Content uploaded by Srividya Ramasubramanian
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Srividya Ramasubramanian on Jul 28, 2023
Content may be subject to copyright.
1
4.4: Framing the Enbridge Oil Pipeline #3 Project in
Indigenous and Mainstream Local Newspapers
Emily Riewestahl, Emilee Baker, Srividya Ramasubramanian, and Laura “Anangokwe” Merchant1
This essay examines media framing of the Enbridge Line #3 Pipeline Project in Indigenous
newspapers and mainstream local newspapers. It highlights the importance of including and
honoring Indigenous perspectives, which are often overlooked and underrepresented in
mainstream news media.
Mainstream media and public discourse rarely discuss issues facing Indigenous communities,
and if so, issues are often framed through a colonial lens (Walker & Walter, 2018). Although
Indigenous communities are often major stakeholders in issues of pipeline construction, media
and scholarship rarely explore how Indigenous communities frame pipeline construction and
environmental protection (Estes & Dhillon, 2019). Failing to cover issues facing Indigenous
communities, such as pipeline development projects, signifies that the “professional news
industry did not believe this struggle merited coverage” (Moore, 2019, p.26). Such absence and
underrepresentation of important issues in the public sphere conveys powerful messages that
Indigenous people and perspectives are not respected or valued.
This essay looks at media coverage of one key issue affecting Indigenous communities in
Minnesota and Wisconsin: the Enbridge Line #3 pipeline project. Although rarely covered by
national news media, local news media covered the project from its 2014 announcement. The
pipeline is approximately 1,000 miles long and transports 760,000 barrels of oil per day. It
2
directly affects numerous local Indigenous communities and has been the site of ongoing
resistance by communities against its construction.
The Indigenous population in the surrounding area of Line #3 primarily consists of Anishinaabe
or Ojibwe people. They are often referred to by the government as Lake Superior Bands of
Chippewa Indians or Lake Superior Chippewa Bands.2 Anishinaabe people have been residing
on both ceded territory and tribal lands since the first treaties of this region were signed in the
1800s, ceding the lands to the US government. These land cessions were both a tragedy and
blessing for the Anishinaabe. They lost the land from a non-Indigenous perspective but retained
their inherent rights to the land through guaranteed treaty rights, which allow the Anishinaabe to
hunt, fish, and gather on ceded territory even off-reservation (a right many Indigenous people in
the United States did not retain after colonization). Since long before land cessions, treaties, and
creation of reservations, Anishinaabe people and other Indigenous peoples have referred to their
homelands as Turtle Island, a term which reflects a complex system of beliefs passed down
through oral tradition. The Anishinaabe call their oral tradition adizookan (Child, 2012).
Indigenous*Newspapers*versus*Mainstream*Newspapers*
We selected seven newspapers within the vicinity of the pipeline route, including four local
Anishinaabe newspapers: Nahgahchiwanong Dibahjimowinan (Fond Du Lac Band),
Inaajimowin (Mille Lacs Band), DeBahJiMon (Leech Lake Band), and Anishinaabe Today
(White Earth Band) and three mainstream local Minnesotan newspapers: Duluth News Tribune,
Crookston Daily Times, and Grand Rapids Herald-Review. We analyzed news articles, opinion
pieces, notices, and letters to the editors. The mainstream local newspapers were accessed via the
NewsBank database, and the Indigenous newspapers were accessed through archives on the
3
papers’ websites. We selected articles containing the words “Enbridge” and “Line 3” from
March 2014 to March 2021. This resulted in 621 articles from mainstream newspapers
(published daily) and 95 articles from Indigenous newspapers (published monthly).
Our qualitative approach involved conducting a close reading of each article to identify the key
frames evident in coverage of Line #3. Media frames refer to the ways that certain aspects of our
perceived reality are packaged into media messages that encourage certain interpretations over
others (Entman, 1993). These frames direct readers’ attention toward certain costs, benefits,
stakeholders, outcomes, and judgements and away from others. For example, Ernt (2020) found
that environmental, political, and economic frames dominated mainstream media framing of
Line #3. Although we also observed these frames in our sample, our inclusion of Anishinaabe
perspectives revealed that competing media frames stemmed from key differences in ways of
knowing among local non-Indigenous and Indigenous communities. We focus on three
competing frames: environment (kin vs. commodity), security (future vs. present), and resistance
(protectors vs. disruptors).
