Media Blackout on the Oil Spill
-
yes there is reference to the fact that the clean up operation could of billions to complete. yes BP have bought the top spot on google if you search for oil spill, but the link given goes to what they are doing to actively solve the problem so that is a marketing ploy to better their name.
Marc Clifton wrote:
That has nothing to do with VB. - Oh crap. I just defended VB!
Simon_Whale wrote:
yes BP have bought the top spot on google if you search for oil spill, but the link given goes to what they are doing to actively solve the problem so that is a marketing ploy to better their name.
Wow - a company engaged in media spin ? Say it isn't so ?
Christian Graus Driven to the arms of OSX by Vista. Read my blog to find out how I've worked around bugs in Microsoft tools and frameworks.
-
josda1000 wrote:
said he felt as if he were being watched when he started taking shots
Which speaks only to his state of mind, unless you're saying he has super powers :P Seriously, I can't listen to an mp3, that's why I waited for your summary before commenting, I assume your summary was accurate. But, that someone in the 'independant media' sees a conspiracy is no surprise and no proof that one exists ( although if there is proof, I am willing to read about it ).
Christian Graus Driven to the arms of OSX by Vista. Read my blog to find out how I've worked around bugs in Microsoft tools and frameworks.
And that is precisely the problem. You need to dig for more information than what is given to you. You have to actively search for it. I have no true interest in how much money a company makes... but BP obviously does, and so does the government. That's why you don't hear about the enormity of the problem, you just know that there is a problem, and you think that nobody is trying to fix it. Well, they are, but it's gigantic at this point. I mean, think of it; it's been a month at least, and the oil is obviously going to spread. Don't take my word for this, go find out yourself. You're right. Just because I have one source doesn't mean there are other sources... but go find those sources.
Josh Davis
Always looking for blackjack. Or maybe White Frank. One of the two. -
So that explains the alleged media blackout? Highly doubtful: in any case the media are pretty much self serving: they report what they want to report to make sales so why are they any more believable than anyone else? The problem with buying into all this nonsense is that you quickly lose site of the truth as you create more and more complex stories to explain what is going on. Most of the time the simplest explanation is the truth and that is probably that BP are up against it, the US govt is applying pressure and journos smell a better story in a conspiracy than the truth. Nothing new in any of that.
me, me, me "The dinosaurs became extinct because they didn't have a space program. And if we become extinct because we don't have a space program, it'll serve us right!" Larry Niven nils illegitimus carborundum
digital man wrote:
in any case the media are pretty much self serving: they report what they want to report to make sales so why are they any more believable than anyone else?
100% agreed. Absolutely.
digital man wrote:
The problem with buying into all this nonsense is that you quickly lose site of the truth as you create more and more complex stories to explain what is going on.
Whose to say that one source is more credible than the other? Put another way: why do you have to believe the mainstream over independents, and why do I have to believe the independents over the mainstream? Therefore, do you dig for credible information and put the pieces together? Who are you, or I, to claim that one source spits only truth while the others do not?
digital man wrote:
Most of the time the simplest explanation is the truth and that is probably that BP are up against it, the US govt is applying pressure and journos smell a better story in a conspiracy than the truth.
I'd agree that the simple explanations are often the truth. But not all the time, and that's why in this scenario, since we don't hear much from over there except for the same story over and over again, I believe this guy's story. And I definitely know that nobody is talking about this enough.
Josh Davis
Always looking for blackjack. Or maybe White Frank. One of the two. -
And that is precisely the problem. You need to dig for more information than what is given to you. You have to actively search for it. I have no true interest in how much money a company makes... but BP obviously does, and so does the government. That's why you don't hear about the enormity of the problem, you just know that there is a problem, and you think that nobody is trying to fix it. Well, they are, but it's gigantic at this point. I mean, think of it; it's been a month at least, and the oil is obviously going to spread. Don't take my word for this, go find out yourself. You're right. Just because I have one source doesn't mean there are other sources... but go find those sources.
