The gall of BP and their federal overseers in withholding the fact that the “top kill” effort was suspended for much of yesterday is almost too outrageous to be believed. Officials from both the oil giant and the government gave the impression Thursday morning that their efforts to plug the gushing well with heavy drilling mud were working—even though the company had stopped pumping mud around midnight on Wednesday. The obfuscation continued until late in the afternoon, when a technician told the New York Times that BP had suspended the operation the previous night because too much mud was leaking from the riser along with the oil.
This afternoon, it appears that the optimism, if not the substance, of what was conveyed may have been warranted. BP now says that it has suppressed the flow of oil in the Gulf by supplementing the mud with an injection of bulky items, termed the “junk shot,” and will maintain the pressure and attempt to cap the well with cement. But the failure yesterday to alert the public as the process unfolded is good evidence that BP is ignoring the first lesson in disaster management PR: transparency. It also serves as a troubling reminder that so much of what is happening with the spill, almost a mile underwater, is beyond the scrutiny of truly independent oversight. As late as Thursday afternoon, Coast Guard Admiral and National Incident Commander Thad Allen, who has seemed like a reliably straight shooting source of information thus far, said in his typically jargon-heavy language that BP was continuing to pump mud into the well and that hydrocarbons had stopped leaking into the Gulf. Neither of those claims was true at the time, if today’s media reports are accurate.
Update, 11:30 p.m.: Late Friday afternoon, The New York Times ran a story online that appeared on the front page of Saturday’s paper, which reported that BP was still not shooting straight with the media or the public. Again, BP and the Coast Guard did not acknowledge a twelve-hour interruption and issued ‘mission accomplished-esque’ comments that are misleading at best. Here’s the relevant quote from the Times story:
BP suspended pumping operations at 2:30 a.m. Friday after two junk shot attempts, said the technician, who spoke on the condition of anonymity because he was not authorized to speak publicly about the efforts. They resumed the procedure at about 3:45 local time, after the nearly 12-hour interruption.
The suspension of the effort was not announced, and appeared to again contradict statements by company and government officials that suggested the top kill procedure was progressing Friday.
The disturbing and intentional miscommunication should sharpen journalists’ skepticism about reports on things they can’t see with their own eyes. Unfortunately, in the case of the Deepwater Horizon disaster, that category contains much of what is actually going on. But beyond that, even what should be plain to see is being hidden. The misinformation about the stalled top kill follows reports about BP’s attempts to thwart photographers and camera crews on the ground or in the water from documenting the crude that’s washing ashore. The local cops are helping to run interference, and Newsweek’s Matthew Philips reports that BP has also sought to prevent overflights by journalists. This is unacceptable, and may be even illegal on its face, but Philips notes the broader significance: the pictures of stricken wildlife provide the most tangible and gut-wrenching evidence of the suffering this catastrophe has and will continue to cause:
The ability to document a disaster, particularly through images, is key to focusing the nation’s attention on it, and the resulting clean-up efforts. Within days of the 1989 Exxon Valdez spill, pictures of dead otters, fish, and birds, as well as oil-covered shorelines, ignited nationwide outrage and led to a backlash against Exxon. Consumers returned some 10,000 of Exxon’s 7 million credit cards. Forty days after the spill, protestors organized a national boycott of Exxon. So far, no national boycott of BP is in the works, despite growing frustration over the company’s inability to cap the leaking well. Obviously, pictures are emerging from this spill, but much of the images are coming from BP and government sources.

I watched CNN this morning when they had President Obama on telling what he had learned in talking to the governors, city mayors etc. Two things I noticed but he mentioned only one in passing . Mr. Barber is governor of Mississippi--Right? Why was he not there? Crist from Florida was and so were those from Louisiana and Alabama. Also he was on white sand near the Isle that has been hit the most. What if anything did he see of Louisiana's marshlands, the dying reeds, the dying or dead birds, the open nests with no parent hatching the new chicks or chicks getting oil soaked food? He mentioned medical problems but did he notice the air full of oil and gas fumes??? I wrote a note for him and his staff to ask Malia what else did she know about what is going on in the Gulf States, especially the marshlands. If I had extra money, I'd bet she knows more about those items I just listed than Obama does. He's still too much of a "city boy" with little experience in country /rural problems caused by messes like BP's. I have lived in both and worked in both so I still can tell the difference between winter milk and spring milk after the cows are sent out to pasture. He's most likely to used to gas and oil smells from the gasoline stations to tell the difference. Yet many of the poor that already have asthma are being hit hard with gas and oil fumes 50 miles north of the Gulf. That doesn't tell anyone that BP understated and most likely still is??? Scientists and outside engineers need to add their tests to those being done by the animal groups--whose names I don't remember. This disaster won't go away for years to come. The ones that are doing the least are the Congress people in allotting money for unemployment and jobs activities in the marshlands and the oil-soaked shores on the islands and shorelines of all Gulf States. They never sent all the money needed after Katrina. What makes him think they will this time with out PUSH!!!!