Environment:+Kin+vs.+Commodity+
Environmental protection is the dominant media frame in Anishinaabe newspapers. This frame
reflects Indigenous worldviews about the spiritual role of nature in community, where land,
animals, and other natural resources are considered kin, rather than a commodity. Environmental
concerns primarily focused on the potential for oil spills and lack of removal of the old pipeline,
which could cause irreversible damage to ceded territories and reservation land. These concerns
are not only about protecting life-sustaining natural resources such as water and wild rice but
also about spiritual connection to the region. Unlike mainstream local newspapers, Anishinaabe
4
newspapers often wrote in-depth on Indigenous perspectives about connections and kinship with
nature. Boyd wrote,
The Anishinaabe connection to land is interwoven with spiritual beliefs and the
understanding that the land, landscape, plants, and animals are all alive and have their own
spirits. The Anishinaabe people have recognized these manidoo for as long as they have
lived in this region, and though these things are intangible and unquantifiable, they are an
imperative truth to Anishinaabe people. The people must care for the manidoo who, in turn,
care for them, and it must be ensured that the ecosystem around these beings not be
diminished.
(2018, p.6)
Perspectives of kinship in Anishinaabe newspapers support the concepts of commitment and care
across past, present, and future generations. Anishinaabe newspapers often elaborated on
concepts that were rare, or even absent, from local mainstream news reporting on Line #3.
Anishinaabe newspapers discussed topics such as the cultural significance of Manoomin (wild
rice), traditional ecological knowledge, land-based knowledge systems, and the concept of other
than human animate beings. Rather than seeing nature and non-living things as “objects,”
Anishinaabemowin (the language of the Anishinaabe) sees them as animate and sentient beings
with important roles both spiritually and within ecological systems. Anishinaabemowin and
Anishinaabe beliefs also often consider many animals to have familial ties to humans; they are
sometimes considered relatives or kin. From this perspective, it becomes clear why Anishinaabe
communities take on the role of protectors of the environment: their value systems prioritize
kinship over economic profits.
5
One article described Indigenous communities: “We Anishinaabe are a people of the water; we
have traveled by it and lived by its gifts for as long as we can remember” (Boyd, 2017a, p.12).
This example illustrates kinship across generations past, present, and future, including water as
kin further supporting environmental protection as the dominant frame. This explains why, even
though Indigenous communities face high rates of poverty and unemployment (Office of
Minority Health, 2021), many – but not all – Indigenous leaders refuse to exchange land or
natural resources for economic gain. To put it simply “You do not sell your relative” (Estes &
Dhillon, 2019, p.3). Some leaders have shifted their perspectives on kinship due to colonialism
and support the economic growth brought by pipeline developments to their communities.
Overall, Anishinaabe news articles provided much more in-depth details and context about
Anishinaabe worldviews or “ways of knowing” than mainstream news stories, which guide their
relationship with the environment.
Mainstream newspapers primarily discussed the pipeline project as an economic opportunity,
framing the land as a valuable resource to be exploited and extracted to sustain human life.
Economic security was emphasized through references to “family-supporting jobs” and
“boosting local economies.” Mainstream conceptualization of kinship generally includes
immediate and extended family but not often include the environment. Although some
mainstream articles mentioned that environmental and Indigenous groups resisted the pipeline,
citing that the pipeline was an environmental risk and would breach treaty rights, they rarely
discussed these issues in-depth or in relation to Anishinaabe values of kinship and care. These
divergent perspectives on kinship played an important role in framing pipeline projects in terms
of environmental protection versus commodification.
Security:+Future+vs+Present+
6
In both types of newspapers, most local stakeholders such as businesses, wildlife groups, non-
profits, community members, and climate change activists advocated for the outcome they
thought would best secure their future. There was a comparable sense of commitment to security
in both types of newspapers, whether through environmental protection or economic security.
However, future was discussed differently in mainstream and Indigenous newspapers.
