Analyzing the Framing Battle Over Coal As an Energy Source | Age of Engagement | Big Think

One of the major strategic communication battles that took place during the debate over cap and trade legislation was the advertising war between the Clean Coal Coalition and Al Gore's Alliance for Climate Protection. As I document in the recent Climate Shift report, the Clean Coal Coalition spent $31 million on ads in 2009 and the Alliance $34 million. In a guest post today, Katherine Barno examines the framing strategies employed by each side. Barno is a student in this semester's course on "Science, the Environment and the Media" -- MCN.

...
While Al Gore’s Alliance for Climate Protection is the most involved in the ad campaign, it seems as though the group realized the polarizing effect Al Gore’s face can have on the public. The Coalition strategically decided to shy away from using Gore in the ads and focusing on him as the face of the campaigns. The problem Alliance for Climate Protection was twofold, as Pooley states: “First, Al Gore is the face of global warming alarmism in this country. Second, polls show he is the most polarizing figure in the country. The elites on both coasts like him, but the people in between don’t.” (Pooley: 2010 122)