Josh Davis
Always looking for blackjack. Or maybe White Frank. One of the two.josda1000 wrote:
Don't take my word for this, go find out yourself. You're right. Just because I have one source doesn't mean there are other sources... but go find those sources.
I have no doubt the problem is bad. I agree with the other person who said the main reason it's not being reported is probably that people have moved on, and don't care much anymore.
Christian Graus Driven to the arms of OSX by Vista. Read my blog to find out how I've worked around bugs in Microsoft tools and frameworks.
-
digital man wrote:
in any case the media are pretty much self serving: they report what they want to report to make sales so why are they any more believable than anyone else?
100% agreed. Absolutely.
digital man wrote:
The problem with buying into all this nonsense is that you quickly lose site of the truth as you create more and more complex stories to explain what is going on.
Whose to say that one source is more credible than the other? Put another way: why do you have to believe the mainstream over independents, and why do I have to believe the independents over the mainstream? Therefore, do you dig for credible information and put the pieces together? Who are you, or I, to claim that one source spits only truth while the others do not?
digital man wrote:
Most of the time the simplest explanation is the truth and that is probably that BP are up against it, the US govt is applying pressure and journos smell a better story in a conspiracy than the truth.
I'd agree that the simple explanations are often the truth. But not all the time, and that's why in this scenario, since we don't hear much from over there except for the same story over and over again, I believe this guy's story. And I definitely know that nobody is talking about this enough.
Josh Davis
Always looking for blackjack. Or maybe White Frank. One of the two.josda1000 wrote:
Whose to say that one source is more credible than the other?
The most likely truth is to not accept any source, but to read many and look to create a balanced view.
Christian Graus Driven to the arms of OSX by Vista. Read my blog to find out how I've worked around bugs in Microsoft tools and frameworks.
-
josda1000 wrote:
Don't take my word for this, go find out yourself. You're right. Just because I have one source doesn't mean there are other sources... but go find those sources.
I have no doubt the problem is bad. I agree with the other person who said the main reason it's not being reported is probably that people have moved on, and don't care much anymore.
Christian Graus Driven to the arms of OSX by Vista. Read my blog to find out how I've worked around bugs in Microsoft tools and frameworks.
Then why is it that when I look up at the TV at work (The office has CNBC going all day), there seems to be about a 50% chance that they're talking about the oil spill or BP? Just looked up... The bulletin on the screen... "Petrochina to save BP?"
Proud to have finally moved to the A-Ark. Which one are you in?
Author of the Guardians Saga (Sci-Fi/Fantasy novels) -
Then why is it that when I look up at the TV at work (The office has CNBC going all day), there seems to be about a 50% chance that they're talking about the oil spill or BP? Just looked up... The bulletin on the screen... "Petrochina to save BP?"
Proud to have finally moved to the A-Ark. Which one are you in?
Author of the Guardians Saga (Sci-Fi/Fantasy novels)Ian, simple explanation. Media blackout, media propaganda. I don't know if you read my other posts, but you really have to dive into other sources to put two and two together.
Josh Davis
Always looking for blackjack. Or maybe White Frank. One of the two. -
josda1000 wrote:
Whose to say that one source is more credible than the other?
The most likely truth is to not accept any source, but to read many and look to create a balanced view.
Christian Graus Driven to the arms of OSX by Vista. Read my blog to find out how I've worked around bugs in Microsoft tools and frameworks.
-
Ian, simple explanation. Media blackout, media propaganda. I don't know if you read my other posts, but you really have to dive into other sources to put two and two together.
Josh Davis
Always looking for blackjack. Or maybe White Frank. One of the two.The big question is always, why is the more obscure source necessarily 100% trustworthy ? Sure, the mainstream media is not, but why is a guy with a shaky video camera and a little bit of HTML knowledge so much better ?
