Reframing Ecotage as Ecoterrorism by Travis Wagner
-
Upload
ryan-byrne -
Category
Documents
-
view
54 -
download
0
Transcript of Reframing Ecotage as Ecoterrorism by Travis Wagner
Reframing Ecotage as Ecoterrorism:News and the Discourse of FearTravis Wagner
This study examined how national newspapers have participated in the production and
reproduction of the discourse on ecotage through a lens of terrorism. The approach used
in this study is to apply the thesis of Altheide (2003) that mass media uses the discourse
of fear to report on acts of terrorism. Through a content analysis of six national
newspapers, this study sought to answer two questions: Do national newspapers frame
ecotage acts primarily as terrorism? If ecotage is framed as terrorism, is the discourse of
fear used in stories that discuss ecotage? Using 20 search terms commonly used to describe
ecotage acts, 155 news stories were found from 1984 to 2006. Based on an analysis of
these stories, there was a marked shift in framing ecotage as terrorism starting in 2001,
but before 9/11. Increasingly the discourse of fear has been used to indicate the
seriousness of ecoterrorism. In addition to this shift and use of fear, the volume of stories
has increased, yet the number of reported incidences of ecotage has steadily declined over
this same period.
Keywords: Ecoterrorism; Ecotage; Framing; Discourse of Fear; Mass Media
Introduction
Labeling a person or act as terrorism is a powerful rhetorical technique that carries a
strong normative connection (Norris, Kern, & Just, 2003). By establishing something
as terrorism, an irreversible frame is created (Zulaika & Douglass, 1996). Although
there are generally accepted traditional definitions of terrorism, there has been a
lowering of the threshold and, thus, a broadening of the definition to include
ecological sabotage, known as ecotage (Amster, 2006). Ecotage refers collectively to a
variety of criminal acts (e.g., vandalism, arson, and threats) undertaken in the name
of protecting nature while specifically not harming humans.1 The conflation of
terrorism with ecotage has created a new term*ecoterrorism. Crucial to the evolution
Travis Wagner is an Assistant Professor in Environmental Science and Policy, Department of Environmental
Science, University of Southern Maine. Correspondence to: Department of Environmental Science, 106 Bailey
Hall, University of Southern Maine, Gorham, ME 04038, USA. Email: [email protected]
ISSN 1752-4032 (print)/ISSN 1752-4040 (online) # 2008 Taylor & Francis
DOI: 10.1080/17524030801945617
Environmental Communication
Vol. 2, No. 1, March 2008, pp. 25�39
and eventual acceptance of this new term has been what Kenneth Burke (1966) refers
to as a terministic screen, which directs attention toward a particular selection of
reality, thereby encouraging a certain perception of a term. Essential to the cementing
of the conflation and acceptance of this particular representation of terrorism and
deflection away from eco-sabotage, was the Federal Bureau of Investigation. In 2002,
the FBI created a new legal definition of ecoterrorism as ‘‘the use or threatened use of
violence of a criminal nature against innocent victims or property by an
environmentally-oriented, subnational group for environmental-political reasons,
or aimed at an audience beyond the target, often of symbolic nature’’ (Jarboe, 2002).
Ecotage was popularized in 1972 with the publication of the book, Ecotage! (Love
& Obst, 1972). This book was a result of Environmental Action’s 1971 national
ecotage contest in which suggestions were elicited to make ‘‘corporate polluters shape
up’’ (Love & Obst, 1972). This book pays homage to the Eco-Commando Force ’70
and especially The Fox (a.k.a. Jim Phillips), who performed various acts of ecotage in
Chicago in the 1960s and early 1970s, including clogging pollution discharges and
dumping collected discharges into corporate offices (Love & Obst, 1972). The Fox
and the contest had been noticed by the national media (NBC Evening News, 1971).
However, it was the publication of Edward Abbey’s (1975) The Monkey Wrench Gang
that fueled an unprecedented growth in acts of ecotage (Hays, Esler, & Hays, 1996). In
addition to individual acts, ecotage-based organizations also became more active in
the 1970s and early 1980s, including Greenpeace, the Sea Shepherd Conservation
Society, and Earth First! (Hays et al., 1996). A series of events altered the construct of
marginally acceptable direct action. In 1991, the FBI arrested Dave Foreman, co-
founder of Earth First! and five others for ecotage acts. In addition, following the
launch of the Gulf War, Saddam Hussein ordered two large oil spills in the Gulf and
the detonation of approximately 1,250 oil wells resulting in some 600 oil well fires. In
response, President George H. W. Bush labeled Hussein’s actions as ecoterrorism
(Matthews, 1991). Between 1994 and 1996, the national media focused on the
Unabomber, whose actions were labeled as ecoterror. This same period witnessed
the rise and increased activity of the Earth Liberation Front (ELF), especially with the
1998 burning of the Vail Resort, which garnered the attention of the FBI and the
Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms (Knickerbocker, 1999). Although
September 11, 2001, pushed terrorism to the top of the national agenda, terrorism
was no longer limited to radical foreign nationals, domestic sources were also
included. In February 2002, the FBI declared that the Earth Liberation Front was one
of the country’s greatest domestic terrorism threats (Jarboe, 2002). In May 2005, the
FBI reaffirmed the threat, ‘‘ . . . eco-terrorism is one of the FBI’s highest domestic
terrorism priorities’’ (Lewis, 2005). This prompts the question as to the role of the
mass media in supporting or promoting a discourse that encourages the conflation of
radical environmental activism and terrorism.
