Again with the BP media access (or lack thereof)
-
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HN79OAtZ-W4[^] Yeah. A video. 2min long, if you can actually see it. What it comes down to: BP's Chief operating officer, Doug Suttles, made a statement saying "Recent media reports have suggested that individuals involved in the clean up operation have been prohibited from speaking to the media, and this is simply untrue. BP has not and will not prevent anyone working in the clean up operation from sharing his or her own experiences or opinions." A man from a news crew comes up along the beach that men from BP were working at, and he was hindered from talking by a man from Talon Executive Services, Ron Williams, who was a former Secret Service Agent. TECHNICALLY SPEAKING: Doug Suttles was correct in saying that "BP has not and will not prevent anyone working in the clean up operation from sharing...". However, that doesn't mean that they don't prevent media from interviewing and extracting those workers' opinions. Just a great word game, IMO. And this is the problem with the whole thing. In a free society, they should not ever hinder the media from doing their job, no matter what the facts are. The only reason why they'd do that is to prevent backlash, but to have the government and other corporations cover it up is just another step to fascism. Please understand that it doesn't matter if we have a dictator or not. All other parts of the puzzle fit. The only way to cure someone is to recognize that a problem exists in the first place. We already know that the United States is in big trouble, so why continue living in a dreamland? Realize that this raging nationalism and construing of truth began a long time ago, but to show an analogy, it takes two or three days to show symptoms of a cold. We're seeing the symptoms of fascism now.
Josh Davis
Always looking for blackjack. Or maybe White Frank. One of the two. -
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HN79OAtZ-W4[^] Yeah. A video. 2min long, if you can actually see it. What it comes down to: BP's Chief operating officer, Doug Suttles, made a statement saying "Recent media reports have suggested that individuals involved in the clean up operation have been prohibited from speaking to the media, and this is simply untrue. BP has not and will not prevent anyone working in the clean up operation from sharing his or her own experiences or opinions." A man from a news crew comes up along the beach that men from BP were working at, and he was hindered from talking by a man from Talon Executive Services, Ron Williams, who was a former Secret Service Agent. TECHNICALLY SPEAKING: Doug Suttles was correct in saying that "BP has not and will not prevent anyone working in the clean up operation from sharing...". However, that doesn't mean that they don't prevent media from interviewing and extracting those workers' opinions. Just a great word game, IMO. And this is the problem with the whole thing. In a free society, they should not ever hinder the media from doing their job, no matter what the facts are. The only reason why they'd do that is to prevent backlash, but to have the government and other corporations cover it up is just another step to fascism. Please understand that it doesn't matter if we have a dictator or not. All other parts of the puzzle fit. The only way to cure someone is to recognize that a problem exists in the first place. We already know that the United States is in big trouble, so why continue living in a dreamland? Realize that this raging nationalism and construing of truth began a long time ago, but to show an analogy, it takes two or three days to show symptoms of a cold. We're seeing the symptoms of fascism now.
Josh Davis
Always looking for blackjack. Or maybe White Frank. One of the two.josda1000 wrote:
In a free society, they should not ever hinder the media from doing their job
A reasonable position to take unless the media are getting in the way of an ongoing activity. Then, IMO, access should be restricted to formal press statement/question/answer sessions at the company's recognised press centre, just like you usually have at The Pentagon for US Armed Forces statements/question/answer sessions.
-
josda1000 wrote:
In a free society, they should not ever hinder the media from doing their job
A reasonable position to take unless the media are getting in the way of an ongoing activity. Then, IMO, access should be restricted to formal press statement/question/answer sessions at the company's recognised press centre, just like you usually have at The Pentagon for US Armed Forces statements/question/answer sessions.
-
I can understand this, however, he wanted to interview people that were on a lunch break.
Josh Davis
Always looking for blackjack. Or maybe White Frank. One of the two. -
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HN79OAtZ-W4[^] Yeah. A video. 2min long, if you can actually see it. What it comes down to: BP's Chief operating officer, Doug Suttles, made a statement saying "Recent media reports have suggested that individuals involved in the clean up operation have been prohibited from speaking to the media, and this is simply untrue. BP has not and will not prevent anyone working in the clean up operation from sharing his or her own experiences or opinions." A man from a news crew comes up along the beach that men from BP were working at, and he was hindered from talking by a man from Talon Executive Services, Ron Williams, who was a former Secret Service Agent. TECHNICALLY SPEAKING: Doug Suttles was correct in saying that "BP has not and will not prevent anyone working in the clean up operation from sharing...". However, that doesn't mean that they don't prevent media from interviewing and extracting those workers' opinions. Just a great word game, IMO. And this is the problem with the whole thing. In a free society, they should not ever hinder the media from doing their job, no matter what the facts are. The only reason why they'd do that is to prevent backlash, but to have the government and other corporations cover it up is just another step to fascism. Please understand that it doesn't matter if we have a dictator or not. All other parts of the puzzle fit. The only way to cure someone is to recognize that a problem exists in the first place. We already know that the United States is in big trouble, so why continue living in a dreamland? Realize that this raging nationalism and construing of truth began a long time ago, but to show an analogy, it takes two or three days to show symptoms of a cold. We're seeing the symptoms of fascism now.