Mainstream newspapers generally were more present-focused, focusing on economic
opportunities of the present or the near future to help sustain the next generation. Anishinaabe
newspapers were more future-focused, showing how the pipeline could affect the environment
for many future generations.
Mainstream present-oriented coverage framed the pipeline as an “economic lifeline” securing
Minnesota’s future in economic development through the short-term process of “replacing” Line
#3. Some articles mentioned the lack of economic opportunities in the region, expressing
excitement that large projects such as Line #3 could bring money back into a region that has
faced economic hardship. Mainstream news stories often emphasized economic security through
an immediate increase in local jobs, local spending, infrastructure development, connection to
local elections (as a political platform), and economic safety through environmental safety (i.e.,
integrity digs). Mainstream newspapers framed Line #3 as constructing technological
advancement, future security through economic development, and job security for the present.
Job security and energy delivery were discussed as necessary outcomes, establishing security for
the present generation (Slater, 2021). Economic security was mentioned in Anishinaabe as well,
but significantly less and generally focused on increased jobs for all local communities.
Mainstream newspapers discussed security within the present moment for “all people” but rarely
made connections to specific time periods or communities.
7
Anishinaabe newspapers discussed security and futurity through very different discourse than
mainstream newspapers did. Some writers in Anishinaabe newspapers recognized the
commitment to jobs and local economy stimulation but urged community members and
governmental agencies to acknowledge life beyond the present generation and include holistic
well-being for all people (i.e., our collective legacy). LaDuke wrote, “We understand your
commitment to labor and jobs, and respectfully request that you look beyond a dirty pipeline
during a pandemic, and make, instead a legacy of hope, courage and well-being for all of our
people” (2020, p.5).
In Anishinaabe newspapers, future generations were discussed frequently, for example, referring
to “children,” “grandchildren,” and “future generations.” The Seventh Generation prophecy and
the Anishinaabe concept of the Seventh Generation Earth Ethics dictates that thought should be
given to seven generations ahead. This creates an expanded context for decision-making,
especially for environmental policy (Loew, 2014). Boyd discussed the Anishinaabe Cumulative
Impact Assessment (ACIA): “The ACIA takes a long view, historically and seven generations
ahead, and gives honor to our Nibi, our water, and those as a first medicine” (2017b, p.6). The
idea of Seventh Generation Earth Ethics creates a long-term view into securing a future for all
kin, including land, water, and environment, and acknowledges historical perspectives and future
impacts.
Resistance:+Protectors+vs+Disruptors+
A common theme throughout Anishinaabe newspapers was resistance, which framed pipeline
resistors as protectors, rather than as disruptors. Some community members resisted the pipeline
and pointed out the lack of respect for Indigenous perspectives in the regulatory process.
8
Anishinaabe newspaper articles referred to the “failings of the State regulatory process,” noting
when regulatory bodies did not adequately include Anishinaabe people and worldviews in the
regulatory processes. As Kemper, an Assistant Mille Lacs Tribal Historic Preservation Officer
said, “Our voices, our spirituality, our connection to these things doesn’t fit into their rules and
guidelines” (Tribal Cultural Surveys, 2017). From this perspective, the checks and balances set
in place by regulatory bodies were seen as lacking the sense of utmost care and respect for the
environment and Indigenous perspectives on the relationship between humans and the natural
world.
The ACIA is built around the understanding that Indigenous communities have
fundamentally different values than those of the dominant corporate culture. Anishinaabe
people are connected to the land in ways that the Minnesota state government doesn’t
understand and can’t quantify.
(Boyd, 2018, p.6)
Given the lack of acknowledgement and integration of Indigenous worldviews into the
regulatory processes, Anishinaabe communities often feel misunderstood or disrespected. Rather
than simply complying with regulatory processes, they protect the environment by resisting both
pipeline development and regulatory processes. This resistance is through both grassroots protest
and the legal system. “The role of a tribal government is to fight these matters through the courts
and administrative processes, on a government-to-government basis, which is ultimately where
these matters are won and lost” (“Band Continues”, 2021). Ultimately, what many Anishinaabe
community members and leaders are asking for is respect for their tribal sovereignty, their
inherent right to assert legal jurisdiction that affects its people and land,
9
We respect the Minnesota government and hope they share the sentiment and respect our
Tribal Sovereignty when we say loud and clear the position of the Leech Lake Band of
Ojibwe: we want pipelines to end and we will not allow another oil pipeline to be laid in our
Reservation.
