Despite repeated promises to improve transparency, BP, the United States government, and their contractors are still inhibiting the media’s ability to cover the largest oil spill in the country’s history, which began April 20 with the explosion of the Deepwater Horizon drilling rig.
The first reports of journalists being denied access to beaches and flights over the offshore spill area surfaced in late May, drawing the ire of many news outlets and sparking some coverage of the obstructions. In response, Adm. Thad Allen of the Coast Guard, who is overseeing the federal response to the oil spill, issued a memo (pdf) ordering greater transparency:
This correspondence serves as a written reminder to all parties involved, in any matter whatsoever, and at any level of the response organization, that media shall, at all times, be afforded access to response operations and shall only be asked to leave an area when their presence is in violation of an existing law or regulation, clearly violates the written site safety plan for the area or interferes with effective operations.
BP’s Chief Operating Officer, Doug Suttles, followed up on June 9 with a letter (pdf) to response personnel, stating that “BP fully supports and defends all individuals’ rights to share their personal thoughts and experiences with journalists if they so choose.” At the same time, however, Suttles argued that, “Recent media reports have suggested that individuals involved in the clean up operation have been prohibited from speaking to the media, and this is simply not true.”
Whether he is simply ignorant or willfully prevaricating (as BP has been known to do throughout this ordeal), Suttles was dead wrong, and a lack of transparency continues to be one of many pockmarks marring industry and government’s response to the oil spill. On Wednesday evening, the Associated Press produced a terrific article that highlighted ongoing access problems and catalogued half a dozen instances of media obstruction since the beginning of June.
One of those instances involved WDSU, a New Orleans television station, which reported last Friday that:
Private security guards patrolling an oil-stained portion of Grand Isle attempted repeatedly to prevent a WDSU news crew from walking on a public beach and speaking with cleanup workers — a confrontation that followed a BP corporate promise not to interfere in such a manner.
It was the second day in a row WDSU News anchor Scott Walker was approached by hired security in the area.
On Monday, USA Today published an editorial complaining that:
BP maintains these are anomalies. But every such attempt deepens the impression that BP, having caused the worst environmental disaster in U.S. history, is trying to manipulate what the public sees about it….
Just as outrageous have been the government’s controlling actions.
According to the Associated Press article, AP’s senior managing editor, Michael Oreskes, wrote to White House press secretary Robert Gibbs on Wednesday, “demanding that President Barack Obama’s administration improve media access.” The article also noted that:
AP first contacted Obama on June 5, outlining its concerns in a letter from President and CEO Tom Curley. Gibbs followed up with a call to AP editors and a written response. If journalists have concerns, Gibbs said, they can call to report their experiences with a joint information center run by the federal government and BP in Houma, La.
Oreskes called the number from his office in New York on Tuesday and left a message, but has not received a response. Also on Tuesday, however, the Unified Area Command overseeing the response efforts announced that it was moving its offices from Robert, Louisiana to New Orleans in order to “facilitate continued 24-hour activities and decision making … [and] move response command staff closer to operational locations along the coast.” At the same time, the Unified Command also announced two new phone numbers for reporters to contact the Joint Information Center: (713) 323-1670 and (713) 323-1671.

Maybe a few journalists need to request the use of John Stewart's rip on Wednesday night's The Daily Show illustrating that at least 8--EIGHT--presidents had promised a new energy plan that included solar, wind and nuclear. Nixon got three bills signed starting with the EPA that Republicans have tried to knock off its seat for years now. If Obama doesn't want to look like all 7 of his predecessors, he must put the bills up with the Democrats and get it signed within the time prior to November voting. As far as I'm concerned any senator or representative not voting in favor of a strong energy bill for taxing and fining misuse and incompetent actions plus jobs for workers in the start-up companies of solar, etc and aid to expand those that can be expanded must be put out of office. PBS News last night showed a wind farm in South Baja, California with the possibility of power for over 1,000,000 homes once the power grids were built. But hesitation or obstruction of energy changes and regulation plus money for unemployed workers and state aid for basic education and health is obscene and all negative members need to be replaced with those that will put these bills up and make sure they are enacted IMMEDIATELY.
#1 Posted by Patricia Wilson, CJR on Thu 17 Jun 2010 at 05:39 PM
You want to stop this oil leak then talk to me. May be I am small But this thing has to be stopped with your techonolgy. I am looking forward if some body can contact me.
Jag Bahra
#2 Posted by jag, CJR on Thu 17 Jun 2010 at 11:39 PM
Well, well, well, CJR and readers, lefties and Obama voters. You voted for this guy and this is what you've got. Spineless, egg-sucking dog liberals. Wherever they go, Dems ought to be pelted with black, goopy sludge.
#3 Posted by Kerry, CJR on Fri 18 Jun 2010 at 07:20 AM
Yea P.Wilson...how long have they been working on that wind farm? If wind farms were economically feasible and useful, you wouldn't need the government to provide subsidies. If wind was the way to go, we wouldn't have developed and begun using oil. Did you see what happened in Minnesota this WINTER? The wind turbines didn't work when the temperature dropped below 32F. The rest of the world is drilling and the US is gonna be returning to the Dark Ages. For God's sake...Viet Nam and Angola are drilling in the Gulf of Mexico along with Mexico,Cuba and China. Get a grip.