Josh Davis
Always looking for blackjack. Or maybe White Frank. One of the two.So you are working your freckle off in stinking, greasy muck and some reporter comes up and sticks a mike in your face while a cameraman tries to get a close up of your left eye and you expect the guy to be polite. Oh wait, while you are having a well earned break this same pair of twats want you to spend time with them. I beleive in freedom of the press, to a degree, I also beleive they should be thumped whenever they get too intrusive. I put these people in the same moral category as politicians and lawyers.
Never underestimate the power of human stupidity RAH
-
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HN79OAtZ-W4[^] Yeah. A video. 2min long, if you can actually see it. What it comes down to: BP's Chief operating officer, Doug Suttles, made a statement saying "Recent media reports have suggested that individuals involved in the clean up operation have been prohibited from speaking to the media, and this is simply untrue. BP has not and will not prevent anyone working in the clean up operation from sharing his or her own experiences or opinions." A man from a news crew comes up along the beach that men from BP were working at, and he was hindered from talking by a man from Talon Executive Services, Ron Williams, who was a former Secret Service Agent. TECHNICALLY SPEAKING: Doug Suttles was correct in saying that "BP has not and will not prevent anyone working in the clean up operation from sharing...". However, that doesn't mean that they don't prevent media from interviewing and extracting those workers' opinions. Just a great word game, IMO. And this is the problem with the whole thing. In a free society, they should not ever hinder the media from doing their job, no matter what the facts are. The only reason why they'd do that is to prevent backlash, but to have the government and other corporations cover it up is just another step to fascism. Please understand that it doesn't matter if we have a dictator or not. All other parts of the puzzle fit. The only way to cure someone is to recognize that a problem exists in the first place. We already know that the United States is in big trouble, so why continue living in a dreamland? Realize that this raging nationalism and construing of truth began a long time ago, but to show an analogy, it takes two or three days to show symptoms of a cold. We're seeing the symptoms of fascism now.
Josh Davis
Always looking for blackjack. Or maybe White Frank. One of the two.BP is under no legal obligation to talk to the press. They're a non-government corporation, so no one can force them to be nice to reporters. They don't have to give interviews, they don't have to arrange tours for the media, and they don't have to make public statements. (Of course, they may be under some contractual obligation with their shareholders to do so, but that's a private matter) That said, they do NOT have the right to PREVENT the media from walking on PUBLIC land (Beaches, seas, etc). They do NOT have the right to enlist the Coast Guard and FAA to assist in this. THAT's where the scandal is, and THAT's what needs to be stopped. Again, though, I think this was really a matter of stupidity (On the part of the CG/FAA), not malice. They were told to assist BP as best they could, and just didn't distinguish between helping to clean the spill and (unlawfully) helping to keep reporters out of the way. (By the way - Thanks for summarizing it, as I can't view youtube vids at work)
Proud to have finally moved to the A-Ark. Which one are you in?
Author of the Guardians Saga (Sci-Fi/Fantasy novels) -
BP is under no legal obligation to talk to the press. They're a non-government corporation, so no one can force them to be nice to reporters. They don't have to give interviews, they don't have to arrange tours for the media, and they don't have to make public statements. (Of course, they may be under some contractual obligation with their shareholders to do so, but that's a private matter) That said, they do NOT have the right to PREVENT the media from walking on PUBLIC land (Beaches, seas, etc). They do NOT have the right to enlist the Coast Guard and FAA to assist in this. THAT's where the scandal is, and THAT's what needs to be stopped. Again, though, I think this was really a matter of stupidity (On the part of the CG/FAA), not malice. They were told to assist BP as best they could, and just didn't distinguish between helping to clean the spill and (unlawfully) helping to keep reporters out of the way. (By the way - Thanks for summarizing it, as I can't view youtube vids at work)
Proud to have finally moved to the A-Ark. Which one are you in?
