Background on Media Coverage
March 24th, 1989, the Exxon Valdez Tanker ran aground off the coast of Alaska spilling millions of gallons of oil into the Prince William Sound, an ecosystem teeming with diverse marine life. A main method that Exxon used in attempt to clean up the oil off of the beaches and surrounding water was to use dispersants, a new technology of which no one knew the implications of using. Prior to their use and in the initial reactions, many national news organizations such as the Wall Street Journal criticized the U.S. government for impeding the continued use of dispersants, while local media source such as the Anchorage Daily News tended to report the negative effects locals were experiencing immediately following the implementation of dispersants. Given national media in holding more responsibility to the public, they seemed to support quicker fixes to the spill rather than explaining there may be no solutions and that the only thing can be addressed is precautions in drilling to ensure to hold oil companies to a standard that this doesn’t repeat itself once again or methods of repairing are researched and improved. This may have even prevented or decreased the chance of the BP Oil Spill.

The Media Narrative
The national media in holding more responsibility seems to stick with this narrative where Handley and Rutigliano seem to believe that this is “Because of competition within the journalistic field made possible by changing political economies, new technologies, and globalization, one reaction of dominant news organizations is to become more committed to the national narrative, in an attempt to maintain their position of strength within the field.” This then results in the public perception mostly shifting towards this media narrative since national media has a larger effect than local media. ¹

Wall Street Journal Excerpt:
             The decision is a setback to the company’s beleaguered efforts to speed cleanup of the mess left by the March 24 wreck of the supertanker Exxon Valdez, which spilled 11 million gallons of crude oil after plowing into Bligh Reef near Valdez.
             The move is also likely to be viewed as yet another blow to oil-industry efforts to promote the use of chemical dispersants as an effective method of controlling and cleaning up oil spills. Exxon had gone into field trials with the chemical, known as Corexit 9580, convinced that it would help whisk away tarlike oil with few negative environmental side effects. ²

This exemplifies some of the anger given from national media sources regarding the halting of the use of dispersants, as it was the most immediate quick fix for the spill. It also shows the support of a national narrative regarding the spill that dispersants were good aligning with Exxon and caused a large shift in public opinion towards this story and support for the use of the Corexit dispersant.

This Australian TV special on Exxon Valdez reveals how the disaster has since effected locals in the long term, as fishing towns near the area are not nearly as productive as they used to be prior to the spill. This program is interesting because it shows still how much of the oil still lies on the beaches of the sound and how representatives from Exxon to this day refute that they played any part in the environmental impacts and that much of what occurred is due to other factors, as one scientist names the cause to be a virus spreading between the animals and explicitly states that any scientists who state that the oil is the cause aren’t reputable. This long term window is interesting given the fact it may foreshadow how the BP Oil Spills will impact the Gulf of Mexico in the long term.

Page Number Reference:
1 – Introduction/Navigation Page
2 – Exxon Valdez Oil Spill
3 – BP Oil Spill
4 – Interesting Additional Information
5 – Site Reflections