Which arguments on the documentary are most convincing?
FrackNation, directed by Phelim McAleer, gives the counter-argument to the anti-fracking Gasland (directed by Josh Fox). The documentary begins by discussing the role that fracked oil could play in making America energy-independent by 2020. McAleer’s stongest argument is the way he conducts his research; by consulting authoritative sources he is able to debunk all of Fox’s claims and make himself credible to the audience. While Fox speaks in absolutes, has no credible sources to support his arguments and presents questionable evidence, McAleer’s narrative seems more plausible and unbiased. McAller’s. Due to its sensationalistic nature Fox’s documentary seem to have only entertainment…show more content… Of course, clear tap water can contain toxins, heavy metals, or small radioactive particles that a scientific lab can quantify. Why didn't Mr. Sautner make a video of some reputable lab scientists collecting his clear-flowing tap water and taking it to a laboratory while accompanied by a local judge or mayor?
Which evidence is most convincing?
The cups filled with murky water presented by some residents clearly show water contamination. There is a lack of knowledge of all the chemicals being used for fracking amongst the citizens. Moreover, flaming faucets and well as farm animals with alopecia, allegedly caused by water pollution, seem to be credible evidence of the detrimental effects of fracking.
What makes you angry?
Residents afraid of speaking up and their feeling of powerlessness were very upsetting. There seems to be no information available, and that points to a possible cover-up. Residents feel as if there is nobody to listen to their plea. The amount of privilege and immunity given to big corporations is outrageous.
What makes you sad?
The resident’s hopelessness heard throughout the whole documentary, their sense of loss and being taken advantage of by the fracking companies. Watching innocent children being exposed to health hazards was
