This is Reality vs. Amerca's Power

These two sites illustrate the controversy centered around the use of coal to create electricity, and the coal companies' claims of 'Clean Coal'. According to the coal companies, their carbon emissions have been decreased by 77% through the use of 'Clean Coal Technology'. Environmental activists, such as the ones hosting the website thisisreality.org, this technology does not exist, and there is no such thing as clean coal.

This is Reality opens up to show an animated canary flying into a statement about coal, and dying. The color scheme is dark, with white text on a black background. The only other color is the yellow of the canary. To progress further into the site, you either select “click here for more reality” which initiates another animation of a dying canary, with another statement about coal, or you click on the link “The Facts” at the bottom of the page. Should you choose the canary route, each time you click on the 'more reality' link, you get the same animated bird killing itself on these single word statements. This can get rather old, rather quickly. If you choose the “The Facts” link, you get the same list of statements, except in list form. These statements are rather broad, and authoritarian in nature, but simple to understand. These statements, like “Burning coal is the dirtiest way we produce electricity” and “There are roughly 600 coal plants producing electricity in the U.S. Not one of them captures and stores its global warming pollution”, are very straightforward, and easy to understand, but they leave no room for error. They show absolutes. This is a very binary way of thinking. It's all black and white. Either it's clean, or it's not. There is no in between. This site uses a lot of imagery to get the point across. First off, there's the canary. Canaries were used in coal mining to test whether or not shafts were safe for miners. This imagery translates into the 'clean coal' debate quite well, tacitly showing that no coal is safe, not even the supposedly 'clean' coal. The repetition of this theme helps to reinforce the dangers of coal, as per this site. The color scheme is also representative of this danger. The black background makes the site feel dark, and somewhat mysterious, like they're letting us in on a secret. The yellow of the canary and the text feels like the 'caution: wet floor' signs to warn people about dangerous footing, as if to say that 'Clean Coal' is 'dangerous footing' for the environment. The target audience for this site is most likely a younger audience, say college age. They are typically very active in the environmental cause, and are susceptible to this 'shock and awe' type of campaign.

America's Power, however, shows a very different type of format, and a very different view on 'clean coal'. The window opens up to bright colors, set on a white background. The colors are not primary, child-like colors, but more mature feeling. The whole website has a well organized, if busy, feel to it. The overall feeling is 'clean'. There are many links on the front page, taking you to all sorts of pages that all say the same thing- Coal is clean, and powers most of the United States' electrical needs. It stresses the economic benefits of coal, as well as it's abundance in the United States. The site claims that in the United States alone, there is enough coal to last for the next 200 years. A careful look at the organization of the information reveals that the ecological facts about coal are very sparse on the site, and buried down at the bottom of the page. The site also had interviews with people who are involved with coal production from the mine to the plant, talking about their jobs. This was done to give the industry a friendly, human face. It is a lot easier to believe a human face saying facts, than those same facts in a list. This is an attempt at credibility on the part of America's Power. The target audience for this site would be between 50 and 60 years old. They are comfortable using the Internet (for the most part), but are more accustomed to reading out of a newspaper. This site has the definite feel of a newspaper. The sponsor for this site is the American Coalition for Clean Coal Electricity, so they are biased in favor of 'Clean Coal'.

In all, neither of these sources, by themselves would be completely reliable. The shock and awe tactics of This is Reality and lack of actual research presented within the site makes me cautious about trusting them. The site, America's Power, is also not completely reliable because they have a vested, monetary interest in the success of 'Clean Coal'. How can you trust someone to remain objective if they stand to gain from the success of the topic of debate