In this study, I examine whether national daily newspapers have supported the
discourse of ecoterrorism. First, I discuss the concept of news frames and the
discourse of fear. Then, applying the thesis of Altheide (2003) that mass media uses
the discourse of fear in connection with reporting on terrorism, I assess its
26 Reframing Ecotage as Ecoterrorism: News and the Discourse of Fear
applicability to the media’s reporting on ecotage acts. Essentially, I seek to answer two
questions. Do national newspapers frame ecotage acts as terrorism? If ecotage is
framed as terrorism, is the ‘‘discourse of fear’’ used in reporting ecotage-related
stories? If these questions are in the affirmative, there are significant implications for
open public discourse on the environment.
News, Fear, and Terrorism
Most of what society learns about the environment is from news (Karlberg, 1997).
News is not an objective presentation of political reality, but an interpretation of
events and issues from the perspective of reporters, editors, and selected sources
(Clow & Machum, 1993). The ability of mass media to shape societal risk
perception is powerful; each day the news reports on some new chemical or
physical danger (Slovic, 2000). As noted by Dunn, Moore, and Nosek (2005), the
routine act of reading news is an area where subtle language can affect how readers
perceive, recall, and ultimately judge events. Language, subtle or not, is an
important element of frames, which the mass media relies upon to convey
information to its audience. Framing is how an individual constructs and represents
an interpretation of an act by comparing new information to existing interpreta-
tions (Gray, 2003). Entman (1993) observes that framing has four primary
functions: it helps to define a problem, it can identify causes, it makes a moral
judgment, and it suggests a remedy. The news frame is a particular type of frame
that enables journalists and the public to organize and comprehend vast amounts of
information (Karlberg, 1997). It is a mechanism to communicate a generally
accepted interpretation of an act or an actor through recognizable language,
symbols, and standard references (Norris et al., 2003). However, news frames can
‘‘become problematic when the frames become highly stereotyped and uniform
throughout news discourse’’ (Karlberg, 1997).
Fear is a dominant frame in news, and as fear becomes linked with a particular
issue, society begins to believe in the fear (Altheide, 2002). This is through what
Altheide (2003) defines as the discourse of fear: ‘‘the pervasive communication,
symbolic awareness, and expectation that danger and risk are a central feature . . .’’
This discourse of fear is an example of Burke’s (1966) terministic screens where a
screen, or funnel, operates to direct society’s perception toward particular aspects of
reality and shape the range of observations implicit in the given terminology. As
Peterson and Peterson (2000, p. 76) observe, ‘‘Over time, people weave individual
terms together, forming a screen that enables its users to decide which aspects of
experience are important, what that experience means, and what sort of action is
called for.’’ Fear becomes so integrated with a particular topic that eventually its
association is taken for granted; it becomes an intuitively understood component of
the topic (Altheide, 2003). This guides the message receiver to more readily
understand the act, motives, and outcomes through the terministic screen of fear.
As the topic continues to be reported on in more dangerous and fearful language,
T. Wagner 27
the repetition produces a lens through which we begin to interpret other acts
(Altheide, 2002).
In the aftermath of 9/11, most of us have developed a collection of specific feelings,
perceptions, and attitudes toward terrorism (Dunn et al., 2005). It is a value-laden
term implying deadly, unpatriotic, violent, irrational, radical, or crazed behavior. Our
attitude towards terrorists is heavily influenced by their current status as our sworn
enemy, for we are at war; the war on terror (Bush, 2001). By using the terrorist frame
to describe acts or actors, a story is placed into a more simplified and structured
context for the receiver. Terrorist acts command greater public and media attention
(Zulaika & Douglass, 1996). Since 9/11, terrorism has dominated the news; it is
highly newsworthy. While news fosters interest in terrorist acts by detailing the daring
exploits of perpetrators (Cavender & Bond-Maupin, 1998), this treatment has a
darker side, as news also promotes a sense of fear by citing potential safety, death, or
dismemberment, which produces a more interesting and compelling read (Altheide,
2002).
Altheide (2002) notes that although ‘‘it is not easy to make people afraid,’’ an
uber-focusing event such as 9/11 instilled society-wide fear. With the 9/11 attacks,
in addition to the direct and indirect connections many people felt ‘‘ . . . concern
about the possibility of additional terrorist attacks elsewhere increased uncertainty
and stress, making nearly everyone feel vulnerable’’ (Hoffner, Fujioka, Ibrahim, &
Ye, 2002, p. 229). Based on a national survey in October 2001 examining public
attitudes following the 9/11 attacks, more than half the respondents felt less safe;
one fourth believed they may be future victims of a terrorist attack (Stempel &
Hargrove, 2002). As Altheide (2003) found in his study of newspaper stories
following 9/11, fear has been firmly attached to terrorism. This is supported by the
findings of Stempel and Hargrove (2002) that a key element of news audiences’
perception of terrorism is dread, vulnerability, and the fear of being attacked. With
terrorism anyone can be a potential victim at any time (Altheide, 2003). Language
used to describe an act or actor may result in it being perceived as terrorism*even
though the terrorism label is absent*as an intuitive perception of fear becomes
bonded to terrorism, which can occur largely unconsciously (Dunn et al., 2005).