Author of the Guardians Saga (Sci-Fi/Fantasy novels)Ian Shlasko wrote:
they do NOT have the right to PREVENT the media from walking on PUBLIC land (Beaches, seas, etc). They do NOT have the right to enlist the Coast Guard and FAA to assist in this. THAT's where the scandal is, and THAT's what needs to be stopped.
Well said!
Ian Shlasko wrote:
(By the way - Thanks for summarizing it, as I can't view youtube vids at work)
I'll be trying to do that whenever I post a youtube.
Josh Davis
Always looking for blackjack. Or maybe White Frank. One of the two. -
Ian Shlasko wrote:
they do NOT have the right to PREVENT the media from walking on PUBLIC land (Beaches, seas, etc). They do NOT have the right to enlist the Coast Guard and FAA to assist in this. THAT's where the scandal is, and THAT's what needs to be stopped.
Well said!
Ian Shlasko wrote:
(By the way - Thanks for summarizing it, as I can't view youtube vids at work)
I'll be trying to do that whenever I post a youtube.
Josh Davis
Always looking for blackjack. Or maybe White Frank. One of the two.josda1000 wrote:
Ian Shlasko wrote: (By the way - Thanks for summarizing it, as I can't view youtube vids at work) I'll be trying to do that whenever I post a youtube.
Thank you. It's very irritating to have videos posted without a summary considering I can't watch them at work either.
That's called seagull management (or sometimes pigeon management)... Fly in, flap your arms and squawk a lot, crap all over everything and fly out again... by _Damian S_
-
BP is under no legal obligation to talk to the press. They're a non-government corporation, so no one can force them to be nice to reporters. They don't have to give interviews, they don't have to arrange tours for the media, and they don't have to make public statements. (Of course, they may be under some contractual obligation with their shareholders to do so, but that's a private matter) That said, they do NOT have the right to PREVENT the media from walking on PUBLIC land (Beaches, seas, etc). They do NOT have the right to enlist the Coast Guard and FAA to assist in this. THAT's where the scandal is, and THAT's what needs to be stopped. Again, though, I think this was really a matter of stupidity (On the part of the CG/FAA), not malice. They were told to assist BP as best they could, and just didn't distinguish between helping to clean the spill and (unlawfully) helping to keep reporters out of the way. (By the way - Thanks for summarizing it, as I can't view youtube vids at work)
Proud to have finally moved to the A-Ark. Which one are you in?
Author of the Guardians Saga (Sci-Fi/Fantasy novels)Not sure if this relates to the incident being discussed, but in at least one case the Authorities intervined when reporters were browbeating a contractor working for BP, the reporters would not accept that said contractor would not and in fairness could not discuss with the press what was going on, being like a lot of public facing employees they have to be careful not to contradict corporate dogma. (and by the way, are not said beaches declared a diaster area and as such the FAA, coast guard and any bodies tasked with the diaster recovery, have the lawful right to prevent access? I seem to remember this being the case in Katrina)
You cant outrun the world, but there is no harm in getting a head start
-
Not sure if this relates to the incident being discussed, but in at least one case the Authorities intervined when reporters were browbeating a contractor working for BP, the reporters would not accept that said contractor would not and in fairness could not discuss with the press what was going on, being like a lot of public facing employees they have to be careful not to contradict corporate dogma. (and by the way, are not said beaches declared a diaster area and as such the FAA, coast guard and any bodies tasked with the diaster recovery, have the lawful right to prevent access? I seem to remember this being the case in Katrina)
You cant outrun the world, but there is no harm in getting a head start
In that situation, then the contractor would be correct... No one is REQUIRED to talk to the press. You don't have to allow them into your home/office, and you don't have to give an interview... You just can't restrict them from public property.
Alex hogarth wrote:
(and by the way, are not said beaches declared a diaster area and as such the FAA, coast guard and any bodies tasked with the diaster recovery, have the lawful right to prevent access? I seem to remember this being the case in Katrina)
I don't know if that's the case here... It might be, but I'd think if it was, they would have said that right away to shut down this scandal. It seems like they were specifically preventing the MEDIA from getting near the spill, so they couldn't take pictures of the damage. It might also be that the press is specifically allowed in "disaster areas" to report, and they were being denied here. There was one account of a reporter contracting a private plane to fly over the spill. The FAA asked for the passenger manifest, including occupations. It all seemed fine until he said he was a reporter, and then he was immediately denied clearance. Supposedly, BP was only allowing certain reporters in (Possibly those they had made deals with for good publicity), and shutting out the rest. Of course, that's all hearsay, so it could be a lie or distortion of the truth.
Proud to have finally moved to the A-Ark. Which one are you in?
