Public opinions on water reuse have been and continue to be a barrier to the success of various schemes. The internet allows many to engage with information surrounding water reuse proposals when they may never have encountered the information otherwise. There are benefits to engaging the public online, but there are also challenges associated with media bias and online advocacy.
A study was undertaken by STREAMer Daniel Goodwin, with Cranfield University and Thames Water to examine the public response to online news outlets reporting on an indirect potable reuse proposal for London. The researchers examined 1323 online comments on six different articles regarding this proposal. The articles were from a variety of news sources, all from the top ten national readership rankings (bar the BBC, which is the most read but is not ranked with the others). The sources were varied in political leanings and included tabloids and broadsheets. This ensured a wide variety of readers and therefore commenters, as well as different message framing.
Every article did imply a sense of disgust, featuring the idea of “drinking sewage” and a dominant frame of ‘toilet to tap’. Overall, three of the articles were more balanced in using both positive and negative sentiments towards the proposal, whereas the other three were evaluated as somewhat more negatively biased.
There was no evidence of the way the media framed the event influencing the public reactions, whether positively or negatively. The study shows that whilst countering long-term agendas will be difficult, there may be benefits to experimenting with the way water safety measures and shorter-term gains are framed. This information is vital to anyone wanting to promote and advocate for water reuse proposals online, leading to more effective communications, and hopefully a more informed public when it comes to water reuse.
No comments:
Post a Comment