The sense of fear can be supported based on the quantity of news devoted to
terrorism. With the 9/11 attacks, major television news coverage was continuous
and without commercials (McDonald & Lawrence, 2004). Newspaper readers
followed the terrorism story closely; ‘‘ . . . the volume of coverage remained
abnormally high even for a news story long after the attack’’ (Stempel & Hargrove,
2002, p. 17). Consequently, the frequency with which the terrorism news frame is
employed and its accompanying language has dramatically changed the public’s
perception: an increased threat greater than reality (Norris et al., 2003). This has
created a form of moral panic: a society-wide fear based on believing that a
widespread threat to society exists, which may or may not be valid (Victor, 2006).
28 Reframing Ecotage as Ecoterrorism: News and the Discourse of Fear
Methods
To answer the research questions, I conducted a content analysis of six national daily
newspapers. As defined by Babbie (2001), content analysis is ‘‘the study of recorded
human communications.’’ The primary approach of this method is through coding in
which raw data are transformed into a standardized form (Babbie, 2001). Moreover,
content analysis, when conducted with artifacts over a long time period, can reflect
social trends (Babbie, 2004). The newspapers examined were The New York Times,
USA Today, Los Angeles Times, The Wall Street Journal, The Washington Post, and The
Christian Science Monitor. The first five were selected because they consistently have
had the largest circulation in the nation with a combined total of over nine million
and serve different niches, which would reduce duplicative coverage (Audit Bureau of
Circulations, 2007). The Christian Science Monitor was chosen because its focus is
national and does not rely on wire service reports. Using Proquest Newspapers, I
searched the six newspapers for news stories using selected search terms from 1
January 1984 to 31 December 2006. The starting date was selected based on a
preliminary search that found 1984 as the first year in which any of the search terms
were used in connection with ecotage. The search terms were selected based on a
preliminary analysis of various communication media, government reports, popular
cultural artifacts, and journal articles related to ecotage. The search terms (hyphens
and spaces were included) were: ecodefense, ecoraiders, ecosaboteur, ecotage, ecoterror,
ecoteur, ecovandal, ecoviolence, ecowarrior, environmental militants, environmental
sabotage, environmental saboteur, environmental terror, monkey wrenching, and radical
environmentalism.2
During the first phase, every news story was selected if it contained any of the
search terms. I identified and removed all stories that were primarily book, film, or
art reviews; letters to the editors, commentaries, or forums; and stories not related
to ecotage, but contained a search term merely as a reference or off-hand remark.
This refinement action was carried out to focus the content analysis on substantive
news rather than opinions, cultural events, or passing references to ecotage. In a
further refinement step, I removed all stories that discussed environmental
terrorism specific to Saddam Hussein and the Kuwaiti oil field fires. There were
18 such stories in 1991 and two in 1992. I made this decision because they are not
part of the generally accepted definition of ecotage, and all 20 stories dealt
specifically with Saddam Hussein, and did not contain references to domestic acts
of ecotage. Stories were limited to text only; no graphs, photos, or diagrams were
included in the database. In addition to using Proquest Newspapers, each
newspaper’s online archive was searched allowing for crosschecking to ensure
there were no missing stories. The entire database was examined to verify no
duplicate stories existed. This search, refinement, and verification process yielded
155 stories.
To collect data, a coding instrument was developed. The coding scheme was
designed to collect data on 10 variables. Three sets of variables were drawn from
Altheide’s (2003) discussion of the discourse of fear and contained words and themes
T. Wagner 29
as the units of analysis. One set of variables was words and synonyms related to fear:
alarm, attack, danger, dread, fear, fright, harm, horror, intimidate, lawless, malicious,
panic, risk, terror, threat, vicious, and violent. A second set of variables contained
terrorist-based words related to specific terrorist acts or actors: cell, plot, 9/11, Al
Qaeda, Oklahoma City bombing, Osama Bin Laden, September 11, Timothy McVeigh,
and Unabomber. A third set of variables was themes related to the status of ecotage
acts or actors: serious domestic terrorism threat, dangerous security threat, warriors, and
monkey wrenching. The coding scheme also included seven additional variables,
namely title of article, newspaper, date, indicators of prominence (length and location
of story), location of variables in the story, story context that included the variable,
and subject matter of the story. Following the selection of the units of analysis and the
development of the coding scheme, a content analysis was performed on all 155
stories. I was the only coder.
Results
In examining the 155 news stories over a 23-year period from 1 January 1984 to 31
December 2006, 52 per cent appeared during the six years after January 2001. As
depicted in Figure 1, of all stories reported, the majority (47 per cent) have been
feature articles, which discuss ecotage activities in general, trends, or organizations.