(Jackson, 2018, p.2)
In mainstream news, regulatory processes were often perceived as robust; therefore, people who
did not comply with or trust in the process were framed as disruptors. Some community
members thought that the process was too time-consuming and repetitive, often mentioning how
drawn out the regulatory process can be. Therefore, appeals brought by Indigenous communities
were framed as a waste of time, essentially delaying the inevitable. In such articles, it appeared
that pipeline supporters, including Enbridge, wanted Indigenous communities and others
resisting the process to simply comply with the regulatory bodies. For example, one reader of the
Duluth News Tribune queried, “I’m sure all these protesters need these things also. Why in the
world would they fight against things we all need? How do they think roads get built?” (2019).
Notably, in mainstream newspapers, especially pieces written by Enbridge representatives,
relationships with local Indigenous communities were often framed positively, using terms such
as “working with,” “collaborating,” and “consulting with.” However, when Indigenous
communities were not complying or were actively resisting, they were framed as “disruptors”
through warnings that those involved in illegal activities will be “prosecuted to the fullest extent
of the law.”
Building*a*Path*Forward*
10
Our research points to the importance of incorporating Indigenous perspectives in journalism,
media education, and regulatory processes. The mainstream news media we studied often
omitted or oversimplified Indigenous perspectives. They often did not explain the reasons why
Indigenous communities are committed to defending the earth or acknowledge pipeline
development processes as an extension of colonization. Minimizing Indigenous perspectives as
solely environmental generates a gap in both public awareness of Indigenous perspectives and
people’s understanding of what is at stake for future.
Journalists and media storytellers from all backgrounds must respect multiple worldviews,
including those approaching the environment with a sense of kinship, reciprocity, and care,
ultimately recognizing all are related. Journalists should elevate, support, and highlight
Indigenous journalists and news organizations, to inform the public of the variety of Indigenous
perspectives. Audiences should diversify their news media diet by reading Indigenous news
sources such as indiancountrytoday.com and thecirclenews.org to gain a deeper understanding of
Indigenous perspectives. Scholars should support collaborations that address issues faced by
Indigenous and marginalized communities, which are often understudied, misrepresented, or
even absent from scholarship. Understanding and respecting Indigenous perspectives, in news
reporting and beyond, is a precondition for collaborative dialogue and action that could lead to
solutions to protect everyone’s kin.
Notes&
1. We express gratitude to Ashley Sierra of the Minnesota Historical Society and Gary Padrta of the White Earth Reservation,
who assisted in our archival research for newspapers. We also thank Maleeha Bhadki and Maitreyee Shilpa Kishor for
proofreading and providing feedback on early versions of this essay.
11
2. We use the term “Anishinaabe” to refer to the Lake Superior Bands of Chippewa Indians and “Indigenous” when we are
speaking about First Nation Peoples of the United States and across the globe. The term “Chippewa” was a settler
mispronunciation of the Anishinaabemowin word “Ojibwe” and is still used by the federal government today, as reflected in legal
documents, treaties, and tribal names. Although there is no universally agreed-upon way of labeling Indigenous people, it is often
best to refer to specific communities by name, when possible, to recognize the unique culture and practices of each community
(Younging, 2018).
It Is Your Turn: What Do You Think? What Will You Find?
1. Think of a community you are aware of but is unfamiliar to you. Write down your beliefs,
perceptions, feelings, and attitudes toward them. Now locate a few community media sources
such as websites, newspapers, social media groups, and community events. Analyze what is
being shared in these outlets and how it is being shared. Keep detailed notes about your own
thoughts, feelings, and reactions to what you have learned. Observe how your views about the
community evolve as you learn more about the community. How did your thoughts and feelings
change through this exercise?
2. Investigate how two different communities frame the same issue or social problem. First,
choose a current social or political issue you find interesting and think of two stakeholders
involved in the issue that will likely have differing views. Then, identify a communication
channel for each stakeholder (e.g., a newspaper, Facebook group, Subreddit, and newsletter).
What issues are brought up by each stakeholder? What words are used and what themes emerge
in the discourse? What does this tell you about how the issue is framed by each stakeholder?
3. Pair up with a peer and come up with three possible barriers researchers, reporters, or the
general public potentially face when finding information about Indigenous communities. Then,
identify a possible way to overcome each barrier using research, media, or digital tools.
12
4. As a team, brainstorm ways to better include Indigenous perspectives in news stories. Create a
resource guide for the class or your peers with relevant information sources, networks,
organizations, and other tools.
References&
“Band Continues” (2021, Jan.). Band continues action to stop Line 3. Innajimowin, 1.
https://www.inaajimowin.com/s/2101-inaajimowin.pdf
Boyd, L. (2017a, Oct.). If you want your voice heard, it’s time to speak. Anishinaabeg Today,
12. https://whiteearth.com/assets/files/newspaper/2017/October%204,%202017%20c.pdf
Boyd, L. (2017b, Dec.). Water protectors, monster slayers and the Enbridge hearings.
Anishinaabeg Today, 6.
https://whiteearth.com/assets/files/newspaper/2017/December%206,%202017%20C.pdf
Boyd, L. (2018, Feb.). East Lake hearing focuses on cultural impact of proposed Line 3 pipeline.
Innajimowin, 6.
https://whiteearth.com/assets/files/newspaper/2017/December%206,%202017%20C.pdf
Child, B. J. (2012). Holding our world together: Ojibwe women and the survival of community.
Penguin.
Entman, R. M. (1993). Framing: Towards clarification of a fractured paradigm. In D. McQuail
(Ed.), McQuail’s reader in mass communication theory, 390–397.Sage Publications.
Ernt, L. J. L. (2020). Oil pipelines, climate change, and frames: Local news coverage of the
Enbridge Line 3 pipeline replacement project in northern Minnesota (Doctoral dissertation,
University of Minnesota).
Estes, N., & Dhillon, J. (2019). Standing with Standing Rock: Voices from the #NoDAPL
movement. University of Minnesota Press.
13
Goar, S. (2019, May 18). Reader’s view: Protesters need petroleum products, too. Duluth News
Tribune. https://www.duluthnewstribune.com/opinion/readers-view-protesters-need-
petroleum-products-too
Jackson, F. Sr. (2018, June). LLBO Chairman: The Band opposes pipelines on our Reservation.
Debahjimon, 2. https://www.llojibwe.org/news/deb2018/June_2018_FINAL.pdf
LaDuke, W. (2020, Dec.). The pandemic pipeline-an appeal to the governor. Anishinaabeg
Today, 5.
https://whiteearth.com/assets/files/newspaper/2020/December%202,%202020%20c.pdf
Loew, P (2014). Seventh generation earth ethics: Native voices of Wisconsin. Wisconsin
Historical Society Press.
Moore, E. (2019). Journalism, politics, and the Dakota Access Pipeline. Routledge.
Office of Minority Health. American Indian/Alaska Native. (2021). Hhs.gov.
https://minorityhealth.hhs.gov/omh/browse.aspx?lvl=3&lvlid=62#:~:text=32.0%20percent%2
0of%20American%20Indians,percent%20of%20non%2DHispanic%20whites.
Slater, B. (2021). Authorities threaten charges after bomb threat - Fond du Lac members angry
with commotion surrounding Line 3 protest. Duluth News Tribune.
http://haproxy.newsbank.com:11021:11021/apps/news/document-
view?p=AWNB&docref=news/180CF6EADE0BBDF0
“Tribal Cultural Surveys” (2017, Nov.). Tribal cultural surveys in progress on proposed pipeline
corridor. Innajimowin. Pg 11. https://www.inaajimowin.com/s/1711-inaajimowin.pdf.
Walker, J., & Walter, P. (2018). Learning about social movements through news media:
deconstructing New York Times and Fox News representations of Standing Rock.
International Journal of Lifelong Education, 37(4), 401–418.
14
Younging, G. (2018). Elements of Indigenous style: A guide for writing by and about Indigenous
peoples. Brush Education.
