconstructed various irrigation projects andnot necessarily on the dam. This scheme isthe water control structures that are neededconservative, in that it counts items as neg-to provide a reliable supply of water to theseative or positive only when the informationprojects (Figure 1). Dams are one of the mostwhich they contain reflects directly on theimportant tools used to control river flow indam.this region.

Dams regulate the flow of water in a river,and provide a range of economic benefits.

Interviews with key participants However, they are extremely disruptive ofthe hydrologic cycle and aquatic ecosystems.and observersFurthermore, they can result in the dis-placement of people in the area that will beAs part of a larger study (de Loe, 1995),

interviews were conducted with 31 key par- flooded by a reservoir. Up until the late 1960s,such disruptions tended to be viewed asticipants and observers of southern Alberta

water management during 1990 and 1991. necessary for economic development, and notparticularly significant. This certainly wasThese people included: Provincial Gov-

ernment officials (11) and Federal Gov- the case for the St Mary Dam, a major watercontrol structure constructed in the lateernment officials (1); academics (5); irrigation

district managers (3); a local politician and 1940s and early 1950s (de Loe, 1997a). How-ever, for a host of reasons, including thea regional planner; representatives of key

environmental groups (3); representatives of growth of environmental awareness, in-creased leisure time and greater recognitionconservation groups (2); a representative of

the main irrigation lobby group; First Nations of their environmental impacts, dams havenot been so readily accepted in Alberta sincepeople (2); and a reporter.

Collectively, these people not only rep- the early 1970s. This is reflected in the cov-erage of the Oldman River Dam case in theresent the various interests in the case, but

226 R. C. de Loe

Calgary Herald and the Edmonton Journal. possible dam sites, and some alternative off-stream reservoirs. (Where a dam blocks aFigure 3 shows three phases of coverage of

the Oldman River Dam case in both the Her- river completely, creating a reservoir, an off-stream reservoir is filled by a weir, whichald and the Journal. The first phase lasted

from 1975 to 1980. This was followed by a only diverts water from the river to fill thereservoir.) Even though the report called forperiod of almost non-existent coverage, dur-

ing 1981, 1982 and 1983. The third phase further studies, to consider social and en-vironmental impacts, its authors re-began in 1984, and lasted until the end of the

study period (October, 1992). Events during commended a dam at the Three Rivers site.The favoured dam concept would create athese three phases, and the role of the two

newspapers, are linked in the following sub- reservoir with approximately 493 392 cubicdecametres of storage capacity (Alberta En-sections. Figure 3 also incorporates an ab-

breviated listing of events that are referred vironment, Planning Division, 1976). As thesite name suggests, the reservoir would beto below.formed at the intersection of three rivers. TheThree Rivers site—where the dam eventuallywas built—is shown in Figure 1. It had long

Initial opposition: 1975–1980 been favoured by Alberta’s water managers,most recently in a 1966 study conducted for

A dam to regulate the Oldman River (Figure Alberta by the Federal Government (Canada,1) was proposed by Premier Peter Lougheed Department of Agriculture, 1966).during the 1975 election campaign as part Coverage of the release of the Phase I studyof a $200 million (1975 dollars) package of began with a strongly negative column by themeasures designed to strengthen irrigation. Herald’s ‘Outdoors’ reporter Bob ScammellOf this $200 million, $65 million were al- (Calgary Herald, 1976b). Scammell attackedlocated for ‘Water storage on Oldman River’ the dam plan from two perspectives: (1) the(Anon., 1975). Both the Herald and the damage that a dam would do to fish andJournal reported the election promise as an wildlife populations and habitat; and (2) theirrigation story (Calgary Herald, 1975; Ed- dislocation that the project would cause tomonton Journal, 1975). Indeed, throughout ranchers at the proposed Three Rivers site.1975, neither paper mentioned the fact that The latter issue would come to define the firstpart of the $200 million irrigation pledge was phase of the conflict over the Oldman Riverfor a large dam somewhere on the Oldman Dam.River. The Government made no attempt to In late August 1976, the Herald and thehide the fact that it planned to build a dam, Journal reported that residents of the Townbecause it solicited public opinions during of Pincher Creek, located near the proposedJuly 1975, regarding options for the man- Three Rivers dam site (Figure 1), had heldagement (i.e. regulation) of the river. a meeting opposing the dam. The Journal

The dam itself only became a separate story published an article on 25 August 1976, whichin 1976. Early in that year, both papers re- reported ‘near-unanimous’ opposition, amongported on the July 1975, study (Calgary Her- meeting attendees, to construction of a damald, 1976a; Edmonton Journal, 1976a). As in the area; no pro-dam views were reportedpart of this study, the Government received in the piece (Edmonton Journal, 1976b). The70 submissions from individuals and or- Herald provided more coverage. Starting withganizations. Both papers reported that some a news article on 23 August 1976, whichof the submissions had called for further stud- reported the opinions of people opposed toies, and they referred to the issue of com- the dam, it followed with another article bypensation for landowners who would be a staff writer, Barry Nelson, on 24 August,displaced by construction of the dam. reporting more opinions by residents opposed

In June 1976, the Provincial Government to the dam, and additional criticisms offeredreleased a more detailed study into the feas- by academics (Calgary Herald, 1976c, 1976d).ibility of regulating the Oldman River (Al- On 26 August, Nelson published a specialberta Environment, Planning Division, 1976). feature titled ‘Watery grave awaits 22 PincherThis study, which would become known as homesteaders’ (Calgary Herald, 1976e). The

piece provided personal accounts of the familythe ‘Phase I’ study, considered a number of

Dam the news 227

histories of ranchers, and cited negative eval- such as irrigation farmers and districts, andtheir allies in communities such as Leth-uations of the project offered by local people.