#4 Posted by red131, CJR on Fri 18 Jun 2010 at 08:07 AM
And today, almost no coverage whatsoever....none. The worst environmental disaster to hit OUR COUNTRY, and Obama from day one, has the Obamamedia hiding it.
#5 Posted by Fred, CJR on Fri 18 Jun 2010 at 10:17 AM
Fascism begins on the left. Mussolini was a socialist before he became a corporatist and Hitler was a national socialist. A free market is too difficult to control for the Chicago machine. Controlling access to information is just one stage.
#6 Posted by Banjo, CJR on Fri 18 Jun 2010 at 11:03 AM
Funny how the press went to court to get access during Hurricane Katrina (and did such a horrible job covering it), but now? Just complaining. Why is that?
#7 Posted by Christopher Taylor, CJR on Fri 18 Jun 2010 at 11:49 AM
Subsidiarity - assign the fix to the level of government closest to the problem
with the resources to do the job.
Transparency - All data from all sources should be made public for evaluation
and recommendations from any interested parties.
#8 Posted by M. Report, CJR on Fri 18 Jun 2010 at 05:59 PM
The Sunday Times' Amazon Story -- The WHY
Dear Curtis and The Observatory:
Will you be doing a piece on the process that led to the incorrect (and now apparently retracted) Amazon story in The Sunday Times -- including (as the central matter) the WHY of the matter?
In other words, the facts having to do with the article's incorrectness have been written about, to a degree anyhow. And a few of the steps in the process have been written about, to a slight degree anyhow. But, as far as I can tell, the "WHY" of the matter hasn't been written about, and that is by far the larger part of the story (and probably the part with the most relevance to an organization that is trying to analyze and improve the practice of journalism).
WHY was the story changed at the last minute? WHY were comments ignored? WHY did the editor do whatever he/she did? WHY did The Times feel the need to change the story? What policies, practices, paradigms, and journalistic attitudes (within The Times) can be understood by understanding what happened with this particular story and WHY it happened? WHY did The Times give the public a story that (certainly) more than one person within The Times knew to be mistaken and misleading and, indeed, downright incorrect?
These are questions for The Observatory, if I understand the role and mission of The Observatory at all. (Or am I wrong?)
Please let us know if you will be covering this matter and doing your very best to get to the bottom of it.
Thanks,
Jeff
#9 Posted by Jeff Huggins, CJR on Tue 22 Jun 2010 at 09:41 AM
Dear Curtis,
Can I (and the reading public) get an answer on the question I posed in my earlier comment, above? Please.
The New York Times runs an incorrect and misleading story on an important matter. Was the reason mere "accident" (somehow), or were the causes in total (or in part) reflective of systemic approaches, paradigms, and attitudes among some of the writers and editors and etc.? WHY did the article get changed just before running it, WHY did it run even though at least some people knew it was erroneous, WHY were important comments ignored, and so forth? The question is -- WHY?
Is it the role of The Observatory to explore journalism -- including the important WHYs, systemic paradigms, and so forth -- or is it not? Are we going to ignore elephants in the room, or are we going to shine light on them, explore them, and push for improvement where improvement is warranted?
I'm sorry to be pushy, but improvement calls for pushiness sometimes, and it seems to me that that's the case with the media, and with organizations that are supposed to monitor and critique the media, when it comes to climate change coverage.
Please let us know.
Thank you,
Jeff
#10 Posted by Jeff Huggins, CJR on Tue 22 Jun 2010 at 11:05 PM
Huggins?
CJR has been slow to clean up it's own messes, via its "climate gate" and "Acorn pimp" coverage.
Partly because the media has been so embarrassingly bad on these issues it's hard to know where to start. Partly because the media has been so embarrassingly bad on these issues that an honest assessment would burn a lot of bridges. Partly because when they do correct stupid coverage, the usual trolls come in and accuse cjr writers of being maoists and lie-berals.
But it's also partly because they're lazy.
So I don't expect much in response to you, but at least you can inform others of the situation you're addressing by posting a relevant link:
http://climateprogress.org/2010/06/20/amazon-ipcc-climategate-sunday-times-jonathan-leake-simon-lewis-apology-retraction/
#11 Posted by Thimbles, CJR on Wed 23 Jun 2010 at 12:52 AM
PS. In the group of the lazy I don't include Ryan Chittam and Trudy Lieberman, but they aren't on the environmental beat.
