How much of this is reasonable to allow the cleanup to continue unimpeded and how much is to keep the public from knowing how bad it is and not tarnish BP’s image further (is that possible?)? And doesn’t a felony conviction for taking a picture seem a tad steep?
Subscribe to Main Blog feed here:
Subscribe to Comments too (below):
Bad Behavior has blocked 25415 access attempts in the last 7 days.
You’ve got to be kidding. You’re outraged over having to be 65 feet away? That doesn’t even require a zoom lens to get a clear picture. This doesn’t sound like trying to protect BP, it sounds like common sense to keep reporters from getting in the way of cleanup crews.
They are just upset because under this administration, the government controlled media was going to be more powerful than ever. Now they realize that the reward for their total and complete support for Obama is to be treated like everyone else. Selling your soul rarely pays off as well as you hope.
Transparency & change. Yup, all the promises have been kept & accomplished.
The camera is the new gun. Government doesn’t like things it finds threatening.
Move along, nothing to see here.
I’m getting tired of hearing about the oil spill. Shut up already.
If they really think it is a violation of freedom of the press, they have the resources to get an emergency ruling from a Federal Court. On the other hand, if they don’t challenge it, they have an opportunity for endless segments bitching about it and an excuse when they miss something.
Personally, the way it was described by Mr Anderson, it does not seem an unreasonable restriction. Hell, I could use my cell phone and get decent pix from 65 feet!
@#1 This particular example is 65 feet away. There are whole islands and similarly large areas literally blocked from any (including journalistic) access on behalf of BP by the Federal Govt.
Blocking any access by Govt. forces for private company wants is what is outrageous.
And, if you look just few months back Beyond Petroleum was (is) the main industry supporter of Obama administration energy and carbon initiatives. Guess how these two facts combine: corrupt administration.
The media just woke up to the fact that we are living in a police state. Welcome to the party boys. Now, how about you start doing your job.
The problem is, journalists and news crews may cause damage in the process of them going over the booms, etc, to access the islands, and as we all know, they won’t repair any damage they do in the process. I doubt they have flying boats. 65 feet seems fair. A large threat is needed, since these news organizations have deep pockets and willing to pay fines…they really need a large deterrent to stop them from doing damage.
#6 your wish has come true – haven’t you watched the news lately – since the hurricane “threat” they stopped all clean-up as well as oil recovery from the well. And the media just stopped covering everything. The story just lost its legs.
65 feet “seems” reasonable. Any camera with a zoom can get all the types of pictures that Cooper was referring to.
But, imagine you’re a reporter on a boat somewhere out near some marshes. You’re staying well back from the clean-up, maybe 100 feet or more. But someone decides they don’t want you around, so the Coast Guard just shows up and arrests you. How do you prove you were 100 feet away? Maybe weeks later when they look at your footage. But by then it’s too late.
Change you can believe in!
Guess you can’t blame Bush/Cheney for this one, can you. Your Messiah has spoken, listen or go to jail.
#8, the company’s name is “British Petroleum” “Beyond Petroleum” was just some marketing gimmick to make Americans more comfortable with the foreign held company.
65 feet is close enough to get a picture but far enough away to keep the press out of the way. Imagine trying to clean up a spill and having a crowd of photographers around you like it’s TMZ. Photographers make it a habit of not respecting space, they fight with each to get the best shot. I have no problem with this rule.
I stopped listening at “65 feet.” I thought that would end the discussion especially given the unusually accurate and reasonable summary by our dear editor. Well Done Unc Dave. Glad to see you actually read/watch a few of these before you post.
Evidently, such fact gathering doesn’t slow down Pedro and other hysterics.
Judgment.
#1 I have been a press photographer for 35 years. I can assure, these policies are in place to prevent coverage of the event. I deal with bullshit like this on a weekly basis. The excuse is the press “will get in the way”. The truth is “we don’t want those fuckers taking pictures of this”.
#16
So you have been doing this for 35 years yet can’t get a photo from 65 feet away?
#16–Eh What?==really? You can’t hold both concepts in your mind?
How do you feel about being excluded from the toilet stalls when a government official needs to dump? Is this a natural occurrence or a restriction on your right to gather what you gather?
Any reporter that can’t do his job 65 feet from an active crime scene investigation/clean up/operation—isn’t worth his press card.
65 feet fair? Anything past 15 feet is fair. Why not 60 feet? Or 50 feet? A photographer holding a DSLR is not going to disrupt anyone from 20 feet away.
Who is in control of the tape measure? BP and the government so your tape measure is no good.
The new ruling is probably for the best but the 65 feet figure was just pulled out of someone’s ass.
@#19
Of course it’s pulled out of someones ass, what do you think there is some kind exact scientifically proven formula for this?
You just pulled your 20 feet number out of your ass. What the hell is the point you are trying to make?