Criminal justice related stories, which include arrests, charges, indictments, pleas, and
sentencing, accounted for 24 per cent. Ecotage acts, which do not include criminal
justice actions, accounted for 19 per cent. Bulletins, which are notices and
announcements, accounted for 9 per cent. In 1991, there was a spike in coverage
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
1984
1985
1986
1987
1988
1989
1990
1991
1992
1993
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
Fre
quen
cy
Feature CJ Act Bulletin
Figure 1. News Story by Type, 1984�2006
30 Reframing Ecotage as Ecoterrorism: News and the Discourse of Fear
related to the arrest of Dave Foreman. In 1996, four of the six articles dealt specifically
with the Unabomber.
Since 2001, criminal justice stories have increased significantly. This is due to the
reassignment in 2000 of the FBI’s Joint Terrorist Task Force, which had focused on the
African Embassy bombings and first World Trade Center bombing, to investigate
Long Island, New York area ecotage activities (Haughney, 2001; Kenworthy, 2001).
This reassignment resulted in the FBI’s first arrest and subsequent conviction of a
self-proclaimed member of the Earth Liberation Front, the then dominant ecotage
group (Kenworthy, 2001). This high-profile arrest led to a series of additional,
newsworthy ecotage arrests.
Based on the content analysis, there are extensive direct and indirect references to
fear, terrorist acts/actors, and explicit status of ecotage in headlines and story bodies.
Newspaper headlines are especially relevant because they often state a hypothesis; they
make a predictive statement and then seek to support it with the story (Pan &
Kosicki, 1993). Table 1 presents the total frequency of variables and themes related to
the discourse of fear and their occurrence since 2001. This date is used as a reference
point because of the pivotal influence of 9/11 on the public’s construct of terrorism.
The ‘‘Total frequency’’ column presents the total number of articles from 1984 to
2006 containing the variable at least once. The ‘‘Occurrence since 2001’’ column notes
the per cent of the total frequency appearing since January 2001.
Table 1 Frequency of variables (n�155).
Total frequency (1984�2006) Occurrence since 2001 (%)
Fear variablesTerror 127 61Attack 58 79Violent 45 60Threat 28 60Danger 18 61Intimidate 13 69
Terrorist-related variablesCell 24 83Plot 16 50Unabomber 7 149/11 or September 11 7 100Oklahoma City Bombing 6 50Timothy McVeigh 4 50Al Qaeda 2 100Osama Bin Laden 2 100
Status variablesMonkey wrench 37 19Warrior 13 23Serious domestic terrorism threat 9 100
The words alarm, dread, fright, harm, horror, malicious, panic, risk, and vicious were found in five orfewer stories each.
T. Wagner 31
Headlines
As shown in Figure 2, the term ‘‘terror’’ or ‘‘terrorist’’ was used in 55 (35 per cent) of
all headlines in ecotage-related news stories. The first time terrorism appears in a
description of ecotage was in July 1987, in the Los Angeles Times, with the succinct
title of ‘‘Environmental Terrorism’’ (Los Angeles Times, 1987).3 Four terror worded
headlines appeared in 1991, which saw a spike in the word ‘‘terror’’ due to the arrest
of Dave Foreman. However, these were the exceptions as 85 per cent of articles using
the word ‘‘terror’’ in headlines occurred since January 2001. Interestingly, although 11
headlines appeared in 2001 containing the word terror to refer to ecotage acts, only
one appeared after September 11.
The use of fear-based language in headlines to describe ecotage acts has been
prevalent. For example, ‘‘SUV attacks may be eco-terrorism’’ (Los Angeles Times,
2002) is an example where the journalist clearly categorizes an ‘‘attack’’ on an
inanimate object as terrorism. A variation of the use of fear descriptors is illustrated
by the following headline, ‘‘An elemental clash of earth and fire; eco-terrorists blacken
houses to keep land green’’ (Ahrens, 2001). In this example, the reporter elaborates
on the action by using conflict-based terminology (clash, blackened) to support the
terrorist label. Finally, the headline, ‘‘3 Eco-Terror Suspects Held in Northern
California Plot; FBI agents say the arrests, which cap a year-long investigation, foil
planned attacks on phone towers, power stations and more’’ (Krikorian, 2006)
provides another example where in addition to the use of the term terror, other
terrorist-related terms, such as foil, plots, victims, and attacks, are used even though
the ‘‘victims’’ are inanimate objects. In contrast, headlines before 2001 often used
non-terrorist language. For example, ‘‘Eco-warriors and resource users talk’’
(Knickerbocker, 1993) is an example where the subjects appear to be rational
activists willing to engage in discourse, which is not a characteristic generally related
to terrorists. Even the early appearing headline in 1985, ‘‘Radical ecologists pound
spikes in trees to scare loggers and hinder lumbering’’ (Slocum, 1985) suggests
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
Ecotage Articles Terror in Headline
19
84
19
85
19
86
19
87
19
88
19
89
19
90
19
91
19
92
19
93
19
94
19
95
19
96
19
97
19
98
19
99
20
00
20
01
20
02
20
03
20
04
20
05
20
06
Freq
uen
cy
Figure 2. Frequency of ‘‘Terror’’ in Ecotage Story Headlines, 1984�2006
32 Reframing Ecotage as Ecoterrorism: News and the Discourse of Fear
marginally acceptable civil disobedience rather than violence. A 1989 headline,
‘‘Saboteurs for a better environment’’ (Robbins, 1989) is an example where a headline
implies rational justification for criminal actions.