Christian Graus Driven to the arms of OSX by Vista. Read my blog to find out how I've worked around bugs in Microsoft tools and frameworks.
-
The big question is always, why is the more obscure source necessarily 100% trustworthy ? Sure, the mainstream media is not, but why is a guy with a shaky video camera and a little bit of HTML knowledge so much better ?
Christian Graus Driven to the arms of OSX by Vista. Read my blog to find out how I've worked around bugs in Microsoft tools and frameworks.
Christian Graus wrote:
The big question is always, why is the more obscure source necessarily 100% trustworthy ?
I'm not saying they are. It's another source, and should be treated as such is what I'm saying. Usually it's written off, and that is a mistake. To counter that point, why is the more mainstream media with a tripod so much better? Just because they have tons of money?
Josh Davis
Always looking for blackjack. Or maybe White Frank. One of the two. -
The big question is always, why is the more obscure source necessarily 100% trustworthy ? Sure, the mainstream media is not, but why is a guy with a shaky video camera and a little bit of HTML knowledge so much better ?
Christian Graus Driven to the arms of OSX by Vista. Read my blog to find out how I've worked around bugs in Microsoft tools and frameworks.
The big media corporations are in cahoots with the government, and so is BP. MSNBC for example is 80% owned by General Electric, one of the top 5 military contractors.
Invisible Empire: A New World Order Defined (High Quality 2:14:01)[^] Watch the Fall of the Republic (High Quality 2:24:19)[^] The Truthbox[^]
-
The big question is always, why is the more obscure source necessarily 100% trustworthy ? Sure, the mainstream media is not, but why is a guy with a shaky video camera and a little bit of HTML knowledge so much better ?
Christian Graus Driven to the arms of OSX by Vista. Read my blog to find out how I've worked around bugs in Microsoft tools and frameworks.
To continue, another counterpoint: Ask yourself, am I really that arrogant to not check all sources, and give equal weight to all parties? I know you're not, but most people really do subscribe to "mainstream knows all". They just look at the television and take for granted that they know the whole story, when most likely they don't.
Josh Davis
Always looking for blackjack. Or maybe White Frank. One of the two. -
josda1000 wrote:
BP is working with the government, and the government is telling the media what to do. It's immoral, illegal and unlawful. Men need to know the truth, I'm sorry.
I think in this case, the government is working to support BP... My guess would be that the Coast Guard was instructed to "Do whatever you can to assist them", and they're just not questioning BP's instructions. Assuming this, it's just a matter of someone bringing this to light. I do agree that this needs to stop, but don't assume that everything is part of the grand scheme of the Obama administration... Big government is a lot of right-hand/left-hand... As in, nobody knows what anyone else is doing. Maybe it's the Obama administration trying to keep things quiet, or maybe it's BP overreaching their mandate and breaking the law... Maybe it's both. I would put the odds slightly in favor of BP doing something stupid, and the government being too uncoordinated to stop it. I don't think the administration is quite stupid enough to risk this kind of PR hit intentionally, given how much they're hurting already.
Proud to have finally moved to the A-Ark. Which one are you in?
Author of the Guardians Saga (Sci-Fi/Fantasy novels)Somehow I missed this. Sorry. To argue the points:
Ian Shlasko wrote:
I think in this case, the government is working to support BP.
That's your opinion, and I'd agree with you lol
Ian Shlasko wrote:
My guess would be that the Coast Guard was instructed to "Do whatever you can to assist them", and they're just not questioning BP's instructions.
Again, agreed.
Ian Shlasko wrote:
I do agree that this needs to stop, but don't assume that everything is part of the grand scheme of the Obama administration.
I'm not saying it is, and I wouldn't agree if you did. No way, this isn't "political", this is more about the company.
Ian Shlasko wrote:
Big government is a lot of right-hand/left-hand... As in, nobody knows what anyone else is doing.