#12 Posted by Thimbles, CJR on Wed 23 Jun 2010 at 12:54 AM
Jeff, thanks for you comment. First, let me point out the story in question came from The Sunday Times (of London) - not The New York Times. Second, I sent an email to The Sunday Times' ombudsman, Bob Tyrer, as soon as I learned of the retraction, asking him to explain why a comment by Dr. Simon Lewis at the bottom of Leake's story was deleted; why the Times did not publish a letter he sent to them explaining the mistakes in Leake's story; why the Times re-wrote the story Leake's story at the last minute when apparently Leake knew very well it was inaccurate. I received a reply from Tyrer stating that he is currently serving on jury duty and responding to emails slowly. I called the Times today and left a message; no response yet. And Thimbles, to your point, I don't know what "mess" you're referring to. When Leake's article first appeared, we wrote an article pointing out that he seemed to get it wrong, and we recommended the coverage of the BBC's Roger Harrabin instead, who had pointed out that although the Amazon statement was poorly referenced, it was indeed supported by science. In his complaint to the Press Complaints Commission Dr. Simon Lewis also highlighted Harrabin's work as good journalism, so I am proud of our coverage and don't think it constitutes a mess at all. Throughout the "Climategate" and IPCC errors controversies we consistently argued that the American press needed to get out ahead of the story, which the British press was leading - not to inflate the controversy, but rather to deflate it.
#13 Posted by Curtis Brainard, CJR on Wed 23 Jun 2010 at 11:33 AM
Hi Curtis,
Thanks for your thoughts and the info -- and thanks for the correction. I've been at a conference this past week and just assumed (incorrectly!) that the problem was at The New York Times, confusing The Sunday Times with The Sunday Magazine in The New York Times. Yikes. Oops. Sorry. And thanks for the correction.
It's great to hear that you are following up with the person at The Sunday Times. Please let us know what you come up with. Thanks.
You know, I've become convinced -- at what I think of as the 99.9 percent confidence level, if not higher -- that most of the mainstream media have lost sight of the importance and specialness of their (presumed) role in a modern democracy. At least, that's what their products, approaches, comments, and answers strongly suggest -- and I mean STRONGLY.
So, that leaves me wondering whether the leading schools of journalism have also forgotten. And, because organizations such as The Observatory, and other organizations aimed at observing and improving the media, do not raise that issue, at its foundational level, seriously and firmly, it all leaves me wondering if they too do not see the problem, which is an immense and consequential one. To me -- and to many many other bright people -- there is a HUGE ELEPHANT in the room, not being mentioned or discussed.
Am I right, or am I wrong? Do media organizations "get it"? Do they understand what they are facilitating, encouraging, enabling, and (in many cases) actually fueling and doing that is immensely harmful? Have they lost sight of what the phrase "public good" means?
That is the real question. Is anyone going to raise it and pursue it?
Thanks Curtis. I'm sorry to vent, and I do appreciate your comment. But these matters are important. Please let me know if I'm wrong or, instead, if I'm just raising an issue that is a genuinely untouchable elephant in the room.
Cheers,
Jeff
#14 Posted by Jeff Huggins, CJR on Wed 23 Jun 2010 at 06:51 PM
Curtis, what you printed was a desire for the American press to give more room than they already do to skeptics, just like the British and Australian press.
http://www.cjr.org/the_observatory/mia_on_the_ipcc.php
What hasn't been done is a review of the findings of various organizations clearing the accused scientists of their accusations. Therefore, just like much of the other media, the accusation gets printed on the front page and the debunk gets printed on the back if at all.
Which leaves public consciousness in a state of suspect about the underlying science.
But aside from climate, where is the intricate coverage of the ongoing climate/energy negociations which Trudy Lieberman provided on the health care debate?
You've mentioned how many papers are closing their environmental bureaus, if there was a place where cjr could fill a void, this would be it. It seems to take a disaster of BP magnitude to shake the environmental section to action, hell, it was Ryan Chittam who published a link to the Monsanto super weed problem
http://www.cjr.org/the_audit/audit_notes_around_and_a_round.php
That isn't his beat. Where are you folks?
Sorry to be harsh, but you guys aren't proactive during a time when you should be. There's lots of stories to cover, from the ending of the recent solar minimum and the potential effect of an increasingly active sun on temperature, to the issue of coal emissions and what their legislative future might be versus what is should be, to the issue of fracking featured in the documentary gasland which was covered on democracy now.
Now I don't expect you guys to compete with grist and the hippies at democracy now, but when comedy central is beating you to the story? When Jon Stewart is picking up the leads you neglected? When the finance and business department of your own website is giving coverage to important stories you miss? Come on.
The times demand you to be proactive and the record shows you to be inactive and herd driven.
Again, sorry to be harsh, but...at least now you know some areas which could be improved.
Cheers
#15 Posted by Thimbles, CJR on Thu 24 Jun 2010 at 02:22 AM
Seconding Thimbles
Curtis, I don't know all the details about some of the things "Thimbles" mentions in her (or his) comment (June 24, 2:22 AM), but I agree with the essential problem that Thimbles points out. And MANY others do as well. There will be growing numbers of comments like those from myself and Thimbles and others, and you (and CJR) should be proactively leading the way rather than hesitantly and slowly reacting to dropped balls in the media, after the fact, and to criticisms here. What about the mission to observe and understand problems in the media and then to push to have them corrected?
I second Thimbles and am hopeful that the CJR will actually perform its supposed role with full vivacity, courage, intelligence, proactivity, and effectiveness.
Please let me know if I can somehow help. I'd rather help than criticize.
Cheers,
Jeff
#16 Posted by Jeff Huggins, CJR on Thu 24 Jun 2010 at 12:55 PM