Outline the information about how the oil and gas industry uses New Mexico’s educational institutions in its media campaign as well as the reactions to it.

Analyze how the author conveys her attitude towards the U.S. oil and gas industry. Focus on communicative strategies and use of language.

Choose one of the following tasks:

or

The article explains how the oil and gas industry in New Mexico uses educational institutions as the centrepiece of a media campaign to justify continued fossil fuel production and to influence public opinion. At the same time, it presents various reactions from supporters, experts, educators and students.

The campaign, led by the New Mexico Oil and Gas Association (NMOGA), portrays the oil and gas industry as indispensable for public education. Through social media posts, videos and other media formats, the association creates a strong connection between schools and fossil fuels. For example, it presents everyday school items such as backpacks, notebooks, teachers and school buses as products that are made possible by oil and natural gas.

Moreover, NMOGA depicts the industry as a generous supporter of schools. In one promotional video, elementary school teacher Ashley Niman claims that oil and gas revenues provide the resources necessary for high-quality education and even make her a better teacher. According to the author, this is an example of the so-called “fossil fuel savior frame”, a rhetorical strategy that presents the industry as the protector and benefactor of public education.

The campaign also relies on fear appeals. NMOGA repeatedly suggests that any restrictions on oil and gas production would threaten the financing of schools. It spreads images of abandoned classrooms and emphasises that New Mexico’s schools depend on hundreds of millions of dollars generated through oil and gas production on federal land. Politicians such as Representative Yvette Herrell reinforce this message by claiming that schoolchildren would be especially harmed by cuts to fossil fuel revenues.

However, these claims are challenged by several groups. Environmental lawyer Erik Schlenker-Goodrich argues that the campaign effectively holds public education “hostage” by implying that schools will suffer unless fossil fuel companies can continue operating without restrictions. Likewise, tax and education experts reject the industry's narrative, stating that even temporary reductions in oil and gas leasing would have no immediate impact on school funding or educational services.

While New Mexico’s Attorney General Héctor Balderas partly supports the industry's position, arguing that a significant reduction in oil and gas revenues would negatively affect schools, infrastructure and economically disadvantaged communities, particularly Native American populations, many educators disagree.

Teacher Mary Bissell and more than 200 fellow educators publicly opposed NMOGA’s campaign, demanding that the association stop using teachers and students to justify further fossil fuel development. Bissell also criticises the attempt to integrate fossil fuel topics into teaching and describes the portrayal of educators as supporters of the industry as “disgusting”.

Finally, student leader Seneca Johnson questions the entire funding model. Since New Mexico’s education system has long performed poorly despite receiving oil and gas revenues, she argues that dependence on the industry has failed and that schools should no longer rely on this “broken system”.

Overall, the article shows that the oil and gas industry deliberately uses schools, teachers and children to create a positive public image and to argue against environmental regulations. At the same time, experts, educators and students increasingly criticise this strategy as misleading and call for a less dependent and more sustainable education funding system.

In her article, Leanna First-Arai conveys a highly critical attitude towards the U.S. oil and gas industry. She presents the industry's media campaign as manipulative, deceptive and primarily driven by economic self-interest rather than genuine concern for education. To achieve this, she combines emotionally charged language, rhetorical devices, carefully selected examples, contrasting viewpoints and authoritative sources.

From the very beginning, First-Arai establishes a critical tone by directly addressing the reader. The opening invitation to imagine typical school objects ("Think of four images…", ll. 1–4) involves the audience before revealing the industry's surprising claim that all these objects are "powered by oil and natural gas" (ll. 5–6). This contrast creates irony and immediately encourages readers to question the association promoted by NMOGA.

The author repeatedly uses loaded language to portray the industry's campaign negatively. She describes the oil and gas industry as "coming out in force" to "deepen the region's dependence on fossil fuels" (ll. 7–9), suggesting aggressive and deliberate action. Furthermore, expressions such as "powerful interest groups" (ll. 10–11), "profit-motivated interests" (l. 23), "hold New Mexico's public education system hostage" (ll. 22–24) and "flooded its social media pages" (ll. 33–36) create the impression of an influential organisation that exploits schools for its own financial benefit.

Another important communicative strategy is the use of metaphors and figurative language. The campaign is described as portraying oil and gas as the "patron saint of education" (l. 10), implying that the industry falsely presents itself as a heroic saviour. Likewise, the metaphor of schools being "held hostage" (ll. 22–24) suggests coercion and manipulation rather than a genuine partnership. The expression "sky is falling" messaging (l. 30) ridicules the industry's warnings as exaggerated fearmongering.

First-Arai also undermines the industry's credibility by exposing what she presents as its rhetorical techniques. She explicitly labels the campaign as an example of the "fossil fuel savior frame" (ll. 18–21), a term borrowed from social science. By introducing this technical concept, the author suggests that the industry's communication follows a calculated propaganda strategy rather than presenting objective facts.

Moreover, the author carefully contrasts different voices. Although supporters of the oil and gas industry, such as teacher Ashley Niman (ll. 13–17), Representative Yvette Herrell (ll. 36–39) and Attorney General Balderas (ll. 47–55), are given space to express their views, these statements are consistently followed by counterarguments from experts. Tax and education specialists dismiss the industry's warnings as "deceptive" (ll. 40–46), while environmental lawyer Erik Schlenker-Goodrich argues that the campaign implicitly threatens public education (ll. 22–24). This structure weakens the industry's position and strengthens the author's argument by giving greater authority to independent experts.

The article also appeals to the readers' emotions by focusing on children, teachers and education. References to smiling teachers, school buses and schoolchildren (ll. 1–16; 36–39) evoke positive associations, making the industry's instrumentalisation of education appear particularly cynical. This impression is reinforced by teacher Mary Bissell's emotional condemnation of NMOGA's campaign as "disgusting" (l. 64), a strong evaluative term that leaves little doubt about the author's own stance.

In addition, First-Arai strengthens her criticism through contrasting facts and reality. She points out that New Mexico is simultaneously the fastest-warming and most water-stressed state in the continental United States, where severe wildfires have recently destroyed over 120,000 acres (ll. 7–9). By juxtaposing these environmental consequences with the industry's positive self-presentation, she exposes what she sees as a contradiction between the industry's image and its actual impact.

Finally, the article ends with the perspective of student leader Seneca Johnson (ll. 69–75). Johnson argues that despite decades of oil and gas funding, New Mexico's education system remains among the weakest in the country. Ending with this voice serves as a powerful conclusion because it questions the central claim of the industry's campaign: if fossil fuel revenues truly benefited education, the system should perform far better. Thus, the closing quotation reinforces the author's overall criticism and leaves the reader with a memorable final argument.

Overall, First-Arai conveys a distinctly negative attitude towards the U.S. oil and gas industry. Through emotionally charged language, metaphors, irony, contrasting perspectives, expert testimony and carefully selected examples, she presents the industry's media campaign as a deliberate attempt to manipulate public opinion by exploiting concerns about children's education while concealing its own economic interests.

The quotation illustrates how powerful interest groups try to influence public opinion by linking political decisions to issues that people care deeply about, such as children's education and wellbeing. Image campaigns can indeed have a considerable impact because they shape the way people perceive certain issues. However, their influence is not unlimited, as many people question the information they receive and consult different sources before forming an opinion.

One reason why image campaigns are often successful is that they appeal to people's emotions. In the article, the oil and gas industry deliberately associates itself with schools, teachers and children. These images evoke positive feelings such as safety, responsibility and care for future generations. At the same time, the campaign suggests that restricting fossil fuel production would endanger school funding. Since education is an issue that concerns almost everyone, many people are likely to react emotionally rather than analyse the economic background in detail. As a result, emotional appeals can strongly influence public opinion.

Furthermore, image campaigns simplify complex political issues. The relationship between fossil fuel production and public education funding is highly complicated and depends on taxes, government budgets and long-term economic developments. Instead of explaining these connections, the campaign reduces the debate to a simple message: without oil and gas, schools will suffer. Such clear and memorable messages are easy to understand and therefore spread quickly. However, they often ignore important facts and may create a misleading impression.

Another factor that increases the effectiveness of image campaigns is their presence across different media platforms. If people repeatedly encounter similar messages on social media, television and in statements by politicians, they may begin to regard them as credible. In addition, campaigns often use people who appear trustworthy, such as teachers or experts, to support their message. This can make the audience less likely to question the information presented.

Nevertheless, image campaigns cannot completely determine public opinion. In democratic societies, people are exposed to different perspectives through independent journalism, scientific research and public debate. In the article, for example, education experts reject the industry's claims and explain that the proposed restrictions would not immediately threaten school funding. Likewise, teachers and students openly criticise the campaign and argue that schools should not be used to justify further fossil fuel production. These alternative viewpoints enable the public to evaluate the campaign more critically.

