Frames Analysis: EPA Proposes Stricter Standards

The New York Times recently carried an article titled EPA Asks for Stricter Rules for Pollutants Causing Smog by John Broder which reported on the federal agencies proposal for tougher restrictions on smog causing pollutants. The article frames the proposal through a benefits trumping costs, environmentalist, and humanitarian standpoints. The article includes many key phrases that forward the humanitarian argument. Whereas a similar AP article does not mention the total estimated savings that could be acrued through health bills, Broder wrote that they would be between 13 and 100 billion dollars. In addition the article explains the health problems associated with smog. These include the development of asthma and premature deaths. The article makes the claim that as many as 12,000 premature deaths could be halted if the standards were enacted. In addition to the humanitarian standpoint, the article frames the EPA's proposal in a manner that promotes the benefits and limits the costs. Border downplays the cost in his sentences by following them with information portraying the benefits. This happens when he claims that "the new standard would force dozens of counties to meet the current law to take costly steps to get back into compliance" and follows immediately with the statement "still, the leader of an association of government air quality agencies welcomed the proposal." A similar statement is made when addressing the cost to oil and gas companies. After stating that the proposal would cost the companies between 19 and 90 billion dollars, Broder reported the total savings to individuals due to health costs. The environmentalist standpoint is also presented. Broder makes the claim that "smog is worse in the summer because of heat and sunlight, and can travel hundreds of miles from its source to pollute wilderness areas. Broder promotes the proposal through humanitarian, benefit over cost, and environmentalist frames.

The way that the article is written and its visuals further promote the EPA's proposal. The large visual at the top shows a smog covered city. This frames the proposal as beneficial with the hope of eliminating harmful clouds of pollutants as those pictured. Broder also buries a statement by the oil and gas industry and critics in the last paragraphs of the article. After explaining the science behind smog, Broder advances the claim made by an oil and gas representative that there is "no new scientific basis for change the standard." The New York Times article furthers the frames presented through the placement of paragraphs and visuals in the story.
The same story presented in the New American frames the proposal as costly and destructive to cities across the state of Texas and the oil and gas industry. The burden of the EPA regulation takes center stage in the article as opposed to the humanitarian and environmental stance forwarded in the New York Times. The article, written by Rebecca Terrel, claims that the cost of tighter regulations would cost the manufacturers between 19 and 90 billion dollars. The author included statistics about the effect of new EPA regulations on the small town of Waco Texas, a city akin to the size of those that many of the readers leave in. Terrel wrote that the town's ability to recruit industries would be greatly hindered. She went further by including a statement by Texas governor Rick Perry who stated that the regulations were based on false science and would have little benefit. He also claims that such a move should belong to the states. The cost is made even more important with the statements and facts coming from local leaders rather than oil and gas executives who made the same statements. The information is also framed in a way that makes it more relevant than the EPAs own supporting statistics. The EPAs statistics only include the amount of money that could be saved in health expenses dispersed over a large population. Statistics such as the possibility of stopping premature deaths are not included. Rebecca Terrel's article frames the EPAs proposal in a way that makes it appear overly costly.
The difference in evidence, visuals, wording, and the quality of information and sources help to establish the different frames. Both used information that supported their views. Whereas the New York Times article utilized scientific research as supporting evidence, the New American utilized statements by local and state politicians in Texas. The quality of information also establishes the frames. The politicians in Terrels story and the science in Broder's article help to firmly establish the author's views. The wording firmly implants the viewpoint that the quality of information and sources and difference of evidence forwards. Broder calls the Bush administrations proposal "too weak" and remarking on the positive progression of the EPAs ability to enforce air quality standards (Broder. Terrel's article remarks on the costliness of the proposal with buzzwords and phrases such as "increase costs to industry and local governments dramatically" (Terrel). Visuals further the point as well. Whereas the New York Times includes a large graphic of a smog filled city and a smog map, the New American has an almost noticeably tiny graphic of a smokestack directly to the left of the first paragraph. The differences between the articles firmly establishes the different frames.