In late 1976, after meeting with protesting bridge, were also presented. The promisedhearings by the ECA, which began in earlylandowners (Calgary Herald, 1976f), the Min-

ister of the Environment announced that the November 1978, provided another platformfor individuals and groups favouring the damEnvironment Conservation Authority (ECA)

would hold public hearings on the proposed to articulate their views. Indeed, an articlein the Journal (28 August 1978) reported thatdam prior to the Government making a de-

cision. (The Environment Conservation Au- ‘there has been significant support generallyfor a new dam’.thority—which became the Environment

Council of Alberta in 1977—was an arm’s Second, the studies themselves led to ashift in the focus of newspaper coverage fromlength body designed to investigate en-

vironmental issues and gather public input.) the human interest story to technical ques-tions. Many of the stories appearing in bothThe Government’s decision to hold hearings

via the ECA, and further complaints from papers in 1978 were prompted by the releaseof studies and reports commissioned by thethe ranchers at the Three Rivers site, pro-

vided the subject of the last few items in both ORBSMC. Reflecting the technical nature ofthese reports, the newspapers shifted theirpapers during 1976. Interestingly, only once

was a link made between an ongoing conflict focus from the initial story (rancher familiesthreatened by dam) to technical issues raisedover the Red Deer River Dam and the pro-

posed Oldman River Dam—even though in by the reports, such as the economic viabilityof the alternative dam proposals. One at-1976 both dam plans involved landowner op-

position (Edmonton Journal, 1976b), and tempt was made by a Herald staff writer toput a human face on the story, but the peopleboth were being covered in the Herald and

the Journal. in question were landowners at a differentproposed site (Calgary Herald, 1978)! WhenThe Government’s decision to hold public

hearings through the ECA was the first of the Phase II studies were released in August1978, recommending that the Oldman Riverseveral steps that led to the redefinition of

the case in newspaper coverage. In February be regulated by a dam (ORBSMC, 1978),the Journal presented the issue as a fait1977, the Minister of the Environment an-

nounced a second phase of studies into water accompli. A Journal article (28 August 1978)reported that ‘The recommendation [of themanagement in the Oldman River basin (Cal-

gary Herald, 1977). To supervise the studies, ORBSMC] . . . makes it almost certain a damwill eventually be built.’ It added that ‘Publicthe Government appointed a nine-member

Oldman River Basin Study Management hearings later this year are expected to pro-vide information to further narrow the choiceCommittee (ORBSMC) to conduct ‘Phase II’

studies. Thereafter, the tenor of the coverage for a dam site.’ The question of whether ornot a dam should be built appeared to beof the case in both papers shifted. This oc-

curred for two reasons. resolved.By 1979, coverage of the case in both papersFirst, by delaying a decision on whether or

not, and where, to construct a dam until had dropped precipitously. The release, inAugust, of the ECA’s report (ECA, 1979) pro-after additional studies were conducted, the

Government removed the immediate threat vided fodder for some news. The Council’smain recommendations—that a dam not beto the landowners at the Three Rivers site.

In an effort to keep up the momentum, 30 built, and that efforts be focused on upgradingirrigation works instead—prompted a brieffarm families living at the Three Rivers site

formed an opposition group in May 1977, flare of coverage. However, following the re-lease of the report, the Government bided itscalled the Committee for the Preservation of

Three Rivers. However, by then their cause time, and a decision regarding the dam washeld off until the following year.was already losing momentum. For instance,

the Herald’s coverage of the case between With the exceptions of a single negativeletter to the editor of the Herald, in January1977 and 1980 remained sympathetic to the

ranchers. But, increasingly journalists por- 1980 (the first letter concerning the dam ineither paper), and a report in the Herald intrayed them as one among several legitimate

interests. The viewpoints of other interests, June that the Minister was struggling with

228 R. C. de Loe

a decision, coverage of the case in both papers to make up its mind, while the Journal re-ported this news, and the fact that the headwas effectively on hold. Coverage resumed

in August, 1980, when the Minister of the of the ECA remained disappointed in theGovernment.Environment finally announced that a dam

would be built. The decision regarding theactual location of the dam was to be postponeduntil the Peigan Indian band, which lived on The battle resumes: 1984–1992a reserve along the Oldman River (Figure 1),decided whether or not it would accept a dam Coverage of the story resumed in earnest inon its land. The Journal subsequently printed 1984 following the Premier’s announcementone positive news article, three negative news on 9 August that a dam would be built at thearticles, one news article containing peri- Three Rivers site starting in 1986, with thepheral information, and a negative letter to intention of having it operational in the earlythe editor (Figure 3). The Herald chose to 1990s. Between 1984 and 1986, there was areport the decision as an irrigation story, with steady stream of coverage in both papers—atthe headline ‘A victory for irrigation: half- roughly the level of the 1976–1978 period.billion dollar plan announced for southern However, starting in 1987 coverage soared toAlberta’ (Calgary Herald, 1980). The dam unprecedented levels (Figure 3).was again downplayed.