Story Bodies
In addition to the 55 headlines, the term ‘‘terror’’ or ‘‘terrorist’’ also appeared in the
body of 75 additional stories. The term ecoterrorist first appeared in USA Today in
October 1987 in an article titled ‘‘Battle over ecology gets dangerous’’ (O’Driscoll,
1987). From 1996 to 2006, 25 stories contained direct references to established
terrorists or terrorist acts including 9/11, Al Qaeda, Osama Bin Laden, Unabomber,
Timothy McVeigh, or the Oklahoma City bombing. An additional 24 stories
contained terrorist terminology, specifically referencing ‘‘cells’’ to describing ecotage
group structures. The term ‘‘cell’’ first appeared in 1996 (Leiby) with reference to the
Unabomber.
A popular approach is to provide firsthand accounts to describe ecotage actions as
well-planned and organized terrorist ‘‘attacks’’ with language typically used to
describe a military operation sprinkled with clandestine references:
Arriving at the staging area after dark, they dressed in dark clothing, masks, andgloves, and checked their walkie-talkies and police radio scanner. Quietly they creptthrough the sagebrush toward the target. They drilled holes through the wall so thefuel would pour into the building. Then, they set the firebomb against the wall andretreated to the staging area. There, they dumped their dark clothes and shoes intoa hole and poured in acid to destroy DNA and other evidence. (Knickerbocker,2006)
Association with more conventional terrorism frames is a technique used to
demonize the perpetrators and, by extension, expand the terrorist label to other
events. For example, ‘‘In the dark corners of recent American history, terrorists have
hijacked planes, killed abortion doctors, and planted bombs, now they’re after crops’’
(Belsie, 2001). The following approach illustrates a reliance on violence and the fear
of violence as a means to categorize an event as social deviance: ‘‘Arson is becoming a
more common tool, threatening employees of torched buildings. Personal harassment
amounting to psychological violence has been directed against the family members of
those accused of harming animals or the environment. And the rhetoric from such
groups increasingly warns of personal violence’’ (Knickerbocker, 2002).
Discussion
Based on the results of the content analysis, newspapers have increasingly framed
ecotage as terrorism. There is a marked increase in the use of terms related to fear
since early 2001. This includes direct references to ecoterror, ecoterrorists, and
ecoterrorism to report on ecotage. In contrast, the terms warrior and monkey
wrenching, which were used previously to describe acts of ecotage, fell sharply since
2001 and have been replaced with direct references to high profile, non-ecotage
T. Wagner 33
terrorist acts, such as 9/11, Al Qaeda, Osama Bin Laden, and the Oklahoma City
Bombing.
As the results demonstrate, there has been an increase in the use of fear- and terror-
based words and themes associated with ecotage acts, which agrees with the findings
of Check (2005) that terrorism was a prominent frame in the television news coverage
in 1998, 2000, and 2001 of the Earth Liberation Front. The results support the thesis
that a discourse of fear has increasingly become pervasive with regards to the media’s
reporting on ecotage acts. This also is in agreement with Altheide’s (2003) study of
newspaper stories following 9/11, in which fear has been bonded to terrorism. The
results also show that there has been an increase in the number of ecotage-related
stories. Yet, except for 2001, as depicted in Figure 3, the number of reported ecotage
attacks has steadily declined since 1997 (Young, 2004). Based on Young’s (2004) study
of all reported ecotage attacks between 1993 and 2003, the vast majority involved
vandalism (77 per cent) and arson (12.6 per cent), only 2 per cent involved assault/
bodily harm, and only 1.1 per cent involved bombs. Although all these are clearly
criminal acts, the first two do not fit the traditional definition of terrorism. However,
as Amster (2006) argues, the definition has been lowered and broadened, culturally
and legally. Regardless, the mass media distorts the extent of crime through news and
popular culture and fosters an unrealistic sense of its actual occurrence (Altheide,
2003). The frequency with which actions are reported, although they may be rare,
suggest a common occurrence (Altheide, 2003). However, if acts decrease but
reporting on these acts increases, it suggests a culture of fear promoting moral panic.
