Talk:My Water's On Fire Tonight (The Fracking Song)

Nov 2011

Several thoughts about this passage:

"is a 2011 American song and accompanying music video about the environmental and public health effects of hydraulic fracturing ("Fracking"), a method of extracting gas and oil. The piece was created by Studio 20, a New York University graduate program, based on data collected by the investigative journalism group ProPublica. Described by Studio 20 as an "explainer", it is a mini-documentary of the advocacy journalism type."

First of all, thank you for helping to edit this piece, Herostratus.

1)It's interesting that you included "advocacy journalism" in the article, I was myself debating whether or not to describe the video in that manner. This is in part because the video was created in collaboration with and specifically for ProPublica,(not in response to or loosely based on- see ProPublica's site) who's report is (in my opinion) clearly "investigative journalism". Maybe the sentence "based on data collected by..." could be re-written to make this a little more clear. It looks like Poynter muddled the intent/purpose of the video in their article.

2) "about the environmental and public health effects of hydraulic fracturing ("Fracking"), a method of extracting gas and oil" --> The video was intended as a summary of ProPublica's long-form journalism report, which was not solely about the environmental effects. Many of the articles are about politics / legislation. Even though many "green" sites picked up the video to use as advocacy, I don't believe that was the intention of the creators(actually, maybe that could go in the article).

3)One of the references mentioned that the reason The Fracking Song was notable/original was not because it was a music video, but because the lyrics listed on the site contained links to ProPublica reports, so that in that way, the video was "citing" each of the claims it made. I'm going to put a couple sentences in about this.

4)I'm thinking of including something in here about Jay Rosen, the Studio 20 creator, or the makers of the music video. I'm pretty sure the project has to do with Rosen's "accountability journalism" similar to citizen journalism concept. Also, only two of the people involved were Studio 20 students I believe, I'll have to sort through these articles and find that reference.

Keep in mind, I am an environmental scientist, so any unintentional bias in my writing will stem from that. CyclopediaSenorita (talk) 21:59, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

Now that I think of it, "accountability journalism" should be mentioned in the citizen journalism article. In addition, currently the Jay Rosen entry and the citizen journalism entry are both flagged for POV problems. This is probably because of the highly polarized debate that currently exists regarding journalistic ethics. (Jay Rosen and James O'Keefe are on opposite sides of this debate) Therefore, I think these 2 articles and others on the subject should probably have BOTH points of view described objectively, rather than one weak neutral description. CyclopediaSenorita (talk) 22:39, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

All this sounds fine. I personally am not that good at collaborating with other editors, I'm just by nature a lone-worker type. As far as I'm concerned the article is properly formatted and referenced and shows sufficient notability that it won't be deleted, and that's probably as much as I'm going to do.

Adding a ref to Rosen (e.g. "Studio 21, founded by Jay Rosen..." or whatever) would be fine, as would anything else you want to do to enhance the article. I'd suggest moving it into article space, so that other readers and editors can see it and work on it. As to whether the terms "advocacy journalism" are correct and proper and so forth, I don't know. I just kind of looked those up and added them. If you or (when it's moved to article space) other editors have different ideas, that's fine, just ignore what I wrote and make it better and more accurate.

If you wanted to work on the Jay Rosen and James O'Keefe articles, this would make my toes curl with delight, as we are always looking for editors with expertise in a subject matter to improve our articles. Working on Wikipedia articles is tons of fun if you're so inclined, so I hope you do this. Cheers, Herostratus (talk) 05:03, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

External links modified (February 2018)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on My Water's On Fire Tonight (The Fracking Song). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20111005015126/http://explainer.net/thefrackingsong/ to http://explainer.net/thefrackingsong/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:23, 9 February 2018 (UTC)