The only indication in either paper of dis-1984–1986satisfaction with the decision came in the

form of articles published on 10 October (inThe Premier’s 9 August 1984 announcementboth papers) which noted that the ECA wastriggered renewed coverage in both papers.displeased that its recommendations hadFollowing the announcement, the Heraldbeen ignored. While the Herald noted in itspublished six news items, three columns, aarticle that farms would be flooded if theletter and an editorial. The Journal publisheddam was built at the Three Rivers site, theone news article prior to the announcement;predominant issue discussed in both piecesfollowing the announcement, it publishedwas whether or not the project was eco-seven news items, one special feature andnomically viable. In the end, the human in-two editorials (Table 1). The Herald’s cov-terest perspective—the focus of originalerage was predominantly negative, while thecoverage—had been almost totally replacedJournal’s was mostly in the ‘other’ categoryby questions of economic merit. Questions(Figure 3). The diversity in the types of itemsrelating to the environmental impacts of thepublished is in contrast to earlier years, whendam—which had been raised in 1976 by thecoverage was predominantly in the form ofHerald’s columnist Bob Scammell—nevernews items responding to announcementsfigured prominently in subsequent coverage,and events (Table 1). More important, how-even though they were addressed in theever, is the fact that the coverage in 1984Phase II studies (ORBSMC, 1978).shows signs of a broader debate about thedam. Mention was made of issues that hadbeen important during the first phase (dis-

Interregnum: 1981–1983 placement of landowners, and the economicsof the project). But, new issues, including

The August 1980 decision by the Provincial environmental impacts of the dam andGovernment seemed to mark the end of the threats to archaeological resources, were alsocontroversy. The final decision regarding the covered.location of the dam was on hold. However, Coverage in 1985 and 1986 bore a strongthat a dam would be built seemed assured. resemblance to that of 1984. The HeraldCoverage in both papers between 1981 and maintained a higher level of coverage than1983 reflected the winding down of the story. the Journal in 1985 (11 items vs. 2). But,Both the Journal and the Herald published both papers provided roughly equivalentonly two items each during this 3-year period. amounts of coverage of events in 1986 (10 andThe Herald reported twice that the Gov- 11 items). Where the Herald’s 1985 coverage

focused heavily on environmental issues, theernment still was waiting for the Peigan Band

Dam the news 229

issue of the cost of the dam came to dominate via the Minister of the Environment, wasagain in 1986. The same is true for the that this court action was led by drug smokingJournal’s 1986 coverage. anarchists intent on wasting public money

A new development in both papers between (Calgary Herald, 1987a). Friends of Oldmanthe years 1984–1986 is the increased fre- River’s announcement, the Government’s re-quency of letters to the editor (Table 1). Of sponse, the release of rumours surroundingthe eight published by the Herald between a pending report on archaeological resources1984 and 1986, seven were negative in tone. at the dam site, and the eventual decision byThe one positive letter was written by an the Court of Queen’s Bench on 1 DecemberAssistant Deputy Minister of the Department 1987, quashing the Government’s con-of the Environment. During this same period struction licence, provided momentum for op-the Journal published four letters, three neg- ponents and raised considerable fear amongative in tone, and one positive. As in the supporters of the project. These eventsHerald, the positive letter was written by a triggered 41 items in the Herald and 58 itemsGovernment official, this time the Minister in the Journal, between September 1987 andof the Environment. the end of the year.

As these events unfolded at the end of 1987,both sides in the controversy struggled to

1987–1992 claim legitimacy. On the one hand, a groupnaming itself the Southern Alberta Water

Once again, by the end of 1986, the con- Management Committee formed to representtroversy over the dam seemed to be in the the ‘silent majority’ of citizens in southernend stages. Construction contracts already Alberta (Calgary Herald, 1987d). On thehad been awarded, and opponents seemed to other hand, letter writers to the Journal tookbe limited to academics, opposition politicians the view that the dam was being built by theand environmentalists. Coverage in the first Provincial Government in an effort to buypart of the following year seemed to confirm votes in the south (Edmonton Journal, 1987).this. The Journal published one item in the This question of legitimacy, debated back andfirst 8 months of 1987, and the Herald two. forth in the many letters appearing in eachWith the ranchers at the site announcing paper in 1987 (Table 1), would prove to be anin late September that they were leaving important underlying theme throughout the(Calgary Herald, 1987b), the battle appeared remaining years of the case.to be over. However, as the summary of cov- Unfortunately for the Government, the enderage in Figure 3 shows, this proved to be the of the year did not mark a respite from neg-calm before the storm. From late September ative coverage of the dam. The high level of1987 to late October, 1992, coverage of the coverage in 1987 in the Herald was exceededdam in both papers soared to new heights. by even more coverage—less of it positive—in

Between 1987 and 1992, both the nature 1988. The Journal, in contrast, showed aand amount of coverage of the Oldman River small decline, but its coverage also wasDam case in both papers can be attributed in mainly negative (Figure 3). Throughout thelarge part to the actions of an environmental year, both of the principal players—the Gov-group known as the Friends of the Oldman ernment of Alberta and the Friends of theRiver (FOR), led by Cliff Wallis, an en- Oldman River—skirmished continually.vironmental consultant from Calgary, and

• FOR applied for hearings to the EnergyMartha Kostuch, a veterinarian from RockyResources Conservation Board, arguingMountain House, a town in central Albert.that the dam was a hydro project. WhenClaiming the support of a number of otherits application was denied, it appealed toenvironmental, heritage and conservationthe Alberta Court of Appeal.groups, FOR first appeared in the two papers

• When the Government applied for a newwith an announcement that it intended tolicence to replace the one quashed by thelaunch a legal challenge to halt constructionCourt of Queen’s Bench on 10 Decemberof the dam, because the Minister of En-1987, and was granted one on 5 Februaryvironment had failed to give proper public1988, FOR launched a legal challenge ofnotice for a construction permit (Edmonton

Journal, 1987). The Government’s response, the new licence on 24 February 1988.