Author of the Guardians Saga (Sci-Fi/Fantasy novels) -
Not sure if this relates to the incident being discussed, but in at least one case the Authorities intervined when reporters were browbeating a contractor working for BP, the reporters would not accept that said contractor would not and in fairness could not discuss with the press what was going on, being like a lot of public facing employees they have to be careful not to contradict corporate dogma. (and by the way, are not said beaches declared a diaster area and as such the FAA, coast guard and any bodies tasked with the diaster recovery, have the lawful right to prevent access? I seem to remember this being the case in Katrina)
You cant outrun the world, but there is no harm in getting a head start
Alex hogarth wrote:
(and by the way, are not said beaches declared a diaster area
They are not. The federal disaster funds are earmarked for NATURAL disasters. They can't be used in a situation where some company manages to be bad enough at something to cause a multi-state problem. Oh and I still agree that if a reporter is behaving in a repsectable manner and is interfered with talking to someone willing to talk to them, the person interfering needs to be dealt with.
If I have accidentally said something witty, smart, or correct, it is purely by mistake and I apologize for it.
-
Alex hogarth wrote:
(and by the way, are not said beaches declared a diaster area
They are not. The federal disaster funds are earmarked for NATURAL disasters. They can't be used in a situation where some company manages to be bad enough at something to cause a multi-state problem. Oh and I still agree that if a reporter is behaving in a repsectable manner and is interfered with talking to someone willing to talk to them, the person interfering needs to be dealt with.
If I have accidentally said something witty, smart, or correct, it is purely by mistake and I apologize for it.
I understood that they had been so declared but i could be wrong, although having them declared as such would neccessarly mean that they would get govenment funding?. are you aware the the US company whose rig it is is responsible for 75% of all Gulf spills? despite having only 40% of rigs, how come you are not condeming them? BP could (as EXXON have in the past) hide behined the fact it was a contractor that has caused the problem, they have not, they have agreed to all that has been asked of them yet this is insuffcient in many eyes.
You cant outrun the world, but there is no harm in getting a head start
-
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HN79OAtZ-W4[^] Yeah. A video. 2min long, if you can actually see it. What it comes down to: BP's Chief operating officer, Doug Suttles, made a statement saying "Recent media reports have suggested that individuals involved in the clean up operation have been prohibited from speaking to the media, and this is simply untrue. BP has not and will not prevent anyone working in the clean up operation from sharing his or her own experiences or opinions." A man from a news crew comes up along the beach that men from BP were working at, and he was hindered from talking by a man from Talon Executive Services, Ron Williams, who was a former Secret Service Agent. TECHNICALLY SPEAKING: Doug Suttles was correct in saying that "BP has not and will not prevent anyone working in the clean up operation from sharing...". However, that doesn't mean that they don't prevent media from interviewing and extracting those workers' opinions. Just a great word game, IMO. And this is the problem with the whole thing. In a free society, they should not ever hinder the media from doing their job, no matter what the facts are. The only reason why they'd do that is to prevent backlash, but to have the government and other corporations cover it up is just another step to fascism. Please understand that it doesn't matter if we have a dictator or not. All other parts of the puzzle fit. The only way to cure someone is to recognize that a problem exists in the first place. We already know that the United States is in big trouble, so why continue living in a dreamland? Realize that this raging nationalism and construing of truth began a long time ago, but to show an analogy, it takes two or three days to show symptoms of a cold. We're seeing the symptoms of fascism now.
Josh Davis
Always looking for blackjack. Or maybe White Frank. One of the two.The amusing thing is that it's BP driving this, acting the way that makes sense for a capitalist company. They are acting in their self interest, and in the interest of their stock holders. Pure capitalism leads to this place.
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 amusing thing is that it's BP driving this, acting the way that makes sense for a capitalist company. They are acting in their self interest, and in the interest of their stock holders. Pure capitalism leads to this place.
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:
acting the way that makes sense for a capitalist company.
Doesn't this work for individuals as well?
That's called seagull management (or sometimes pigeon management)... Fly in, flap your arms and squawk a lot, crap all over everything and fly out again... by _Damian S_
-
The amusing thing is that it's BP driving this, acting the way that makes sense for a capitalist company. They are acting in their self interest, and in the interest of their stock holders. Pure capitalism leads to this place.
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'm not even going to start debating whether this is capitalism or not. You said it yourself, we live in a not-pure capitalist system, so I don't know why you keep saying that "pure capitalism leades to this place". It's not pure capitalism, so you shouldn't be spitting this rhetoric at all.
Josh Davis
Always looking for blackjack. Or maybe White Frank. One of the two. -
Christian Graus wrote:
acting the way that makes sense for a capitalist company.