Moreover, the success of an image campaign depends on the audience. People tend to interpret information according to their own experiences, political beliefs and values. While supporters of the oil and gas industry may be convinced by arguments about jobs and education, environmentally conscious citizens are more likely to view the campaign as an attempt to manipulate public opinion. Consequently, image campaigns often reinforce existing attitudes rather than completely changing people's minds.

Finally, an image campaign can only be successful in the long term if it is supported by reality. If the public recognises that a company presents itself as socially responsible while its actions contradict this image, trust will quickly disappear. This is especially true today, as information can easily be verified through fact-checking, investigative journalism and social media discussions. Therefore, a positive public image cannot be maintained through advertising alone.

Overall, image campaigns can shape public opinion to a considerable extent because they appeal to emotions, simplify complex issues and repeatedly present persuasive messages through different media. However, their influence has clear limits. Critical journalism, expert opinions and an informed public make it more difficult for powerful interest groups to manipulate society permanently. Ultimately, image campaigns may influence how people think about an issue, but they cannot replace facts and critical thinking.

Who Watches the Watchers? Why Investigative Journalism Still Matters

Imagine living in a society where governments, corporations and influential individuals could act without anyone questioning them. Corruption would remain hidden, abuse of power would go unnoticed and citizens would make decisions based on incomplete or even false information. Although this may sound like a dystopian scenario, it highlights why investigative journalism is indispensable in every democratic society. As Glenn Greenwald argues, journalism should expose the actions of those in power and enable the public to make informed decisions. Even in the age of social media and instant news, investigative journalism remains one of the most important pillars of democracy.

First of all, investigative journalism holds powerful individuals and organisations accountable. Politicians, multinational companies and other influential actors often possess far more information and resources than ordinary citizens. Without journalists who spend months researching documents, interviewing witnesses and uncovering hidden facts, many scandals would never become public. Famous investigations, such as the Panama Papers or the Watergate scandal, demonstrate that determined journalists can reveal corruption, tax evasion and abuses of political power. By making such information accessible, they ensure that those in authority cannot act without public scrutiny.

Moreover, investigative journalism protects society from manipulation. Today, information spreads faster than ever before through social media platforms, where misleading claims and misinformation can reach millions of people within hours. Investigative journalists play an essential role in verifying facts, examining evidence and challenging official statements instead of accepting them at face value. This allows citizens to distinguish reliable information from propaganda or deliberate attempts to influence public opinion.

Another important function of investigative journalism is that it gives a voice to those who are rarely heard. Victims of corruption, discrimination or environmental destruction often lack the influence needed to attract public attention. Journalists can bring their stories to light and encourage political debate about problems that might otherwise remain invisible. As a result, investigative reporting does not merely uncover wrongdoing but also contributes to social change by drawing attention to injustice.

However, investigative journalism also faces considerable challenges. Thorough investigations require time, financial resources and legal support. Many media organisations struggle with declining revenues and therefore prioritise short, attention-grabbing stories instead of expensive long-term research. At the same time, journalists increasingly face online harassment, political pressure and even physical threats. In some countries, reporters risk imprisonment or death simply for exposing corruption. These developments demonstrate that press freedom cannot be taken for granted.

In addition, some critics argue that journalists themselves are not always objective. Newspapers and broadcasters may reflect particular political opinions, and sensational reporting can sometimes blur the line between informing the public and attracting readers. Therefore, investigative journalists must follow high ethical standards, verify their sources carefully and separate facts from personal opinions. Only then can they maintain the public's trust and fulfil their democratic responsibility.

Despite these challenges, the importance of investigative journalism has not diminished. On the contrary, the growing amount of information available online makes professional research more valuable than ever. While anyone can publish opinions on social media, not everyone has the skills, resources or ethical responsibility to investigate complex issues thoroughly. Independent journalists therefore remain essential for uncovering the truth behind political decisions, economic interests and public campaigns.

Ultimately, democracy depends on citizens who are well informed. This is only possible if journalists continue to ask uncomfortable questions, challenge powerful institutions and reveal information that others would rather keep secret. Investigative journalism is far more than a profession; it is a public service that protects transparency, accountability and democratic values. Without it, those in power would have far fewer reasons to act responsibly. Therefore, society should not only appreciate investigative journalism but also actively defend the freedom that makes it possible.