‘Something of a Publicity Stunt’

Jesus Christ:

In a story datelined, “UNDER THE MURKY DEPTHS OF THE GULF OF MEXICO,” Matthewswrites, “Some 40 miles out into the Gulf Of Mexico, I jump off the boat into
the thickest patch of red oil I’ve ever seen. I open my eyes and realize
my mask is already smeared. I can’t see anything and we’re just five
seconds into the dive.

“Dropping beneath the surface the only thing I see is oil. To the
left, right, up and down – it sits on top of the water in giant pools,
and hangs suspended fifteen feet beneath the surface in softball sized
blobs. There is nothing alive under the slick, although I see a dead
jellyfish and handful of small bait fish.”

Is this reporting or somethng [sic] of a publicity stunt? You decide.

Just fucking shoot me. A publicity stunt. Yeah, sure. It would probably be irresponsible not to speculate he did this all for the attention he’s gonna get from coating himself in slime. I know I want to hit it now.

Could the argument be made the information gathered on a scuba excursion isn’t the most groundbreaking news a reporter could have done? Sure. I wouldn’t say the AP should do this Geraldo shit and not do any other stories. But at a time when BP is going out of its way to deny every possible ramification of its fuckup, chasing off journalists and staging cleanup for the president and generally saying “nothing to see here” there’s incredible value in SHOWING people that yes, we really are that screwed.

Via reader DN on Facebook.

A.

6 thoughts on “‘Something of a Publicity Stunt’

  1. MapleStreet says:

    BP says there is no underwater plume.
    BP says any environmental damage will be slight.
    No one is counting the dead animals sinking off-shore.
    The public perception is that you just squirt the bird with some dishwashing detergent and it instantly flies away.
    Sounds to me like the guy noticed a lot of “facts” going out over the MSM (quoting only the big guys). Reporter designed a simple observation on whether those “facts” were correct or not.

  2. pansypoo says:

    BP is a bad lier.

  3. Dan says:

    A publicity stunt? Sure. It’s also fantastic reporting. The two are not mutually exclusive.Igor Kostin could have just remotely gathered radiation statistics.Reid Blackburn could have waited a few days and given a few impressions when the coast was clear. Getting into the middle of a dangerous story sometimes might not be much more than ego wanking, but it also can give people a visceral understanding of an event that might seem dry and remote otherwise. Is that so hard to figure out?

  4. spocko says:

    71 people now sick from oil clean up. “Food poisoning” suggests BP CEO.
    The air quality monitors are high up in the air not where the workers are. They will get sick and have damaged lungs for years. Respirators should be issued.
    Yesterday I wrote the head of the American Lung Association and suggested that they provide respirators and use it as a fund raising opportunity.

  5. MapleStreet says:

    spocko,
    They still are claiming food poisoning? !!!!!!!!!!
    if this is anything like the earlier cases, the symptoms were mainly respiratory while food poisoning gives you the runs and vomiting.
    Considering that crude is a mixture of compounds, many volatile and easily absorbed through the lungs and skin, and that similar happened in the Valdez attempts at cleanup, why is this so unexpected?

  6. MapleStreet says:

    Should have added: and I’m just looking at the effects of the compounds found in crude. No one knows what is in the dispersant so who knows what a dispersant-oil mixture would do?

Comments are closed.

%d bloggers like this: