An official, definitive source for this is lacking, just as it has been for the daily flow rate of oil into the Gulf. It may be well over 25,000 barrels per day. For a truly head-spinning but highly informative roundup of the various estimates, see this this piece by the Associated Press’s Seth Borenstein.
Why is airspace over the spill area restricted to the point where journalists cannot fly over the affected territory? Why are journalists threatened with arrest by law enforcement if they dare to take pictures of dead animals?
By the end of May, some media outlets had reported that BP was being excessively strict restrictions were impeding coverage of the spill. Several articles detailed news crews being threatened with arrest or denied access to public land. Most troubling about these roadblocks for journalists is that they have been enacted by law enforcement officials. A Newsweek piece includes this telling quote: “It’s a running joke among the journalists covering the story that the words ‘Coast Guard’ affixed to any vehicle, vessel, or plane should be prefixed with ‘BP,’ ” says Charlie Varley, a Louisiana-based photographer. “It would be funny if it were not so serious.”
One would think that once the press began to report on their restrictions in coverage, BP and the government would feel the pressure to ease up. However, a New York Times story published on June 9 indicates that conditions have, at the very least, remained just as bad. The article specifically highlights the difficulties in gaining flight clearance to document the effects of the spill through photography or video—which, when coupled with the surprisingly small amount of media released by BP itself, raises serious questions (as if there weren’t already enough) over BP’s integrity.
Observatory editor Curtis Brainard contributed reporting to this article.
Dear Ethan and Curtis,
May I ask, why did you not address the questions I posed when you sought questions in that earlier piece? (The questions I posed are still there, in the fourth or fifth comment.)
I'm a bit confused about the point, here. Is the point of The Observatory and of CJR mainly to fill in the informational gaps that sometimes occur in the regular news reports, or to collect answers from various news reports or other sources regarding the substantive matters (e.g., how much oil is leaking? or what do we know about whether BP might go bankrupt?), OR, instead, is the point of CJR and The Observatory to monitor the media, examine, and provide analysis associated with how well the media are reporting an issue and why? Is the point of CJR and The Observatory to be just another player in the media, or is it to examine, analyze, critique, and improve the media? To ensure that the media are genuinely serving the public good, and nothing less?
Can you clear that up for me, please?
Thanks,
Jeff
#1 Posted by Jeff Huggins, CJR on Sat 12 Jun 2010 at 09:53 PM
I believe this is a very nice vehicle for hearing from readers what they are questioning and seeking answers to when events occur. Please keep asking.......
#2 Posted by bob, CJR on Mon 14 Jun 2010 at 07:27 PM
Sorry, I had to confirm I could post this.
http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2011/02/20/bp_oil_spill_lingers
"Oil from the BP spill remains stuck on the bottom of the Gulf of Mexico, according to a top scientist's video and slides that she says demonstrate the oil isn't degrading as hoped and has decimated life on parts of the sea floor.
That report is at odds with a recent report by the BP spill compensation czar that said nearly all will be well by 2012.
At a science conference in Washington Saturday, marine scientist Samantha Joye of the University of Georgia aired early results of her December submarine dives around the BP spill site. She went to places she had visited in the summer and expected the oil and residue from oil-munching microbes would be gone by then. It wasn't...
The head of the agency in charge of the health of the Gulf said Saturday that she thought that "most of the oil is gone." And a Department of Energy scientist, doing research with a grant from BP from before the spill, said his examination of oil plumes in the water column show that microbes have done a "fairly fast" job of eating the oil. Lawrence Berkeley National Lab scientist Terry Hazen said his research differs from Joye's because they looked at different places at different times.
Joye's research was more widespread, but has been slower in being published in scientific literature.
In five different expeditions, the last one in December, Joye and colleagues took 250 cores of the sea floor and travelled across 2,600 square miles. Some of the locations she had been studying before the oil spill on April 20 and said there was a noticeable change. Much of the oil she found on the sea floor -- and in the water column -- was chemically fingerprinted, proving it comes from the BP spill. Joye is still waiting for results to show other oil samples she tested are from BP's Macondo well....
Earlier this month, Kenneth Feinberg, the government's oil compensation fund czar, said based on research he commissioned he figured the Gulf of Mexico would almost fully recover by 2012 -- something Joye and Lubchenco said isn't right.
"I've been to the bottom. I've seen what it looks like with my own eyes. It's not going to be fine by 2012," Joye told The Associated Press. "You see what the bottom looks like, you have a different opinion."..
NOAA chief Lubchenco said "even though the oil degraded relatively rapidly and is now mostly but not all gone, damage done to a variety of species may not become obvious for years to come."
Lubchenco Saturday also announced the start of a Gulf restoration planning process to get the Gulf back to the condition it was on Apr. 19, the day before the spill. That program would eventually be paid for BP and other parties deemed responsible for the spill. This would be separate from an already begun restoration program that would improve all aspects of the Gulf, not just the oil spill, but has not been funded by the government yet, she said."
It's good that the NOAA work is going to be funded by BP, which has been so impartial at every stage of this event, since the republicans are defunding the NOAA.
http://climateprogress.org/2011/02/18/gop-cuts-noaa-satellite-weather-forecasting-and-hurricane-tracking/
#3 Posted by Thimbles, CJR on Sun 20 Feb 2011 at 05:57 PM