Brian, I looked at the NY Times this morning and found I have to take back some of what I wrote:
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/06/10/us/10access.html?th&emc=th Apparently some reporters' access *has* been restricted, more or less arbitrarily. But there doesn't seem to be any reason for it other than as a function of BP's overall reflexive, bureaucratic lack of transparency; it isn't a matter of trying to hide some far worse catastrophe than we know about. The stated policy of both the government and BP is to accommodate journalists as much as possible. I was also wrong about the no-fly zone. Small planes *are* allowed to fly over the site if they first get permission from the FAA--although, again, some reporters have been denied permission. It isn't so much a "no-fly zone" as it is "restricted airspace." Sorry for misleading you on those points! Do read the Times article for more details. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" <jst...@...> wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, brian64705 <no_reply@> wrote: > > > > Thanks! I searched some of the many blogs that have reposted > > this and NOT ONE has any rebuttal of this story, or update. > > Well, you're welcome to repost what I wrote on those blogs > if you think it'll help. (If you do, please omit my name, or > identify me as Swift Loris, which is my handle for blog > comments.) > > I > > don't have a TV so I am glad to hear this guy has just got a > > real case of paranoia. He did report though on young guy said > > his dad worked on the cleanup and that it was far worse than > > the media were reporting. > > This was a 15-year-old kid, probably scared by it all, > or enjoying scaring the filmmaker. Who knows where he got > the idea? There has been talk *in the media* that BP was > underestimating the flow, which is accurate, but the > government has had independent scientists estimate it, and > while it's more than was originally estimated, it's not > "vastly" more--and it's being *reported* that it's more, > so that's not a big secret. > > This filmmaker guy had only been there less than a day. > It's not surprising there was a lot of hustle and bustle > and tension in the town, because it's one of the big > staging areas for the cleanup, and also has some of the > worst damage from the oil. Folks there would naturally be > on edge and upset. > > I wouldn't suggest nothing the guy said was true, but he > was taking bits and pieces and putting them together in > a sensational way that misrepresents what's really going > on. > > > The two stories on Anderson Cooper last night were really > > shocking and may be the reason BP stock dropped another > > 19% today. I think the biggest percentage drop since the > > crisis began. > > > > See these links: > > Video: Attorney: BP's 'conduct is criminal' > > http://ac360.blogs.cnn.com/2010/06/08/video-attorney-bps-conduct-is-criminal/ > > Video: Rig survivors: BP ordered shortcut on day of blast > > http://ac360.blogs.cnn.com/2010/06/08/video-rig-survivors-bp-ordered-shortcut-on-day-of-blast/ > > Wow, that second one with the survivors is hard to > watch. I hope they're getting treatment for PTSD, > because they sure look like they're all struggling > with it. > > Cooper did an excellent job interviewing them, I > thought, straightforward but gentle, low key. > > But...bear in mind that everybody has an axe to grind. > The TV people, especially the cable folks, have an > interest in promoting the Bad BP theme because it > gets them eyeballs. It doesn't hurt to take them with > a grain of salt, including Cooper. Lawyers likewise. > > Cooper gets details wrong from time to time. I haven't > seen one TV report or read one print story that is > completely accurate. > > BP is a rotten company, and I hope they get what's > coming to them. But that doesn't mean everything > they do is wrong or that all their intentions are > evil or that there are huge conspiracies between > them and the government. As with everything else in > the world, there are shades of gray. > > If you're interested in really knowledgeable > discussion of this disaster by oil industry folks--most > of whom are not, to say the least, fans of BP--take a > look at this blog: > > http://www.theoildrum.com > > I've been hanging out there since the beginning of the > spill, mostly just absorbing. A lot of the discussion > in the comments is way over my head technically, but > enough of it is accessible to the layperson to make it > worthwhile. > > The continuing discussion of the spill is just part of > what's on the blog; look for the posts with "BP Deepwater > Oil Spill" in the title. The posts themselves have a lot > of good information, and there's real meat in the > comments. You won't become an expert, but if you stick > around for a while, you'll know more than about 99 > percent of the public does. It's a good place to check > out rumors, too. > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" <jstein@> wrote: > > > > > > BP sucks, no question, but this is crazy talk. > > > > > > There's been a no-fly zone (enforced by the Coast Guard > > > and the FAA) over the spill site for weeks; it's nothing > > > new. The Coast Guard has regular overflights every few > > > days for the media so photos and video can be shot of the > > > spill site and beaches and marshes and so on. > > > > > > The very last thing they need is for some small plane or > > > helicopter to get in trouble and crash in the area of the > > > spill. > > > > > > There have been constant reports coming in from the media, > > > so the idea that there's some sort of "lockdown" is absurd. > > > You see the reports on the news every night--NBC has a > > > correspondent stationed in Grand Isle--and on the cable > > > channels 24 hours a day. > > > > > > The local folks who have been hired by BP to do cleanup > > > signed a contract of some kind that prohibits them from > > > speaking to the media. This has also been the case from > > > the beginning; it's not an unusual provision, although > > > it sounds sinister. > > > > > > The rest of this is just nonsense. The Deepwater Response > > > Team--the Coast Guard and NOAA and EPA and so on--have a > > > press conference every day with reporter Q&A. If the > > > media were having problems getting their stories, they'd > > > be making a point of complaining loudly at the press > > > conference. It's just not possible to "lock down" the > > > media these days and have it kept quiet. > > > > > > There's some uncertainty about the exact volume of the > > > oil flow, but it simply isn't the case that the disaster > > > is "much bigger than what is being reported," nor is it > > > the case that the gummint isn't in control. (Doesn't mean > > > local police officers here or there haven't overstepped > > > their authority, or made an arrest because some media > > > jerk pissed them off.) > > > > > > I'm guessing the guy who was interviewed hasn't been > > > heard from since because he's discovered that he made > > > a huge fuss over nothing, or very little, and he's now > > > horribly embarrassed. >