Which is the precise problem of central planning in the first place. But never mind the government issue, this is less to do with the politics in this case, I believe. This is the "right hand", as you say. "Private sector", if you will. It's about BP making a big mistake and using the government to cover up the enormity of the situation. If they were at fault, and they are, they should be prosecuted in admiralty law, actually. This is a maritime issue, and they should be totally disbanned and bankrupted.
Ian Shlasko wrote:
I would put the odds slightly in favor of BP doing something stupid, and the government being too uncoordinated to stop it.
I agree that they did something stupid, but for their "accident", and because it is such a disaster, they should be prosecuted. The government has nothing to do with this, per se. It was in the gulf of mexico, not on federation soil.
Ian Shlasko wrote:
I don't think the administration is quite stupid enough to risk this kind of PR hit intentionally, given how much they're hurting already.
Agreed, totally.
Josh Davis
Always looking for blackjack. Or maybe White Frank. One of the two. -
josda1000 wrote:
BP is working with the government, and the government is telling the media what to do. It's immoral, illegal and unlawful. Men need to know the truth, I'm sorry.
I think in this case, the government is working to support BP... My guess would be that the Coast Guard was instructed to "Do whatever you can to assist them", and they're just not questioning BP's instructions. Assuming this, it's just a matter of someone bringing this to light. I do agree that this needs to stop, but don't assume that everything is part of the grand scheme of the Obama administration... Big government is a lot of right-hand/left-hand... As in, nobody knows what anyone else is doing. Maybe it's the Obama administration trying to keep things quiet, or maybe it's BP overreaching their mandate and breaking the law... Maybe it's both. I would put the odds slightly in favor of BP doing something stupid, and the government being too uncoordinated to stop it. I don't think the administration is quite stupid enough to risk this kind of PR hit intentionally, given how much they're hurting already.
Proud to have finally moved to the A-Ark. Which one are you in?
Author of the Guardians Saga (Sci-Fi/Fantasy novels)Ah, I forgot to continue... because they are not being prosecuted under admiralty law, leads me to believe even further that the government is sympathetic to BP. the DOJ should be prosecuting them, but are not. Big problem, and a coverup.
Josh Davis
Always looking for blackjack. Or maybe White Frank. One of the two. -
Ian Shlasko wrote:
I'm getting the impression that BP is trying to manage the media situation
Ian Shlasko wrote:
Wouldn't chalk this up to fascism.
Sorry, but that is a direct contradiction. Amendment 1 to the Constitution for the United States of America: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances. I realize A) that we're not talking about law making and 2) that you are talking about a corporation managing a completely different SECTOR of the market, but think of the roles here: BP is working with the government, and the government is telling the media what to do. It's immoral, illegal and unlawful. Men need to know the truth, I'm sorry.
Ian Shlasko wrote:
but this does seem like BP is going overboard
At least our conclusions match lol
Josh Davis
Always looking for blackjack. Or maybe White Frank. One of the two.It isn't the government doing this. And it isn't as bad as you are saying for the blackout. Last night the wife and I watched the news. (her idea, I use websites) On CBS they had all this info and it sounded pretty bad. They were explaining it was catastrophic to businesses, BP was using red tape to slow down damage claims, they lowered a camera in the water to show how bad it was (the thing was unable to see 3 inches) and generally made it look pretty horrible. It talked about how some folks were using local research stuff and how the Federal government or BP's reporting was woefully inadequate, but that the data was out there. During a commercial break, the president of BP got on and told the viewers that they were going to pay for the clean up and that they were doing their best. Even during a fairly damning piece on them, CBS was willing to take a ton of money and let this commercial lower the impact. The info is out there and it is getting out. BP's just paying well to slow it down. The fed is not equipped to handle this sort of thing. Which is a sad state of affairs.
If I have accidentally said something witty, smart, or correct, it is purely by mistake and I apologize for it.
-
Christian Graus wrote:
The big question is always, why is the more obscure source necessarily 100% trustworthy ?
I'm not saying they are. It's another source, and should be treated as such is what I'm saying. Usually it's written off, and that is a mistake. To counter that point, why is the more mainstream media with a tripod so much better? Just because they have tons of money?
Josh Davis
Always looking for blackjack. Or maybe White Frank. One of the two.No, the truth is that they are all mostly worthless. Getting the facts seperate from the spin is very difficult and rarely worth the effort.
Christian Graus Driven to the arms of OSX by Vista. Read my blog to find out how I've worked around bugs in Microsoft tools and frameworks.
-
To continue, another counterpoint: Ask yourself, am I really that arrogant to not check all sources, and give equal weight to all parties? I know you're not, but most people really do subscribe to "mainstream knows all". They just look at the television and take for granted that they know the whole story, when most likely they don't.
Josh Davis
Always looking for blackjack. Or maybe White Frank. One of the two.Yes, I've worked hard to raise my daughter to not trust the media, but most people do.
Christian Graus Driven to the arms of OSX by Vista. Read my blog to find out how I've worked around bugs in Microsoft tools and frameworks.
-
The big media corporations are in cahoots with the government, and so is BP. MSNBC for example is 80% owned by General Electric, one of the top 5 military contractors.
Invisible Empire: A New World Order Defined (High Quality 2:14:01)[^] Watch the Fall of the Republic (High Quality 2:24:19)[^] The Truthbox[^]
OK, so you made an allegation and totally failed to prove it. MSNBC is owned by General Electric. Which of those owns the government ?
Christian Graus Driven to the arms of OSX by Vista. Read my blog to find out how I've worked around bugs in Microsoft tools and frameworks.
-
OK, so you made an allegation and totally failed to prove it. MSNBC is owned by General Electric. Which of those owns the government ?
Christian Graus Driven to the arms of OSX by Vista. Read my blog to find out how I've worked around bugs in Microsoft tools and frameworks.
I said general electric is one of the top 5 military contractors, and owns 80% of MSNBC.
Invisible Empire: A New World Order Defined (High Quality 2:14:01)[^] Watch the Fall of the Republic (High Quality 2:24:19)[^] The Truthbox[^]
-
It isn't the government doing this. And it isn't as bad as you are saying for the blackout. Last night the wife and I watched the news. (her idea, I use websites) On CBS they had all this info and it sounded pretty bad. They were explaining it was catastrophic to businesses, BP was using red tape to slow down damage claims, they lowered a camera in the water to show how bad it was (the thing was unable to see 3 inches) and generally made it look pretty horrible. It talked about how some folks were using local research stuff and how the Federal government or BP's reporting was woefully inadequate, but that the data was out there. During a commercial break, the president of BP got on and told the viewers that they were going to pay for the clean up and that they were doing their best. Even during a fairly damning piece on them, CBS was willing to take a ton of money and let this commercial lower the impact. The info is out there and it is getting out. BP's just paying well to slow it down. The fed is not equipped to handle this sort of thing. Which is a sad state of affairs.
If I have accidentally said something witty, smart, or correct, it is purely by mistake and I apologize for it.
Fair point. But I do have a couple points to make to your post.
ragnaroknrol wrote:
During a commercial break, the president of BP got on and told the viewers that they were going to pay for the clean up and that they were doing their best.
It's the president of the company. They HAVE to say that they're going to do something about it. What president would say otherwise?
ragnaroknrol wrote:
BP's just paying well to slow it down.
And that's my point. If you take out all of the independent media (which is categorically small at this point) and slow down the mainstream, you're doing well.
ragnaroknrol wrote:
The fed is not equipped to handle this sort of thing. Which is a sad state of affairs.
It's not the government's job to clean it up, it's BP's. And now, they should definitely be prosecuted or fined so heavily that they go bankrupt. Of course, that wouldn't pay for the damage caused to the ocean, but I'm just saying.
Josh Davis
Always looking for blackjack. Or maybe White Frank. One of the two.