The Washington Post published a misleadingly-titled article June 30 about the environmental effects of dispersants BP is using in the Gulf. The Post article's headline reads,"Oil dispersant does not pose environmental threat, early EPA findings suggest." But neither the body of the article, nor the Environmental Protection Agency's's press release about studies the agency hastily performed on eight dispersants, indicates that there is no environmental threat from using them. The agency also gives no assurance about using dispersants in the quantities BP is applying them. EPA's June 30 press release about the studies says "dispersants are generally less toxic than oil," but does not suggest dispersants pose no environmental threat. The EPA's testing was also very limited. The agency only tested for short-term endocrine-disrupting activity of the dispersants, only tested dispersants alone (not mixed with oil, as they are in the Gulf), and tested the chemicals only on mature life forms and not young life forms, like juveniles and larvae, which are more vulnerable to the effects of chemicals. EPA also studied only very short-term exposures. The agency admits that "additional testing is needed to further inform the use of dispersants." Questions remain about why the federal government is allowing BP to engage in such widespread use of toxic chemicals in the ocean in the absence of any clear data showing it is harmless, and why the Washington Post article had such a spurious title.
The fallout from Michael Hastings' inflammatory article in Rolling Stone about General Stanley McChrystal continues as journalists debate the appropriateness of Hastings' reporting.
British Petroleum has stooped to a new low, if that's at all possible. As if spewing over 80 million gallons into the Gulf of Mexico were not a sufficiently criminal activity, they are now attempting a cover-up and have facilitated, working alongside the police of New Orleans, a blockade of sorts of hard-hitting journalists from getting their hands on what's actually taking place in the ravaged Big Easy. It is truly a sham of epic proportions. And now, word of a big hurricane with winds of up to 90 MPH rolling into town has surfaced. Trouble, it appears, has just begun in the Bayou.
Mitigating the Exposure
Mother Jones, known for hard-hitting, deep-digging, no-holds-barred journalism, has approached coverage of the on-going and seemingly perpetual BP oil spill with the same vigor as usual in its reporting. Unfortunately, they've got some competition, or as astronaut Jack Swigert of Apollo 13 once said before going down, "Houston, we've had a problem!" The problem? BP is doing everything in its power to stop journalists dead in their tracks and scare them away from exposing their crime of poisoning the Gulf.
The narrative the media is feeding the country this election season is that voters are enraged, and an anti-incumbent wave is sweeping across the country, striking terror in incumbents' hearts. But if that's really the case, then why were so many incumbents voted back into office in last Tuesday's election?
When parents of toddlers started complaining that Procter & Gamble's new "Dry Max" Pampers were giving their kids severe diaper rash, Jodi Allen, P&G's Vice President for Pampers took prompt action -- and blamed the childrens' parents and social media for spreading false rumors about their products.
After Utah death-row inmate Ronnie Lee Gardner selected the firing squad as his method of execution, the Salt Lake Tribune responded by highlighting how this event may impact Utah's tourism. Given the highly contentious nature of use a firing squad in the first place, one would expect coverage of this news to focus more on the barbaric nature of this practice.
The Center for Media and Democracy's PRWatch is launching a free seminar series for spin-watchers like you. Our first one was scheduled for this week, and was going to focus on the new vacancy on the U.S. Supreme Court and what it means for everyday people who are concerned about the Citizens United decision and its aftermath.
This audio seminar was canceled due to unforeseen technical/logistical problems.
In the future, we plan to provide an opportunity to:
- Find out insider details about choosing and confirming a lifetime appointee to the Court.
- Learn about how the next justice may influence legal policies you care about.
- Ask Lisa your questions about the Supreme Court and Citizens United.
- Hear about ways to join the fight against corporations controlling our democracy.
CMD's new Executive Director, Lisa Graves, previously served as the Chief Counsel for Nominations for the U.S. Senate Judiciary Committee and as Deputy Assistant Attorney General at the U.S. Department of Justice, working with the White House on judicial selection in the Clinton Administration. Her plain-spoken but deeply researched analysis of public policy issues has been featured on CNN, Free Speech TV, and Democracy Now! and credited in the New York Times, The Nation, The Progressive, and Vanity Fair and by numerous journalists over the past decade.
The PBS television program Frontline selectively edited an interview with a single-payer health insurance advocate, and film footage of people protesting in support of single-payer, to make it look as though they were advocating a public option instead.
The U.S. Chamber of Commerce is publicizing a set of state-level polls that they claim show that "voters overwhelmingly oppose the creation of a new Consumer Financial Protection Agency," a component of financial reform legislation set to be debated next week in the House of Representatives. The survey polled 500 voters each in Nebraska and Arkansas, and was performed by the polling firm Ayres McHenry & Associates. Previous polls done by Ayres McHenry for the Chamber have been deemed unreliable by the New York Times, and not up to their standards for publication.
Fox News will debut a new program featuring Sarah Palin called "Real American Stories" that, according to Palin's introduction of the show, tells true stories of real Americans who have overcome adversity and who pride themselves on their character. But Fox has had to pull one of the initial episodes because of objections from the subject of the segment.