Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

BP's Photo Blockade of the Gulf Oil Spill

newsweek.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 77 posts

Re: BP's Photo Blockade of the Gulf Oil Spill

#31

Post by jbooth »

andreyf wrote: post #19
tshtf wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In all understanding of the laws of the United States... Uh, yes, that's what a public company has to do: maximize shareholder value. Now do what real journalists are supposed to do do: break a couple of stupid rules, find a way to get out there, and take some damned pictures. What are they going to do? Shoot down your plane? Seriously. From the article: The problem, as many members of the press see it, is that even…

How can you take those pictures? Use your imagination ;) Edit (for you down-voters): Fine, here's some off the top of my head: * Rent your own plane and fly over without permission, * register a fishing company and get a job working for BP, * find a way to take pictures while avoiding detection, or just * bribe the fishermen. These are off the top of my head, I imagine someone whose full time job depends on thinking…

Who's funding these entrepreneurial journalists?

"The truth" is worth a lot of gratitude and 0 actual dollars.

Re: BP's Photo Blockade of the Gulf Oil Spill

#33

Post by jrwoodruff »

andreyf wrote: post #19
tshtf wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In all understanding of the laws of the United States... Uh, yes, that's what a public company has to do: maximize shareholder value. Now do what real journalists are supposed to do do: break a couple of stupid rules, find a way to get out there, and take some damned pictures. What are they going to do? Shoot down your plane? Seriously. From the article: The problem, as many members of the press see it, is that even…

How can you take those pictures? Use your imagination ;) Edit (for you down-voters): Fine, here's some off the top of my head: * Rent your own plane and fly over without permission, * register a fishing company and get a job working for BP, * find a way to take pictures while avoiding detection, or just * bribe the fishermen. These are off the top of my head, I imagine someone whose full time job depends on thinking…

You're right in your final concession, but this is where the weakening of mainstream media is most obvious. My guess is there are fewer reporters per publication on the ground with smaller expense accounts and fewer overall resources than what was available to their brethren covering Valdez in 1989.

As a result they have to write whiny stories about how they can't get access when the story they wanted to have falls through. Newsweek should have left those pages blank with the words "oil spill photo spread here" instead.

Re: BP's Photo Blockade of the Gulf Oil Spill

#34

Post by pyre »

jsz0 wrote: post #23
andreyf wrote: post #6

Sounds like a great opportunity for real reporters to dress up as fishermen to sneak out there and take some unique pictures. This kind of thing only stops the half-ass-reporters out there who will go home after running into the coast guard to complain and feel sorry about themselves. boo hoo BP is trying to control the press coverage Uh, yes, that's what a public company has to do: maximize shareholder value. Now do…

The flight ban is also being enforced by the FAA. Probably difficult to find a pilot willing to put their career at risk. I'm not clear why my tax dollars via the FAA should be used to fund the PR response of a public company.

I can see them putting some restrictions on the area due the the massive amount of press that will want access to the airspace (i.e. to prevent aerial traffic jams over the hardest hit areas or the areas with the most damning photos). But the idea that BP is pulling the strings and that only BP-charter flights can get clearance is getting too close to the realm of Big Brother (well, closer to the Neal Stephenson vision of the future in Snow Crash where corporations rule everything) for me.

Re: BP's Photo Blockade of the Gulf Oil Spill

#35

Post by anigbrowl »

andreyf wrote: post #19
tshtf wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In all understanding of the laws of the United States... Uh, yes, that's what a public company has to do: maximize shareholder value. Now do what real journalists are supposed to do do: break a couple of stupid rules, find a way to get out there, and take some damned pictures. What are they going to do? Shoot down your plane? Seriously. From the article: The problem, as many members of the press see it, is that even…

How can you take those pictures? Use your imagination ;) Edit (for you down-voters): Fine, here's some off the top of my head: * Rent your own plane and fly over without permission, * register a fishing company and get a job working for BP, * find a way to take pictures while avoiding detection, or just * bribe the fishermen. These are off the top of my head, I imagine someone whose full time job depends on thinking…

What you propose risks criminal and civil liability from multiple directions. Few, if any, photojournalists can afford to take such risks. Most news organizations won't. Yes, disasters and war are where much great photojournalism takes place. But it's ironically easier to do that abroad with the specter of the mighty US State Department at your shoulder than it is in your own backyard, where you're just a meddling shutterbug on the make and in the way - and will be described as such by an ambitious prosecutor.

