Send BP’s Spokespeople Home May 31, 2010Posted by Jamie Friedland in Media, Offshore Drilling, Politics.
Tags: BP, Deepwater Horizon, Media Bias, MSM, Offshore Drilling, Oil, Oil Spill, Tony Hayward
“There aren’t any underwater [oil] plumes.” – BP CEO Tony Hayward.
Why not? Because Tony says so. End of story. At least as far as the mainstream media are concerned.
“The oil is on the surface,” Hayward said. “Oil has a specific gravity that’s about half that of water. It wants to get to the surface because of the difference in specific gravity.” –Tony Hayward, 5/30/10.
Duh. Oil rises in water? Thanks for that expert analysis, Tony. But even a 23-year-old with an Internet connection can figure out why the oil isn’t just rising here, so that statement is a baldly transparent lie. Hint: it has to do with the incredible amounts of toxic dispersants that YOU YOURSELF ordered injected into the well.
There is no question about the existence of these plumes. Scientists from at least 4 different universities so far have independently found underwater oil plumes by analyzing images, video, and water samples. They have even piloted submarines through the plumes.
Yet Tony Hayward is successfully combating scientific research in the media simply by saying that BP has found “no evidence” of such plumes, with zero elaboration on what testing they did. BP claims to have 30 aircraft searching for signs of oil, but as I understand it most airplanes are confined to the air. Perhaps they found no evidence because they didn’t look underwater. Tony didn’t say and evidently was not asked. How could anyone let him make that claim and not ask the follow up question?
This is what is wrong with our country. I mean it. Public accountability no longer exists. It is not “gotcha” journalism to call out a public figure for a baseless lie or contradiction. That is not “media bias” or “unbalanced reporting” or any of those things. It is JOURNALISM. It is their jobs. It is the reason why the media are protected in our country; democracy cannot function without objective news coverage.
As an aside, this is exactly what has happened in the politicized “debates” about climate change, healthcare, financial reform…you name it. There are facts in this world. Simply saying something is wrong does not ipso facto disprove its factuality or even call it into question. And to dutifully report that “controversy” in the fanatical pursuit of “balance” is a loathsome perversion of objective journalism. This was the subject of my honors thesis.
I still believe that BP has a compellingly strong financial incentive to lead the efforts to kill this well; there is no cost-benefit analysis that can be done in which BP benefits from having this well flow a single day longer than it has to. Even in a scenario in which they are trying to save the well for future exploitation, the broader damage done to the company and even the industry by even a marginally larger, ongoing oil spill vastly outweighs any benefit they could gain from skimping on containment efforts.
It is worth mentioning again, however, that a similar, seemingly obvious economic argument should have compelled Exxon to use only double-hulled tankers after Exxon Valdez, but it has not.
Unfortunately, BP has another financial incentive as well. As I pointed out last week, our biggest complaints with BP’s response are not about their containment actions, they’re about dishonesty, lack of transparency, and constantly downplaying of the scope of this disaster. They’re about spin.
Following the blowout itself, which was obviously an engineering failure, how many critiques have you seen of BP’s engineers? Not many. They probably should have figured out methane hydrates would form in the first containment dome. But our biggest problems have been with BP’s spokespeople (and executives operating in that role). BP is doing literally as much damage control as it can. And that is the real problem here.
BP has two, simultaneous damage control operations in action: one to protect the Gulf, and another to protect BP. One is trying to staunch the flow of hydrocarbons, the other is trying to staunch the flow of legal liability and corporate backlash. One is taking place underwater, the other is taking place in the media.
That Tony Hayward and BP continue to be able to make these claims is despicable. But we have let it happen.
As one of many examples, recall the 5,000 barrel per day flow estimate. For over a month, BP was able to low-ball the spill rate and nobody could authoritatively contest the claim. They controlled the information. BP barely backed down when caught in essentially Orwellian doublethink, on the day they claimed to be siphoning 5,000 bpd off of a 5,000 bpd spill.
This weekend, Carol Browner, Director of the White House Office of Energy and Climate Change, finally conceded what the rest of us have been saying all along about the spill estimates: “BP has a financial interest in these numbers.”
And they have looked after that interest. It is a huge boon to BP that this spill occurred offshore and at such great depth. It might as well have happened in space. In today’s world journalists can even embed in the military to cover wars in person, yet no journalist can independently corroborate any claim about this oil spill. We couldn’t even see the spill until BP was forced to share the video feed. In the absence of any other source of information, the media have trotted out BP’s statements verbatim.
New information about the spill is released almost exclusively by BP spokespeople, pre-spun and told from their perspective. We have let them control this story, and it shows.
Tony Hayward’s fallacious denial of the underwater plumes should be everywhere. It’s not. I found it on the front page of the Huffington Post and buried in the 24th-27th paragraphs (out of 27) in a Washington Post article. Thank goodness the AP also published a story.
The administration may well be correct in its assertion that BP is better equipped to handle the containment of this gusher. Obviously, the government has additional resources to bring to bear, especially for the clean up operation, but BP has both the equipment and expertise that the physical solution to this problem requires. They should continue that endeavor. However, the administration should have assumed control of the information flow weeks ago, at the first signs of BP’s dishonesty.
If we really want to see results, we should muzzle BP’s executives and spokespeople. Send them home. Better yet, put them to work cleaning the despoiled beaches of Louisiana.
Currently, regardless of what happens, BP gets to spin its own story first. This is a privilege they do not deserve and have repeatedly abused. So let’s strip them of it.
Instead, have BP report their updates to the administration (or an independent body of experts, if you are concerned about more propaganda). Let someone less concerned about BP’s future synthesize the progress and inform the media.
I understand the desire to grill these executives and make them stew, and that time will come. But we must start getting objective, unfiltered information about this catastrophe.
This would not only penalize BP for its actions, it would offer them another incentive to stop this spill. If they are not allowed to spin their story, the only way they can get good coverage is to make their success self-evident. No more excuses.
If BP cannot control its oil wells, we cannot let them control this story. What have they done to deserve that courtesy?
Full list of oil spill questions and answers here.