How WCO’s Use of “Embedded Third-Party Edited” Posts Morally Frames Public Issues

As previously noted, Schwarze (2006) asserts that “the distinctively melodramatic frame

typically interprets polarized, socio-political conflicts in moral terms” (250) by framing “conflict as not a mere difference of opinion, but as evidence of fundamental moral clash” (244). Notably, through such framing, melodrama “can function to reconstitute the parameters of controversy by positioning advocates and interpellating audiences in a stance opposed to the amoral and

immoral actions of political adversaries” (Schwarze 251). A survey of the entire WCO blog discourse reveals a multitude of instances and a variety of corresponding tactics through which this organization moralizes this controversy. However, an analysis of my corpus of embedded third-party edited posts reveals only two particular tactics: the assertion of an absence of

democracy and the portrayal of oppositional expertise. Although we have already examined how these two tactics function to create polarization within my corpus, in the following section, I will discuss how both these tactics additionally function to frame this conflict on a moral plane. In

both cases, such framing can be considered as WCO’s discursive response to a perceived conflict in which “scientific, technological, and bureaucratic discourses are blocking meaningful

participation in public affairs and restricting discussion to technical spheres of controversy”

(250).

In terms of the first tactic – asserting an absence of democracy – it was explained how this tactic villainizes government in an attempt to create polarity through the construction of a hero/villain binary. Yet, this tactic additionally functions to call into question the morality of the democratic leaders within this conflict. Although morality, democracy and leadership are abstract and fundamentally complex concepts, I agree with Grint (2004) that “leadership, which is necessarily moral, is also necessarily tied to democracy” (“Moral Democracy” 4). Thus, an insinuation regarding the absence of democracy can be considered as an insinuation that the leaders in that a democracy are immoral. We saw examples of such insinuation evidenced in “Table 7 -

Vilification through the Implied Absence of Democracy”. In discussing such examples, I highlighted how WCO insinuates that the government is in collusion with wind developers through their ‘rubber stamping’ of IWT development applications (7A), that the government is engaged in a metaphorical ‘assault’ on rural Ontario which has led opponents to re-appropriate the slogan “NO MEANS NO!” (7C), and that the participatory mechanisms related to IWT developments in Ontario exclude community input and are thus undemocratic (7B; 7D; 7E).

Thus, through such insinuations, WCO characterizes IWT policies and developments in Ontario as a moral injustice, one that is “tearing apart the very fabric of rural Ontario” (Wind Concerns Ontario “About Us”).

In terms of the second tactic – the portrayal of expertise – it was discussed how this tactic functions to legitimize opposition and, in effect, as a counter rhetoric to the technocratic discourse of government support. By aligning itself with experts and by portraying itself as an expert, WCO legitimizes its oppositional stance – a legitimization that not only polarizes this conflict but also validates opposition by denigrating support. In the following section, we will investigate how WCO extends this tactic to frame IWT conflict in Ontario on a moral plane, and in doing so employs an unconventional strategy contrary to the typical appeals of melodramatic rhetoric.

As previously mentioned, in many ways, the IWT conflict in Ontario can be rhetorically typified as a pursuit for expertise. One of the key exigences of this struggle is the seemingly

contradictory research regarding the negative health effects of IWT. In response to such contradiction, as early as 2009, WCO urged the Government of Ontario to “immediately put in place a moratorium on further industrial wind turbine development to stay in effect until the completion and public review of a comprehensive and scientifically robust health/noise study of the effects of wind turbines” (Wind Concerns Ontario “Briefing File”). Whether as a direct or indirect response to this request, in 2010, the Chief Medical Officer of Health of Ontario released a report which concluded that:

While some people living near wind turbines report symptoms such as dizziness, headaches, and sleep disturbance, the scientific evidence available to date does not demonstrate a direct causal link between wind turbine noise and adverse health effects.

The sound level from wind turbines at common residential setbacks is not sufficient to

cause hearing impairment or other direct health effects, although some people may find it annoying. (Chief Medical Officer of Health).

To date, the government stands by this conclusion, and they continue to be supported by The Canadian Wind Energy Association who claims that “the balance of scientific evidence and human experience to date clearly concludes that wind turbines are not harmful to human health”

(Canadian Wind Energy Association “Your Health”). However, WCO continues to contend that neither developers nor the government have ever conducted comprehensive research regarding the health effects of IWT. As an extension of this, WCO also believes that there is sufficient peer-reviewed scholarship which proves a causal connection between IWT and negative health effects, and that the government is willingly ignoring such research. Thus, one of WCO’s key arguments which reverberates throughout their blog is that “there ARE health effects from utility-scale wind turbine noise emissions due to the environmental noise and vibration they produce” (Wind Concerns Ontario “About Us”). Within my corpus, such reverberation is amplified by WCO’s appeal to expertise to frame this ‘supposed’ absence and ignorance of research as a moral critique. Most notably, WCO accomplishes this tactic through its use of embedded third-party edited posts to morally indict both government and developers for, they argue, putting the lives of residents at risk. Examples of this tactic are presented in “Table 11 – Appeal to Expertise as a Moral Critique”:

Date 2013/05/17 11A Adverse health

effects of

“The official journal of The College of Family Physicians of Canada”

published a paper by Roy D.

Jeffery, MD FCFP,

Carmen Krogh and Brett Horner (May 2013 vol. 59).

Conclusion: “Industrial wind turbines can harm human health if sited too close to residents.” and studies on wind turbine noise and health impacts.

Table 11-Appeal to Expertise as a Moral Critique

In 11A, WCO provides an embedded third-party edited link to an article published in the

Canadian Family Physician. Although WCO uses the same headline as the title of the article, in their lead, they include the following direct quotation from the conclusion of the article:

“Industrial wind turbines can harm human health if sited too close to residents” (Wind Concerns Ontario “Adverse Health”). Whereas the title of this journal lends credibility to the presented conclusion, as well as the professional acronyms of the first author, WCO enacts this conclusion to ‘confirm’ the belief of opponents – that a negative health link to IWT ‘exists’ – and through such ‘existence’, an ‘existence’ which is repeated throughout my corpus, the government is morally complicit in ignoring the ‘existence’ of this ‘truth’.

In 11E & 11F, WCO uses a slightly different discursive approach by providing a summary of the two cited articles within their edited headlines. For example, in 11E, WCO revises the title of the following peer-reviewed article “Systematic Review 2013: Association Between Wind Turbines and Human Distress” in headline form to read “Proof of association between turbine noise and poor health: public health doctors”. Through the inclusion of the term “proof” as well as presenting this headline as an implied direct quote sourced from “public health doctors”, WCO appears to present credible evidence which supports opposition to IWT based on health concerns. Although an analysis of the veracity of the expert research which WCO cites within my corpus is outside of the purview of my research, this use of “tendentious recovery” (a

rhetorical strategy in which “the inaccuracies in direct quoting clearly serve an editorial purpose”

(Fahnestock 308)) serves an obvious rhetorical purpose. For example, in the original article, the authors state that through their literature review, they identified the “presence of reasonable evidence…supporting the existence of an association between wind turbines and distress in