230 R. C. de Loe

• After losing this fight in April, FOR opened conduct a full environmental assessment ofAlberta’s Oldman River dam (Edmontona new line of attack in August 1988, byJournal, 1990). This was followed by monthslaunching charges against the provincialof stalling and court cases, as FOR tried toMinister of the Environment, using theforce the Federal Government to establishfederal Fisheries Act.the environmental assessment panel man-• In a development that would prove to bedated by the Federal Court, and as it triedvery important in later years, en-to get an injunction to cause the Governmentvironmental groups (including FOR), andof Alberta to stop work on the dam.later the Peigan Indian band, asked the

The other main story during 1990 was anFederal Government on several occasionsabortive attempt in August by a group ofduring the year to conduct an en-Indian activists, the Peigan Lonefighter So-vironmental assessment, claiming that theciety, to divert the Oldman River around thedam had impacts in areas of federal jur-Lethbridge Northern Irrigation District’sisdiction; the federal response was that itweir, which is located on the band’s reservehad no jurisdiction.(Figure 1). Coming at the height of the ir-

Interspersed among coverage of these man- rigation season, this move caused con-oeuvres were numerous items covering sub- siderable consternation for southern Albertaplots. The economics of the project, and irrigation farmers and municipal officials; thethreats to environmental and heritage re- Lonefighters’ activities resulted in 34 of thesources, for instance, were raised again in a 87 items in the Herald that year, but only 7number of news items and columns. However, of the 61 items in the Journal. In the end,the main story continued to be driven by the Lonefighters failed to divert the river,FOR’s actions. Meanwhile, the number of let- FOR was unable to stop the Provincial Gov-ters to the editor dropped dramatically in the ernment’s construction efforts, and the Pro-Herald, but writers to the Journal kept up vincial Government was unable to preventthe pace, with another 13 letters published the establishment of the Federal environ-(Table 1). mental assessment panel.

The following year saw more of the same. Consequently, 1991 saw the rather strangeFOR continued launching court challenges, spectacle of a Federal Environmental Assess-notably one asking a federal court judge to ment being conducted on a provincial damrequire the Federal Government to conduct that was nearly completed, with the samean environmental impact assessment (EIA). Provincial Government not only refusing toThe environmental group lost this battle in participate in the hearings, but going to theAugust 1989, when the judge ruled that nei- Supreme Court of Canada seeking to havether the federal Minister of Transport nor the Federal panel quashed. Coverage of thethe federal Minister of Fisheries and Oceans environmental assessment panel’s work tookwas required by law to hold an EIA. Trying place throughout the year—and provided ana different tactic, FOR organized a protest opportunity for both sides to air their po-concert near the dam site in June. An es- sitions once again. The pattern of coveragetimated 8000 people attended the event (Cal- was by now well established: primarily newsgary Herald, 1989). The year ended with the articles, in reaction to manoeuvres by damdam halfway completed, and a promise from opponents (Table 1).FOR to launch an appeal regarding the role In another stunning victory for anti-damof the Federal Government in the case. The groups, the Supreme Court of Canada ruledtrend to fewer letters continued. This is most on 23 January 1992, against Alberta’s claim,noticeable in the case of the Journal, which and upheld the right of the Federal Gov-had seen 15 letters in 1987 and 13 in 1988, ernment to conduct environmental as-but only 1 in 1989. sessments on projects such as the Oldman

Nineteen-ninety would prove to be the River Dam. Allowed to complete its work, thehigh-water mark of coverage in both papers federal panel released its report on 22 May(Figure 3). The year began with a stunning 1992. Its primary recommendation was thatvictory for opponents of the dam, when the the dam be decommissioned (Canada, Fed-Federal Court of Appeal ruled on 13 March eral Environmental Assessment and Review

Office, 1992). Both the Federal and Alberta1990, that the Federal Government had to

Dam the news 231

Table 3. Summary of Oldman River Dam coverage, 1976–1992

Calgary Herald

Stance Type of item

Editorials Columns Special News Letters Totalfeatures articles

Positive 2 2 0 14 4 22Negative 6 8 9 178 18 219Other 8 1 2 121 1 133Total 16 11 11 313 23 374

Edmonton Journal

Stance Type of item

Editorials Columns Special News Letters Totalfeatures articles

Positive 1 0 2 17 9 29Negative 5 7 1 122 24 159Other 5 6 3 111 2 127Total 11 13 6 250 35 315

Governments quickly rejected this re- whereas slightly more than 9% of thecommendation (Edmonton Journal, 1992). Journal’s coverage had a positive tone (TableThe final acts in this drama took place on 7 3). A separate analysis is required to deter-August 1992, when the Supreme Court of mine whether or not the source of this neg-Canada ruled that it would not hear an appeal ative orientation is editorial policy, theof FOR’s request for an injunction to stop the aggregate positions of journalists, or simplydam from operating, and, on 9 October 1992, the fact that many events with negative con-when the Alberta Government gave itself per- notations occurred. Nevertheless, from themission to operate the now essentially com- perspective of the Provincial Government, thepleted dam. In effect, FOR won the key dam clearly was a ‘bad news’ story.battles, but lost the war. Coverage of the case during the three

periods demonstrates the characteristics ofmedia coverage highlighted in a number ofother studies. For example, Baumgartner andSummaryJones (1993) suggest that, ‘As issues becomenews, virtually all media outlets focus onDuring the interviews with key participantsthem; as they become old news, almost alland observers of southern Alberta water man-show a drop in attention’. Coverage of theagement, conducted in 1990–1991, sevenOldman River Dam case in the Herald andpeople suggested that bias existed in mediathe Journal fits this pattern precisely (Figurecoverage of irrigation issues, in general, and3). Other similarities with previous studiesthe Oldman River Dam, in particular. A sim-exist. For instance, Einsiedel and Coughlan’silar observation was made by the Minister of(1993) longitudinal analysis of the Canadianthe Environment in 1988 (Calgary Herald,press and environmental issues found that a1988). Whether or not an actual bias existedreactive, ‘action-response’ sequence was com-in the coverage of the Herald and the Journal,mon. This pattern—which will be analysedthere is no question that the Oldman Riverfurther below—also was evident in the cov-Dam story in both papers tended to be neg-erage analysed here. Finally, the quick shiftsative in tone. Coverage in the Herald wasin tone and emphasis, simplification of com-more negative than coverage in the Journalplexity, framing, and fascination with con-(58% relative to 49%—Table 3). Only about