Sure,it's worth a try and might make for some great photos. But being accused of endangering safety or hampering the mission or both by the Feds is not fun, and rather than threatening you with a possible first-amendment case, it's a lot easier for them to go after your pilot and pressure them into signing a statement saying you suborned them into an illegal act.

For these reasons, it's much likelier that news orgs will seek an injunction or declaratory judgment permitting them to gather pictures and video, rather than proceed by stealth.

Re: BP's Photo Blockade of the Gulf Oil Spill

#36

Post by pyre »

schwit wrote: post #29

First off BP has an overriding obligation to its stockholders. Second, BP has a PR playbook for this scenario that is based upon decades of experience. For the moment BP's money is making the rules.

How many of those stockholders are going to affected by the local impact to Louisiana and the possible National/Global economic impact as it radiates outward? It's short-sighted to talk about BP's obligations to their stockholders just in terms of raw stock prices.

[ You also fail to mention that many BP employees as well as executives and board members probably have stock options, meaning that they are also looking after their own interests in this matter too. It's not like they want to be altruistic, but these pesky investors are holding them back. And it's not like these 'stockholders' are some external entity to the company with a hard line between investors and employees with no grey area in between. ]

{edit} AIG also had an obligation to their investors to keep the stock price up and up and up... until it came crashing down. Saying, 'they have an obligation to their investors,' is really just a cop out. It's a way of pushing responsibility away (i.e. "Don't blame me! I have a responsibility to the investors, my hands are tied! I'm compelled to this course of action.").

Re: BP's Photo Blockade of the Gulf Oil Spill

#37

Post by pyre »

c23gooey wrote: post #16
waivej wrote: post #9

Maybe someone should build a site to anonymously post photos on.

pretty sure wikileaks will help you there - http://www.wikileaks.com

Or 4chan (or any of the other anonymous image boards)...

Or a throw-away Flickr account...

The hardest part is the getting of the photos, not the distribution.

Re: BP's Photo Blockade of the Gulf Oil Spill

#38

Post by dkarl »

jbooth wrote: post #31
andreyf wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How can you take those pictures? Use your imagination ;) Edit (for you down-voters): Fine, here's some off the top of my head: * Rent your own plane and fly over without permission, * register a fishing company and get a job working for BP, * find a way to take pictures while avoiding detection, or just * bribe the fishermen. These are off the top of my head, I imagine someone whose full time job depends on thinking…

Who's funding these entrepreneurial journalists? "The truth" is worth a lot of gratitude and 0 actual dollars.

Journalism is all about advertising, i.e., page views and publications sold.

This is one of the hottest topics in the U.S. right now.

Nobody likes dry analysis; everyone is eager for a quick, vivid, and emotionally compelling way to engage with the story.

Therefore, if you publish more and better pictures than the competition, you'll attract more (non-)readers and make more money.

Re: BP's Photo Blockade of the Gulf Oil Spill

#39

Post by bobo418 »

orangecat wrote: post #12

Of course, the blockade is actually being run by government and military entities. BP can't arrest journalists, but the Coast Guard can.

In case there was any doubt about the feasibility of coordinating a large-scale conspiracy involving large numbers of personel, here it is. In plain view yet we may never see it.

Re: BP's Photo Blockade of the Gulf Oil Spill

#40

Post by guns »

jrwoodruff wrote: post #30

Here's the most graphic images I've seen, but they're over a week old and pretty tame compared to Valdez. http://www.boston.com/bigpicture/2010/05/oil_reaches_louisia...

I hope you mean the images are pretty tame in comparison, and not the spill itself. Not only has the BP leak massively surpassed Valdez in volume (2-10x), it took place a mile underwater, which multiplies it's danger.

Exxon Valdez was a surface spill, so most of the oil that was spilled stayed on the surface of the water and began to have dramatic effects on the coastal environment. This disaster is leaking millions of gallons per day (Valdez was 10 million gallons) from the sea floor, much of which is rising slowly to the top through a mile of water, dispersing on its way up, and some percentage of the oil is clumping at the bottom, or simply not rising [1]. The polluted area should thus be measured in cubic feet, and not simply in visibly affected surface area.

The implications of this event are quite staggering, and BP will get away with paying a slim fraction of the true cost to society.

[1] unless I am misinformed and 100% of crude oil rises to the surface

Post reply on HN