Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I agree! We should see the full cost of BP's greedy irresponsibility!
For the same reason, I felt it very wrong that the press was not allowed to take pictures or videos of the caskets of dead soldiers arriving back home from the Iraq war.
I know what you mean by your analogy, but right now doesnt it seem as if photographers and journalists will only be in the way, on the ground?
Im sure the oil is going to roll in in places where BP and cleanup crews are NOT nearby, and no doubt some sections will be freed up for photography and inspection soon enough.
Yesterday I flipped through the channels. CNN had almost non-stop coverage of the oil spill. They broadcast views of the shores, ocean, and the gusher underground. They also broadcast interviews with top officials of BP, biologists, locals, and politicians concerning the spill.
Fox News had Huckabee interviewing Karl Rove about Obama offering a WH appointment to Spector's opponent. The only oil spill coverage was a short ticker tape. Why Fox would not cover an environmental disaster of epic proportions is beyond me! If that is not news, what is?
Sanrene, if you want press coverage of the oil spill, I suggest CNN.
I know what you mean by your analogy, but right now doesnt it seem as if photographers and journalists will only be in the way, on the ground?
Im sure the oil is going to roll in in places where BP and cleanup crews are NOT nearby, and no doubt some sections will be freed up for photography and inspection soon enough.
Corse Ah could be wrong.
Yes, I agree. Having press bombarding the area right now would be like the press covering the secret military operations in Afghanistan.
Yesterday I flipped through the channels. CNN had almost non-stop coverage of the oil spill. They broadcast views of the shores, ocean, and the gusher underground. They also broadcast interviews with top officials of BP, biologists, locals, and politicians concerning the spill.
Fox News had Huckabee interviewing Karl Rove about Obama offering a WH appointment to Spector's opponent. The only oil spill coverage was a short ticker tape. Why Fox would not cover an environmental disaster of epic proportions is beyond me! If that is not news, what is?
Sanrene, if you want press coverage of the oil spill, I suggest CNN.
Hm! This could be interesting for CNN. "On the comeback trail!"
"Some Gulf Coast watermen find BP’s desire to limit press access obvious. 'If there was a major fire in a warehouse, would you let reporters go inside and start taking pictures?' asks Peace Marvel, a charter-boat captain in Venice, La. Job one, he says, is to clean up the spill, and running members of the press around only gets in the way and makes things worse."
Good article in the Huff Post and one from Associated Press about the restrictions. Also, the question was raised why does the US Coast Guard enforce rules made by BP?
CNN covers the oil spill, but the film clips they show are the same ones over and over and over...close ups of water covered with oil, one bird being cleaned, Obama inspecting the beach sand, and lofty shots of boats in the water.
Right. Pictures have a much greater impact than watching talking heads on TV. But instead, we get loads of fluff. In any case I would not regard the US media to be a reliable source of reporting any events.
I think the press should have reasonable access to the spill site. The areas are probably big enough that the reporters should be able to see, film, and photograph the damage that's being done without affecting the cleanup work.
The American people should be able to see what's happening to our gulf. I can't believe that BP is controlling the press. I don't know how much Obama is personally responsible for what's been happening, but he needs to step in and stop this.
(I also wanted to mention that the outrage at Obama in this thread is kind of funny. Come on, would the situation be any different if Bush II were president? Clinton? Bush I? Reagan? etc. It would most likely be exactly the same. The government caving in to the demands of big businesses isn't exactly unique to the Obama administration.)
Journalists struggling to document the impact of the oil rig explosion have repeatedly found themselves turned away from public areas affected by the spill, and not only by BP and its contractors, but by local law enforcement, the Coast Guard and government officials.
To some critics of the response effort by BP and the government, instances of news media being kept at bay are just another example of a broader problem of officials’ filtering what images of the spill the public sees.
Where is the outrage and drum beat from the MSM?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