6% of the Herald’s coverage was positive, flict, competition and criticism which

232 R. C. de Loe

Baumgartner and Jones (1993) claim are (Efforts by the Herald’s ‘outdoors’ writer, BobScammell, to raise the issue of damage to thecommon to mass media coverage also were

strongly in evidence. fishery were unsuccessful.) After the Gov-ernment announced hearings and furtherstudies, the focus turned away from the plightof the ranchers, to technical questions (espe-Discussioncially economic). Concerns relating to en-vironmental impacts continued to receive

The paper opened with two questions re- relatively little coverage, even though numer-garding media coverage of the Oldman River ous kinds of environmental impacts were wellDam case: (1) To what extent, and how, did documented in studies and hearings con-the media shape or define the story through ducted in the late 1970s.their coverage? And, (2) what impact did cov- In the second phase of coverage (1981–erage of the case have on decisions made by 1983), neither paper encouraged readers toGovernment officials? While these are ex- think about the case at all. Apparently bothplored in separate subsections, it will be evid- papers considered the story to be over, evenent that they are closely related. though issues raised earlier in these papers

had not been resolved.When the story was picked up again in

1984, following the announcement that a damShaping the storywould be built, readers briefly were exposedto a fairly broad debate about issues relatingThis question is addressed from two per-

spectives. First, several examples of the to displacement of landowners, the economicsof the project, environmental impacts of themedia shaping or defining the issue are pro-

vided. These suggest that the agenda setting dam, and threats to archaeological resources.However, most of these stories were washedrole commonly ascribed to the mass media is

real. Second, further insight is offered into away, starting in 1987, by the overwhelmingfocus in both papers on events following fromthe extent to which coverage was reactive

vs. proactive. This speaks to the question of the actions of FOR—such as court cases, pro-tests and the Federal environmental impactwhether or not the newspapers created the

story. assessment. Other stories, such as the at-tempt by the Peigan Lonefighter society topublicize its concerns about the dam by di-verting the Oldman River, were short-livedEstablishing the Agenda(albeit occasionally spectacular) sub-plots.

In summary, therefore, during every periodThe classic conceptualization of agenda set-ting is that the press are not often successful of the case, the two papers analysed un-

questionably shaped and defined the damin telling people what to think, but very suc-cessful in telling readers what to think about story. Furthermore, in addition to shifts in

emphasis, the tone of coverage also shifted(Rogers, 1993). What did the Herald and theJournal tell readers to think about in the from year-to-year. This was highlighted in

the first part of the paper, and is evident inOldman River Dam case? The analysis ofcoverage in the first section of this paper Figure 3. As noted in the summary to the

first section, the overall tone of the case inprovides a rich source of examples, fromwhich key points are highlighted here. the coverage of both papers was negative.

During the first phase of the case (1976–1980), readers of both papers would haveseen a rapid evolution in coverage of the Proactive or reactiveOldman River Dam story. At first the damwas subsumed in coverage of the Premier’s Different insights into the agenda-setting

role of the mass media can be gained byirrigation election pledge. The dam becamea story on its own in brief reports in each exploring the extent to which the newspapers

were proactive or reactive. Papers that seekpaper about planning studies. When ranchersat the site protested, the story immediately out stories are making news rather than just

reporting it, and, consequently, are definingbecame about families losing their homes.

Dam the news 233

the issue agenda. Earlier it was suggested Herald nor the Journal seems to have seenfor itself the role of proactively—and con-that coverage was primarily reactive. This

subsection elaborates on this point. tinually—informing and educating the pub-lic. Hence, while coverage in both papersAs seen in the first part of the paper, the

amount of coverage in any given year was clearly shaped the story in certain ways asit evolved, this shaping occurred primarily asstrongly influenced by how sensational events

were during that year. Both papers showed a reaction or response to events. Fur-thermore, it occurred only while the storyfar more attention to sensational events, such

as unprecedented court challenges, than to was newsworthy.Whether or not we should expect more fromimportant but relatively dull events, such as

the release of planning reports and studies. newspapers is another issue. Some writersargue that the media have a responsibility toNeither paper attempted seriously to keep

the Oldman River Dam issue alive in the sustain interest and awareness of en-vironmental issues, and to encourage in-lean years between 1981 and 1983 (Figure

3), despite the fact that important basic issues formed participation (Love, 1990; Lacey andLongman, 1993). In fairness to both papers,remained. For example, numerous significant

questions, which had been raised in earlier one might ask: sustain for how long? Evenwith an obvious lapse in coverage betweencoverage, and in the report of the En-

vironment Council of Alberta (1979), had not 1981 and 1983, and a narrowing of focus after1987, both papers could argue that they keptbeen resolved, including: the economic vi-

ability of irrigation in general, and the dam, the story alive for almost 2 decades.in particular; the environmental impacts ofdams, and; the rights of the landowners atthe site, and the Peigan downstream. These

Impact of newspaper coverage ofwere raised in pre-1981 coverage, and wouldbe raised again once the story was resurrected the dam storyin 1984. These wild swings in the level ofcoverage are entirely consistent with the This subsection examines the extent to which

newspaper coverage of the Oldman Rivercharacteristics of media coverage describedby other researchers (e.g. Parlour and Dam case influenced the decisions made by

Government officials. While the Herald andSchatzow, 1978; Baumgartner and Jones,1993; Einsiedel and Coughlan, 1993). the Journal are only two among many media

outlets in Alberta, coverage in these papersAnother characteristic of coverage in bothpapers is that it tended to be in the form of was collected by staff at the Legislature Lib-

rary specifically for provincial politicians, in-reactive news articles rather than proactiveinvestigatory reporting, i.e. special features cluding the Premier and Cabinet ministers.