#1 Posted by Patricia Wilson, CJR on Fri 28 May 2010 at 07:11 PM
Just a small correction. Sperm whales are hunters that forage large squid and such near the sea floor. Filter species, if I understand the term correctly, are things like the whale shark and the blue whale, animals that don't have a predator's teeth and scour the ocean for plankton.
Correct me if I am wrong.
#2 Posted by Thimbles, CJR on Sat 29 May 2010 at 01:05 AM
Mirrors and The Fun House
My oh my: The New York Times and The Observatory harshly (and justifiably) critique BP for not being transparent and straight with the media and the public. Meanwhile, The New York Times turns a gentle blind eye to ExxonMobil, one of its largest advertisers. And, The Observatory gives the white glove treatment to The New York Times on that and other matters. I've been critiquing The Times and The Observatory, as well as offering to help The Observatory on its analysis of The Times, to no avail. How Orwellian can you get?
When The Observatory is ready to get serious about critiquing The Times' coverage of ExxonMobil in relation to climate change (and other issues), just let me know. I'm here. And when The Times is ready to get serious about covering ExxonMobil, it should let me know as well. Again, I'm here.
In the meantime, I guess all one can say is, "enjoy the Fun House".
Jeff
#3 Posted by Jeff Huggins, CJR on Sat 29 May 2010 at 02:33 AM
Ran a quick check:
http://www.nwf.org/News-and-Magazines/National-Wildlife/Animals/Archives/2010/sperm-whales-Gulf.aspx
"For sperm whales, which are not filter feeders, the biggest threat from the spilled oil and from the toxic chemical dispersants used by BP to break up the oil is the harm that may be done to prey species deep under water, where the spill is originating. Even if not killed outright, prey animals are likely to absorb the toxins and pass them on to the whales. This factor could impair reproduction in both whales and their prey."
#4 Posted by Thimbles, CJR on Sat 29 May 2010 at 02:39 AM
Not seeing the quote "The company suspended..." in the NYT story linked. Has the online version of the story been changed since it was posted, or does the link go to the wrong story?
#5 Posted by confused, CJR on Sat 29 May 2010 at 09:18 AM
Thimbles, thanks for catching the error related to sperm whales. I've posted a correction.
Confused, the New York Times story appears to have been changed. Many blogs quoted the original article, however. See this NPR post, for example.
#6 Posted by Curtis Brainard, CJR on Sat 29 May 2010 at 09:49 AM
i just hope the Ghanaian government and its regulatory authourities as well as the local journalists are taking a cue from the mess in the Gulf in handling the activities of Tullow, Kosmos and the numerious oil companies than have invaded the emerging oil industry in Ghana. I think the US government must be more bitting in getting the BP to urgently end the mess in the Gulf to save the environment before it is too late.
#7 Posted by theo annim- Takoradi, Ghana, CJR on Sun 30 May 2010 at 04:59 PM
Patricia Wilson is right, Obama is too much of a city slicker to know how to handle the disaster in the Gulf. If only we could have Bush as president again, with his country roots and oilman background, he'd be doing a heckuva job down there on the Louisiana coast!
#8 Posted by Toasty, CJR on Tue 1 Jun 2010 at 12:37 AM
Unfortunately, current reports on Central and North Queensland floods are motly inaccurate, with news media readers 'reporting' rehashed news and media organisations presenting film footage of areas hundreds of k's from the regional towns they are discussing.
Fro example, an 'interview' with a Rockhampton radio announcer showed an image of his face followed by wide-spread footage of Emerald, Theodore, Mareebra and so on with next to no footage of the place under discussion.
What little footage existed coud have been from 1991 floods.
Why, I wonder is there no real current news?Haven't I paid for news to be DELIVERED?
#9 Posted by diamonds on my heels, CJR on Wed 29 Dec 2010 at 08:14 PM