Doesn't this work for individuals as well?
That's called seagull management (or sometimes pigeon management)... Fly in, flap your arms and squawk a lot, crap all over everything and fly out again... by _Damian S_
-
Christian Graus wrote:
acting the way that makes sense for a capitalist company.
Doesn't this work for individuals as well?
That's called seagull management (or sometimes pigeon management)... Fly in, flap your arms and squawk a lot, crap all over everything and fly out again... by _Damian S_
Sure. I mean, it's a good example. If there were no laws ( much like what is being proposed, less government, less restriction ), then it would perhaps be in my interest to kill you and take your stuff. So, both individuals and companies need to be restrained from acting purely in their own interest for the good of society. That's the real issue. BP is pursuing capitalism, not fascism. Capitalism is fine, so long as it's not allowed to run amok.
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'm not even going to start debating whether this is capitalism or not. You said it yourself, we live in a not-pure capitalist system, so I don't know why you keep saying that "pure capitalism leades to this place". It's not pure capitalism, so you shouldn't be spitting this rhetoric at all.
Josh Davis
Always looking for blackjack. Or maybe White Frank. One of the two.josda1000 wrote:
You said it yourself, we live in a not-pure capitalist system, so I don't know why you keep saying that "pure capitalism leades to this place".
Because it's the element of capitalism that causes BP to act in it's own interest.
josda1000 wrote:
It's not pure capitalism, so you shouldn't be spitting this rhetoric at all.
We don't live in a society that allows murder, that doesn't mean people don't commit murder. A corporation is a purely capitalistic entity. It acts in a capitalist way as much as it can, within the frameworks of regulations that exist. I don't see how I'm not allowed to claim that, just because some regulations exist. That's a bizarre statement.
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:
You said it yourself, we live in a not-pure capitalist system, so I don't know why you keep saying that "pure capitalism leades to this place".
Because it's the element of capitalism that causes BP to act in it's own interest.
josda1000 wrote:
It's not pure capitalism, so you shouldn't be spitting this rhetoric at all.
We don't live in a society that allows murder, that doesn't mean people don't commit murder. A corporation is a purely capitalistic entity. It acts in a capitalist way as much as it can, within the frameworks of regulations that exist. I don't see how I'm not allowed to claim that, just because some regulations exist. That's a bizarre statement.
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 reason why I say that is because if "big government" didn't exist, AKA the federal government was within its constitutional limits, then they would not be using the Coast Guard and other entities to back the media off. You're right that the corporation will act in its own interest. But when it pays government off like this, it is wholly unconstitutional (never mind the fact that most of what the government does is unconstitutional anyway), wrong, immoral, and actually kind of scary.
Christian Graus wrote:
I don't see how I'm not allowed to claim that, just because some regulations exist.
First, yes, you can claim it. But you have to see the big picture. Second, this has nothing to do with regulations. This has to do with entire entities that are invalid under the constitution, and we're also talking about bribery, which is totally unlawful.
Josh Davis
Always looking for blackjack. Or maybe White Frank. One of the two. -
I understood that they had been so declared but i could be wrong, although having them declared as such would neccessarly mean that they would get govenment funding?. are you aware the the US company whose rig it is is responsible for 75% of all Gulf spills? despite having only 40% of rigs, how come you are not condeming them? BP could (as EXXON have in the past) hide behined the fact it was a contractor that has caused the problem, they have not, they have agreed to all that has been asked of them yet this is insuffcient in many eyes.
You cant outrun the world, but there is no harm in getting a head start
I just want the idiots that destroyed a large part of the ecological system in the Gulf to make it so that the damage stops and it doesn't happen like this again. I also want them to help keep the people for whom this damage has caused a major hardship from being hosed. I want them to stop acting like this is not something people should know about. The damage to the ecology isn't even me being a hippie. It is a simple, pragmatic concern. You kill off half the food chain in a huge section of an ocean, and the people fishing said ocean feel it, no matter what they were fishing for. Loss of birds and other predators means the spots that weren't hit have lost their controls so their populations have unchecked growth. And the people fishing those group hit by this are losing their livlihood until the population recovers. I'll condemn whoever is responsible, in this case we have a company leasing a rig and the people running the rig. Both are responsible. The oil companies are required to follow certain regulations, emergency action plans, safety, etc... They are supposed to make sure these things are done and not just signing off or making a show of it while ignoring it. The rig company is also supposed to follow the rules and not be morons.
If I have accidentally said something witty, smart, or correct, it is purely by mistake and I apologize for it.