There is evidence that media coverage of(Table 1). During the late 1970s and early1980s, neither paper took advantage of the the case triggered—or at least contributed

to—changes in Government plans in the firstfact that the Red Deer River Dam conflict,with many parallels to the Oldman River phase of the conflict (1975–1980). However,

for the third phase (1984–1992), the mediaDam case, was ongoing. The Herald pub-lished one brief special feature on the Oldman seem to have had little or no impact on the

decisions of provincial policy makers.River Dam in 1976, and then none until 1985.The Journal published its first one in 1984. Detailed planning studies, made available

for public scrutiny, are characteristic of waterAfter that, both papers published severalmore special features on the issue, sometimes management in Alberta starting only in the

1970s. In earlier decades, large dam projectsevery year. Nevertheless, between 1984 and1992 (the height of the conflict) only 10 out were designed and built with little or no

public participation, and with limited at-of the 337 items published in the Herald (3%)were special features. In the Journal, the tention to non-engineering considerations,

such as socio-cultural impacts and effects oncomparable figure was 6 out of 285 items(2·1%). wildlife. For instance, no studies like the

Phase I planning study (Alberta En-For the most part, therefore, both paperswere reactive rather than proactive. The oc- vironment, Planning Division, 1976) were

conducted for the Big Horn Dam, completedcasional special feature aside, neither the

234 R. C. de Loe

in 1971, only 4 years before the Oldman River of artificial habitat construction upstream ofDam was proposed. The Oldman River Dam the reservoir, began in 1987 (Alberta PublicPhase I planning study reflected an approach Works, ND). By 1991, some $14·5 millionto resource management which had become (1991 dollars) were being spent on these un-established in Alberta in the early 1970s, precedented measures (Calgary Herald,one based on river basin planning, public 1991b).participation and consideration of socio-cul- The link between coverage of the case intural and biological factors—as well as en- the media and the decision to undertake thesegineering factors. mitigation measures is less direct than in the

The motivation for the studies and hearings previous example of the studies and hearings.that came after the Phase I study is murkier. However, it is very likely that media coverageOn the one hand, the Phase I study did re- of the environmental impacts of the casecommend a follow-up series of studies and played a role. Consider, for example, thatpublic hearings. Yet, as noted earlier, the beyond building picnic sites and stocking theECA hearings were announced in 1976 only reservoir with fish annually, no attempt wasafter the Minister of the Environment met made to mitigate the impacts on fish andwith the protesting ranchers (Calgary Her- wildlife of the dam built in the Red Deerald, 1976f). If the Government had planned River. The Red Deer River Dam (Figure 1)hearings all along, it certainly did not broad- was completed in 1984—the same year incast these plans in advance of the public which the decision to build at the Threeprotest. Similarly, there may have been plans Rivers site was made. One of the key in-for follow-up Phase II studies from the be- formants interviewed for the larger studyginning, but these too seemed to be a reaction suggested that environmentalists could taketo protest. In announcing the Phase II stud- much of the credit for the mitigation plan.ies, the Minister of the Environment was Given the poor relationship between en-quoted as saying that public protest had iden- vironmental groups and the Provincial Gov-tified a number of areas for further work, and ernment, it is more appropriate to concludethat because of the direction of public concern, that previous coverage of environmental con-the Phase II studies would be a broad ex- cerns in the media caused the Governmentamination of water management in the Old-

to pay more attention than it might otherwiseman River basin (Calgary Herald, 1977).

have to mitigation of environmental impacts.Hence, there is every indication that the Gov-Up to the mid-1980s, at least, the Gov-ernment would quite happily have pressedernment still seems to have believed that theahead with construction at the Three Riversmedia reflected public opinion.site in the absence of protest, but that it

These may well be the last examples ofconducted additional studies in response toways in which the media influenced the Gov-public protest reported in the media.ernment’s actions in this case. Starting inNewspaper coverage seems to have played1987, when the years of coverage of the man-a similar role in the Provincial Government’soeuvres of the FOR and their allies began,decision to attempt to mitigate the en-there is little evidence that the Governmentvironmental impacts of the dam. Mitigationconsidered media coverage of the case to beof dam-related impacts in Alberta, on a largerepresentative of public opinion. If anything,scale, took place for the first time in theGovernment officials seem to have concludedOldman River Dam case. Following the 1984that the media were hopelessly biased. Forannouncement that a dam would be built atexample, the Minister of the Environmentthe Three Rivers site, Alberta Environmentwas quoted in the Herald on 27 April 1988,in 1985 began the process of developing anas stating that the media were responsible‘Environmental Mitigation/Opportunitiesfor negative public perception of the damPlan’, which addressed concerns relating to(Calgary Herald, 1988). Three Governmentfisheries, historical resources, vegetation andofficials interviewed in 1990–1991 supportedwildlife (Alberta Public Works, ND). The ob-this view, claiming that the media fed peoplejective of the fisheries component of this planmisconceptions and negative information,was to ensure that there would be no netand were anti-irrigation. The Governmentloss of recreational fishing opportunities as a

result of the project. Mitigation, in the form certainly did not feel the need to follow the