One explanation for the shift in framing between 1999 and 2001 is the reliance on
federal agencies as a primary source for journalists. Reliance on government sources
can result in overrepresentation of these organization’s perspectives (Ross &
Bantimaroudis, 2006). Based on the content analysis, the FBI was the cited source
in 50 stories and the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms (ATF) was a cited
source in 12 stories. However, the use of FBI and ATF as primary sources has
increased significantly: 86 per cent of stories citing FBI sources and 75 per cent of ATF
cited sources occurred after January 2001. It is not just the increased frequency of
government sources, but the shift in the government’s perspective of ecotage that is
important. Illustrative of this shift are the following excerpts:
0
50
100
150
200
250
1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003
Num
ber
Figure 3. Reported Ectotage Acts, 1993�2003 (Young, 2004)
34 Reframing Ecotage as Ecoterrorism: News and the Discourse of Fear
March 2, 1999Neither agency [FBI or the ATF] sees eco-terror as a spreading scourge. JohnWilliamson, chief of domestic terrorism analysis for the FBI, says that ‘we have notseen a dramatic increase in the numbers of these incidents.’ An ATF spokesman saysthere have been ‘maybe four or five’ eco-related bombings or arsons in the last fewyears, nothing ‘widespread.’ A spokesman for the National Association of AttorneysGeneral’s task force on terrorism says the issue of eco-terrorism ‘hasn’t come up.’(Ortega, 1999, p. A1)
January 13, 2001The FBI considers ELF [The Earth Liberation Front] its No. 1 domestic terroristthreat, but has had no luck catching any members. The agency has launched a JointTerrorism Task Force on the Long Island case. (Ahrens, 2001, p. C1)
The government’s perception of terrorism was affected profoundly by the events of
9/11. In addition to the emotional impacts, major changes were made to the legal
classification and status of terrorists. Although 9/11 was not the sole reason for the
shift in the government’s perception of ecoterrorism, the resulting statutory and
policy changes broadened the definition of terrorism, which was accompanied by
expanded enforcement and prosecutorial powers. For example, a direct result of 9/11
was the passage of the USA Patriot Act, which expanded federal power to conduct
surveillance and search and detain ‘‘terrorist’’ suspects (Long, 2004). The federal
government and corporations applied the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt
Organizations Act (RICO), originally intended to prosecute mafia organizations,
against environmental organizations engaged in ‘‘terrorist activities’’ (Beltran, 2002).
By 2002, the FBI had developed a legal definition of ‘‘ecoterrorism’’ (Jarboe, 2002).
Stiffer sentencing guidelines for ‘‘domestic terrorists’’ came into effect on 5 November
2003. Since early 2001, the FBI has declared and reaffirmed that ‘‘ecoterrorism’’ is a
serious domestic terror threat. Similarly, the Department of Homeland Security listed
the Earth Liberation Front as a threat to national security, although anti-government
hate groups, radical anti-abortionists, and white supremacists were not listed (Rood,
2005). A consumer of national daily newspapers has little reason to doubt the veracity
of the government’s ominous proclamations regarding ecoterrorists. Few of the news
stories examined paid significant attention to the motives of the ecotage activists as
they focused on the act, not the reason, which agrees with Check’s (2005) findings. By
lowering the threshold and broadening the definition of terrorism, increasing
government authority over terrorism, and increasing police and justice budgets
related to finding and prosecuting terrorists, all during a period of strong public
support to get tough on terrorism, I argue that these actions and the resulting arrests
and convictions have increased media coverage and support of an expanded construct
of terrorism.
Conclusion
When America was in the throes of an environmental revolution in the late 1960s
and early 1970s, ecotage was promoted by a national environmental group as a way
of fighting back against callous corporate polluters. By renaming ecotage as
T. Wagner 35
ecoterrorism, societal outrage was redirected and the enemy redefined. Through the
mass media’s use of the discourse of fear to describe ecotage acts, ecoterrorists should
be feared, and, by extension, stopped, controlled, and prosecuted. The terrorism
classification has been adopted by federal and local government, police organizations,
the courts, and the media. Given the power of these entities to shape public
perception, the public also likely believes that perpetrators of ecotage acts are
terrorists. Due to this successful reframing, a danger lies in labeling any objectionable
action or actor as terrorism. As Vanerheiden (2005) and Amster (2006) observe,
the terrorism label has been used to define and discredit legitimate, mainstream
environmental groups. This manipulative labeling has significant implications on
previously acceptable forms of dissent, environmental protest, and civil disobedience.
Citizens may be too fearful of demonic branding, therefore exercising excessive
caution in open public discourse, the bedrock of a civil society. As the fear of unjustly
being labeled a terrorist can have a powerful, chilling effect on legitimate public
participation crucial to environment communication and the policy process, further
research is needed to determine if this fear is real.
Acknowledgements
Special thanks to Sandra Wachholz and Chris Powell of The University of Southern
Maine’s Criminology Department for providing important suggestions on theoretical
applications. In addition, I am grateful to the anonymous reviewers who provided
valuable suggestions to improve the paper.
Notes
[1] Ecotage is different from environmental sabotage, which involves intentional acts to harm
the environment (Chalecki, 2001).
[2] Variations of many terms were also searched using wildcards. For example, ‘‘ecoterror’’
followed by an asterisk (*) was used, which captured, for example, ‘‘ecoterror,’’ ‘‘ecoterror-
ism,’’ and ‘‘ecoterrorist.’’
[3] Although not part of the study because it was a commentary, the first time the term
ecoterrorist appears in a headline is a commentary in March 1990 by Jack Anderson and Dale
Van Atta in The Washington Post titled ‘‘Tree Spiking: An ‘‘Eco-Terrorist’’ Tactic.’’
References
Abbey, E. (1975). The monkey wrench gang. Philadelphia, PA: Lippincott.
Ahrens, F. (2001, January 13). An elemental clash of earth and fire; eco-terrorists blacken houses to
keep land green. Washington Post, p. C-1.
