Skip to main content

View Diary: Exxon orders sheriffs to disperse reporters with threats of arrest (207 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  You are so right, I bow to your expertise (5+ / 0-)

    How silly of us to think that Exxon was controlling the airspace in order to keep the press from flying over and filming the spill and cleanup efforts.  Why, whatever would give us ideas like that?  I mean, it's not like they were ordering the local Sherrif to arrest the press or anything...yesterday.

    "We refuse to fight in a war started by men who refused to fight in a war." -freewayblogger

    by Bisbonian on Sat Apr 06, 2013 at 08:00:41 PM PDT

    [ Parent ]

    •  What's with the sarcasm? (7+ / 0-)

      I'm actually asking questions of procedure based on facts on the ground and even agreeing with you on the use of "fascism" in this case.  Because, as I alluded to, it's a two-pronged sword: perhaps it makes sense to give the clean-up company responsibility for a limited area and duration for reasons of reacting as efficiently as possible, but this being a corporation with liabilities to consider, they will also use that opening to hide as much as possible from public (and governmental) view.

      I think you're reading something into my tone which isn't there, unfortunately.  I am wondering if it's typical for the FAA to give local coordination to the actual responders, even if they are non-governmental personnel.  I enjoy questioning processes to determine what is awry.

      Or, perhaps this is another example of Republicans dismantling government for private aims: maybe there are so few bodies in the EPA, FAA, etc. that they don't have enough talented resources to spare for coordination and oversight at the site itself, so using the liable company has become de facto practice (see: BP spill in the Gulf of Mexico), which falls directly into Republican desires.

      "So, please stay where you are. Don't move and don't panic. Don't take off your shoes! Jobs is on the way."

      by wader on Sat Apr 06, 2013 at 08:09:38 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  There still isn't a lot of context here (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:

        The two sources in question here are Inside Climate News and Mother Jones, not exactly neutral or unbiased organizations.

        We don't understand if the 'command center' is private property or not. We don't have a complete account of interactions between the reporters, Exxon officials, and police. We don't know on what legal basis most of this occurred, or even what legal basis Exxon is operating under in dealing with the spill.

        The diarist and the diary sources all are incentivized to make Exxon look bad, as demonstrated by the previous hyperventilating diary about routine flight bans in the affected area being evidence of a conspiracy. It needs to be that way, because a diary about a generally responsibly handled business-as-usual cleanup due to a (possibly negligent and irresponsible) accident doesn't make the rec list. I mean, could you see a diary describing what a good job Exxon did with the cleanup hitting the rec list? Me either.

        In any case, it is difficult to argue the Exxon is trying (or succeeding) to black out the media when a trivial amount of Googling finds photo album articles like this one. By all means, it is important to have public oversight of this mess and to understand how it happened, but hyperventilating about corporate fascism and the like doesn't help anyone (other than diarists and organizations looking for page views).

        (-5.50,-6.67): Left Libertarian
        Leadership doesn't mean taking a straw poll and then just throwing up your hands. -Jyrinx

        by Sparhawk on Sun Apr 07, 2013 at 09:03:16 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site