Dam the news 235

advice of the Herald’s editorialists, who sug- policy makers see the media as being rep-resentative of public opinion. Thus, in thegested that a reassessment of the project wasfirst phase of the case, the Minister of thein order due to rising costs (Calgary Herald,Environment acknowledged that coverage of1986), that the Minister of the Environmentissues relating to the dam in the media in-should resign due to his inability to securefluenced the shape of the Phase II studies.proper approvals for construction permitsHowever, by the mid-1980s, it is clear that(Calgary Herald, 1987c), that the provincethe Government did not see the media asshould participate in the Federal Gov-representative of the so-called ‘silent ma-ernment’s environmental assessment (Cal-jority’. Consequently, media coverage doesgary Herald, 1991a), etc. The Governmentnot appear to have had much impact on Gov-was similarly disinclined to follow theernment policy.Journal’s advice, which was of a similar

Ironically, the media actually may havenature.been representative of the ‘silent majority’ inIndeed, by the late 1980s, the Governmentthis case. If the mass media are importantdoes not seem to have believed that any ofshapers of public opinion about en-the dam’s opponents were representative ofvironmental matters, as authors such as De-public opinion. Ministers quickly rejected asarden (1985) and Fletcher and Stahlbrandunrepresentative a 1989 anti-dam rally(1992) have suggested, then in all probabilitywhich attracted some 8000 people (Calgarythe ‘silent majority’—Calgarians and Ed-Herald, 1989), and an anti-dam petition sub-montonians (Figure 1)—would not have beenmitted to the Legislature by FOR in 1990supportive of the dam due to the pre-containing 12 000 signatures (Calgary Her-dominantly negative tone of coverage. How-ald, 1990). Only the ‘silent majority’, it seems,ever, this seemed to be beside the point. Thewere representative—and neither FOR norreal constituency whose opinions matteredthe media spoke for this group.to the Government were people in southernIn summary, it is impossible to know withAlberta—notably farmers, and people in com-certainty whether or not the Governmentmunities such as Lethbridge and Taber, whowould have held hearings and attempted todepended on irrigation. When protests ori-mitigate the Oldman River Dam’s impacts inginated in southern Alberta, from thethe absence of coverage of the story in theranchers at the site, the Government reacted.media. Decision making in resource man-When protests appeared to originate inagement cannot be explained in such simp-Calgary and Edmonton, it did not. This re-listic cause and effect terms. However, itinforces Cracknell’s (1993) observation thatseems plausible that media coverage at leastthe media are only one of many sources ofwas a significant spur that encouraged theseinfluence on Governments, and that extensivechanges in Government policy. There is con-media coverage of an opposition group’s view-siderably less uncertainty regarding the im-point does not necessarily mean that it haspact of negative media coverage on the mostany influence on policy makers.important decision. Studies, hearings and

A more fundamental issue relates to themitigation aside, the Government of Albertarole of the mass media in society. Somebuilt the Oldman River Dam exactly wherewriters (Love, 1990; Lacey and Longman,it had wanted to build it since before the first1993) suggest that the mass media should bearticle was published in the Herald or theresponsible for providing balanced analysisJournal.of important issues, and maintaining publicinterest in the environment. Unfortunately,this study does not offer reason to be op-timistic that newspapers are capable of suchConclusionsa role. The analysis conducted here supportsconclusions that Baumgartner and Jones

Newspaper coverage of the Oldman River (1993) drew about media coverage. In theDam case provides some important insights Oldman River Dam case, newspaper coveragefor environmental management. To begin, the was strongly influenced by factors that theseinfluence of the media on the policy agenda authors highlighted, including: an inability

on the part of the papers to consider positiveclearly is a function of the extent to which

236 R. C. de Loe

Calgary Herald (1976f). Hearings promised onand negative aspects of issues simultaneouslyThree Rivers dam. October 6.for any length of time, and a consequent

Calgary Herald (1977). Committee to probe Old-tendency to provide either a positive or a man. February 15.negative stance; simplification of very com- Calgary Herald (1978). Threat of Oldman damplex issues in an attempt to create accessible, shadows their lives. June 22.

Calgary Herald (1980). A victory for irrigation:newsworthy stories; rapid shifts in the tonehalf-billion dollar plan announced for southernof coverage, as attention focused on differentAlberta. August 30.dimensions of the issue, rather than because Calgary Herald (1986). Rethinking Oldman. July

of new information; a focus on conflict and 11.other sensational aspects of stories; and a Calgary Herald (1987a). Environmentalists

labelled ‘anarchists’. September 11.tendency towards a rapid loss of interest inCalgary Herald (1987b). Ranchers are moving outa story once journalistic attention shifts else-

but dam fight continue. September 19.where. Consequently, while the media clearlyCalgary Herald (1987c). Bumbling for all to see.can create public awareness of environmental December 10.

issues, and even occasionally can stimulate Calgary Herald (1987d). ‘Silent majority’ ralliesaction by Governments, it is asking too much to back Oldman dam. December 22.

Calgary Herald (1988). Minister defends need forto rely on them to perform this service forOldman River dam. April 27.society.

Calgary Herald (1989). 8,000 sing out for Oldman.June 12.

Calgary Herald (1990). Petition fuels Oldman Damdebate. March 29.

References Calgary Herald (1991a). Open legal floodgates.June 10

Calgary Herald (1991b). Biologist claims provinceAlberta Environment, Planning Division (1976). has squandered dam cash. November 9.

Oldman River Flow Regulation: Preliminary Canada, Department of Agriculture. (1966). Pro-Planning Studies. Main Report, Volume I. Ed- gress Report: Preliminary Engineering In-monton: Alberta Environment. vestigations, Oldman River Project, ProposedAlberta Agriculture. (1983). Irrigation Districts Three Rivers Dam and Reservoir. Calgary: Al-March 1983. 1:500 000 map. Alberta Bureau of berta Regional Division, Prairie Farm Re-Surveying and Mapping. habilitation Administration.Alberta, Environment Council of Alberta. (1979). Canada, Federal Environmental Assessment Re-Management of Water Resources Within the Old-

view Office. (1992). Oldman River Dam: Reportman River Basin. Report and Recommendations.of the Environmental Assessment Panel. Hull,ECA97-14/RR. Edmonton: Environment CouncilPQ: The Office.of Alberta.