Altheide, D. L. (1997). The news media, the problem frame, and the production of fear. Sociological
Quarterly, 38, 646�668.
Altheide, D. (2002). Creating fear: News and the construction of crisis. New York: Aldine De Gruyter.
Altheide, D. (2003). Notes on a politics of fear. Journal of Crime Conflict and the Media, 1(1), 37�54.
Amster, R. (2006). Perspectives on ecoterrorism: Catalysts, conflations, and casualties. Contempor-
ary Justice Review, 9(3), 287�301.
36 Reframing Ecotage as Ecoterrorism: News and the Discourse of Fear
Anderson, J., & Van Atta, D. (1990, March 5). Tree spiking: An ‘‘eco-terrorist’’ tactic. Washington
Post, p. C-20.
Audit Bureau of Circulation. (2007). Top 200 newspapers by largest reported circulation. Retrieved
February 23, 2007 from http://www.accessabc.com/reader/top150.htm.
Babbie, E. (2001). The practice of social research (9th ed). Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.
Babbie, E. (2004). The practice of social research (10th ed). Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.
Belsie, L. (2001, July 5). Eco-vandals put a match to ‘‘progress.’’ The Christian Science Monitor, p. 11.
Beltran, X. (2002). Applying RICO to eco-activism: Fanning the radical flames of terror. Boston
College Environmental Affairs Law Review, 29(2), 619�647.
Bush, G. W. (2001). Address to a Joint Session of Congress and the American People. September 20,
2001.
Cart, J., & Morin, M. (2003, August 2). Eco-terrorism suspected as fire levels construction site; a
radical group’s initials are found on a banner nearby after a $20-million blaze destroys an
apartment project in San Diego. Los Angeles Times, p. B-1.
Cavender, G., & Bond-Maupin, L. (1998). Fear and loathing on reality television: An analysis of
America’s most wanted and unsolved mysteries. In G. W. Potter & V. E. Kappeler (Eds.),
Constructing crime: Perspectives on making news and social problems (pp. 73�86). Prospect
Heights, IL: Waveland Press.
Chalecki, E. L. (2001). A new vigilance: Identifying and reducing the risks of environmental terrorism.
Report of the Pacific Institute for Studies in Development, Environment, and Security. Oakland,
CA: Pacific Institute.
Check, T. (2005). The framing of radical environmental rhetoric: Television news coverage of the
Earth Liberation Front. In G. B. Walker & W. J. Kinsella (Eds.), Proceedings from the 7th
Biennial Conference on Communication and the Environment: Finding our way(s) in
environmental communication (pp. 418�424). Corvallis, OR: Oregon State University,
Department of Speech Communication.
Clow, M., & Machum, S. (1993). Stifling debate: Canadian newspapers and nuclear power. Halifax,
NS: Fernwood Publishing.
Dunn, E., Moore, M., & Nosek, B. (2005). The war of the words: How linguistic differences in
reporting shape perceptions of terrorism. Analysis of Social Issues and Public Policy, 5(1), 67�86.
Entman, R. (1993). Framing: Toward clarification of a fractured paradigm. Journal of Commu-
nication, 43(3), 51�58.
Gray, B. (2003). Framing of environmental disputes. In R. J. Lewicki, B. Gray, & M. Elliott (Eds.),
Making sense of intractable environmental conflicts (pp. 11�34). Washington, DC: Island Press.
Haughney, C. (2001, March 27). Teenagers’ activism takes a violent turn; New York youths linked to
ecoterrorist group. Washington Post, p. A-1.
Hays, S., Esler, M., & Hays, C. (1996). Radical environmentalism and crime. In S. M. Edwards, T. D.
Edwards, & C. B. Fields (Eds.), Environmental crime and criminality: Theoretical practice and
political issues (pp. 163�181). New York: Garland.
Hoffner, C., Fujioka, Y., Ibrahim, A., & Ye, J. (2002). Emotion and coping with terror. In B. S.
Greenberg (Ed.), Communication and terrorism: Public and media responses to 9/11 (pp. 229�244). Cresskill, NJ: Hampton Press.
Jarboe, J. F. (2002, February 12). The threat of eco-terrorism. FBI testimony before the House Resources
committee, Subcommittee on Forests and Forest Health. Washington, DC: GPO.
Karlberg, M. (1997). News and conflict: How adversarial news frames limit public understanding of
environmental issues. Alternatives Journal, 23(1), 22�27.
Kenworthy, T. (2001, February 14). A green crusade erupts in flames; elusive ‘‘Earth Liberation
Front’’ claims responsibility for $30 million in damage, but law may be closing in. USA Today,
p. A-3.
Knickerbocker, B. (1993, February 9). Eco-warriors and resource users talk. The Christian Science
Monitor, p. 11.
T. Wagner 37
Knickerbocker, B. (1999, January 20). Activists step up war to ‘‘liberate’’ nature. The Christian
Science Monitor, p. 4.
Knickerbocker, B. (2002, February 15). Eco-terrorists, too, may soon be on the run; Congress
considers new penalties against pro-environment violence out West. The Christian Science
Monitor, p. 2.
Knickerbocker, B. (2006, January 30). Backstory: Eco-vigilantes: All in ‘‘the family?’’; the indictment
of 11 people for ‘‘eco-terrorism’’ opens a window on environmental extremism. Christian
Science Monitor, p. 20.
Krikorian, G. (2006, January 14). 3 Eco-terror suspects held in northern California plot; FBI agents
say the arrests, which cap a yearlong investigation, foil planned attacks on phone towers,
power stations and more. Los Angeles Times, p. B-6.
Leiby, R. (1996, April 17). Madman or eco-maniac? Conspiracy theorists see environmental ‘‘hit
list’’ as Unabomber fodder. Washington Post, p. C-1.
Lewis, J. (2005, May 18). Statement before the U.S. Senate Committee on Environment & Public
Works, oversight on eco-terrorism specifically examining the Earth Liberation Front (‘‘ELF’’) and
the Animal Liberation Front (‘‘ALF’’). Washington, DC: GPO.
Long, D. (2004). Ecoterrorism. New York: Facts on File.
Los Angeles Times. (1987, July 23). Environmental terrorism. Los Angeles Times, p. A-4.
Los Angeles Times. (2002, November, 27). SUV attacks may be eco-terrorism. Los Angeles Times,
p. A-33.
Love, S. & Obst, D. (Eds.). (1972). Ecotage! New York: Pocket Books.
Mathews, J. (1991, April 8). Acts of war and the environment. Washington Post, p. A-17.
McDonald, I. R., & Lawrence, R. G. (2004). Filling the 24�7 news hole: Television coverage
following September 11. American Behavioral Scientist, 48(3), 327�340.
Meister, M., & Japp, P. M. (2002). Introduction: A rationale for studying environmental rhetoric
and popular culture. In M. Meister & P. M. Japp (Eds.), Enviropop: Studies in environmental
rhetoric and popular culture (pp. 1�12). Westport, CT: Praeger.
Monaghan, R. (2002). Single-issue terrorism: A neglected phenomenon? Studies in Conflict &
Terrorism, 23, 255�265.
NBC News, (1971, July 28). Golden Fox Contest (available from Vanderbilt University Television
News Archives, Nashville, TN).
Norris, P., Kern, M., & Just, M. (2003). Framing terrorism. In P. Norris, M. Kern, & M. Just (Eds.),
Framing terrorism: The news media, the government, and the public (pp. 3�23). New York:
Routledge.
O’Driscoll, P. (1987, October 8). Battle over ecology gets dangerous. USA Today, p. 1.
Ortega, B. (1999, March 2). To Barry Clausen, the woods are full of eco-terrorists � media go to him
for analysis of environmental violence the FBI hasn’t spotted. Wall Street Journal, p. A-1.
Pan, Z., & Kosiciki, G. S. (1993). Framing analysis: An approach to news discourse. Political
Communication, 10, 55�69.
Peterson, T. R., & Peterson, M. J. (2000). Ecology according to Silent Spring’s vision of progress. In
C. Waddell (Ed.), And no birds sing: Rhetorical analyses of Rachel Carson’s Silent Spring (pp.
73�102). Carbondale, IL: Southern Illinois University Press.
Robbins, J. (1989, July 7). Saboteurs for a better environment. New York Times, p. 46.
Rood, J. (2005). Animal rights groups and ecology militants make DHS terrorist list, right-wing
vigilantes omitted. CQ Homeland Security Intelligence. Retrieved February 23, 2007 from
http://www.cq.com/public/20050325_homeland.html.
Ross, S. D., & Bantimaroudis, P. (2006). Frame shifts and catastrophic events: The attacks of
September 11, 2001, and New York Time’s portrayals of Arafat and Sharon. Mass
Communication & Society, 9(1), 85�101.
Ryckman, L. L. (1986, January 3). ‘‘Environmental ‘‘warriors’’ use radical tactics to make point. Los
Angeles Times, p. A-3.
38 Reframing Ecotage as Ecoterrorism: News and the Discourse of Fear
Schwartz, D. M. (1998). Environmental terrorism: Analyzing the concept. Journal of Peace Research,
35(4), 483�496.
Slocum, K. (1985, November 14). Radical ecologists pound spikes in trees to scare loggers and
hinder lumbering. Wall Street Journal, p. A-1.
Slovic, P. (2000). Informing and educating the public about risk. In P. Slovic (Ed.), The perception of
risk (pp. 182�198). London: Earthscan Publications.
Snow, R. P. (1983). Creating media culture. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
Stempel III, G. H., & Hargrove, T. (2002). Media sources and information and attitudes about
terrorism. In B. S. Greenberg (Ed.), Communication and terrorism: Public and media responses
to 9/11 (pp. 17�26). Cresskill, NJ: Hampton Press.
Victor, J. S. (2006). Why the terrorism scare is a moral panic. Humanist, 66(4), 9�13.
Wall Street Journal (2006, January 25). Terrorists, by any name. Wall Street Journal, p. A-12.
Young, R. L. (2004). A times series analysis of eco-terrorist violence in the United States: 1993�2003.
Doctoral dissertation, Sam Houston State University.
Zulaika, J., & Douglass, W. V. (1996). Terror and taboo: The follies, fables, and faces of terrorism.
Routledge, New York.
T. Wagner 39