Cracknell, J. (1993). Issue arenas, pressure groupsAnon. (1975). Irrigation Policy—Summarization.and environmental agendas. In The Mass MediaBriefing document prepared for the Minister ofand Environmental Issues (A. Hansen, ed.), pp.the Environment. Public Archives of Alberta.1–21. Leicester: Leicester University Press.Accession No. 90–159.

de Loe, R. C. (1995). Stability and Change inBaumgartner, F. R. and Jones, B. D. (1993). Agen-Southern Alberta Agriculture. Ph.D. Dis-das and Instability in American Politics. Chi-sertation. Waterloo, Ontario: Department ofcago: The University of Chicago Press.Geography, University of Waterloo.Burgess, J. and Harrison, C. M. (1993). The cir-

de Loe, R. C. (1997a). Return of the feds, Part I:culation of claims in the cultural politics ofThe St. Mary Dam. Canadian Water Resourcesenvironmental change. In The Mass Media andJournal 22, 53–62.Environmental Issues. (A. Hansen, ed.), pp. 198–

de Loe, R. C. (1997b). Return of the feds, Part221. Leicester: Leicester University Press.II: The Oldman River Dam. Canadian WaterCalgary Herald (1975). Tories pledge irrigationResources Journal 22, 63–72.aid. February 28.

Dearden, P. (1985). Letters to the editor, editorialsCalgary Herald (1976a). Southern Alberta site:and agenda-setting: a case study of newspaperMore studies on dam wanted. January 11.response to an environmental problem. JournalCalgary Herald (1976b). Herald Outdoors, by Bobof Environmental Management 22, 39–54.Scammell. August 5.

Downs, A. (1972). Up and down with ecology: theCalgary Herald (1976c). 22 farms would be re-issue attention cycle. Public Interest 28, 38–50.located: Pincher Creek residents oppose $78 mil-

Edmonton Journal (1975). $200 million from Her-lion Oldman dam. August 23.itage Fund for irrigation. February 28.Calgary Herald (1976d). Near-unanimous op-

Edmonton Journal (1976a). Options submitted onposition: Pincher crowd claims dam study in-river’s management. January 13.accurate. August 24.

Edmonton Journal (1976b). Pincher Creek opposesCalgary Herald (1976e). Watery grave awaits 22Pincher homesteaders. August 26. construction of dam. August 25.

Dam the news 237

Edmonton Journal (1978). $323-million irrigation Lacey, C. and Longman, D. (1993). The press andplan for Oldman. August 28. public access to the environment and de-

Edmonton Journal (1987). Environmentalists join velopment debate. The Sociological Review 41,forces to oppose Three Rivers Dam. September 207–243.9. Love, A. (1990). The production of environmental

Edmonton Journal (1987). Gov’t ‘plays games’ on meanings in the media: a new era. Media Edu-dam – lawyer. December 12. cation Journal, 10

Edmonton Journal (1990). Province ‘didn’t do McCombs, M. and Shaw, D. (1972). The agenda-homework’: Decisions show a failure to check setting function of mass media. Public Opinionrules – chamber. March 14. Quarterly 36, 176–185.

Edmonton Journal (1992). Ottawa won’t shut Old- Oldman River Basin Study Management Com-man dam. May 22. mittee (1978). Oldman River Basin—Phase II

Einsiedel, E. and Coughlan, E. (1993). The Ca- Studies: Report and Recommendations. Leth-nadian press and the environment: re- bridge, Alberta: The Committee.constructing a social reality. In The Mass Media Parlour, J. W. and Schatzow, S. (1978). The massand Environmental Issues (A. Hansen, ed.), pp. media and public concern for environmental134–149. Leicester: Leicester University Press. problems in Canada, 1960–1972. International

Elder, P. S. (1992). One more look at the Oldman Journal of Environmental Studies 13, 9–17.dam. Resources: The Newsletter of the Canadian Rogers, E. M. (1993). The anatomy of agenda-Institute of Resources Law 39, 6–10. setting research. Journal of Communication 43,Fletcher, F. J. and Stahlbrand, L. (1992). Mirror or 68–84.participant? The news media and environmental

Smith, P. J. (1984). The Changing Structure ofpolicy. In Canadian Environmental Policy: Eco-the Settlement System. In Environment andsystems, Politics, and Process (R. Boardman,Economy: Essays on the Human Geography ofed.), pp. 179–199. Toronto: Oxford UniversityAlberta (B. M. Barr and P. J. Smith, eds), pp.Press.16–35. Edmonton: Pica Pica Press.Gale Research Inc. (1971). Gale Directory of Pub-

Statistics Canada (1971). Census of Canada. Ot-lications and Broadcast Media. Detroit: Galetawa: Queen’s Printer.Research Inc.

Statistics Canada (1981). Census of Canada. Ot-Gale Research Inc. (1981). Gale Directory of Pub-tawa: Queen’s Printer.lications and Broadcast Media. Detroit: Gale

Statistics Canada (1991). Census of Canada. Ot-Research Inc.tawa: Queen’s Printer.Gale Research Inc. (1991). Gale Directory of Pub-

Sundstrom, M. (1994). Oldman River Dam. Inlications and Broadcast Media. Detroit: GalePublic Issues: A Geographical Perspective (J.Research Inc.Andrey and J. G. Nelson, eds), pp. 221–236.Kosicki, G. M. (1993). Problems and opportunitiesDepartment of Geography Publications Seriesin agenda-setting research. Journal of Com-

munication 43, 100–127. No. 41. Waterloo: Department of Geography.