Anderson Cooper: First Amendment suspended in the Gulf of Mexico

[ACW]

uXsmLMV1CrM

He SLAMS Allen and co.
Go Anderson!

[SC_RedskinsFan]

This was bound to happen when the gov. gets involved.... I think we have been pretty much kept in the dark about everything to do with this.

[Teller]

I'd expect as much from FAUXN.....oh. Wait. CNN? AKA, the Clinton News Network? Hmmm.....Might be something to this. :mad:

In charge from Day One, Mr. President? In that case, kindly accept my hearty and heartfelt, "Go to hell."

[DixieFlatline]

I'm not surprised by BP telling people to clam up. After all, the government has already put out the lawyers to sue them. But for the government to do this, is unsettling. I get they may need a security/safety zone, but this seems unreasonable.

[herrmag]

Very scary. But, I'll wait for the response as to WHY this directive was put in place. While I certainly believe in the right of free press, we all know that journalists, news organizations, etc, are willing to risk the greater good for their story.

That being said, I'm not sold either. Waiting to hear the response from the gov't (and you're not going to hear from a journalist that he's seen journalists in the way, causing issues, etc).

[SC_RedskinsFan]

We let reporters go with the military and report whatever they want, but they are not allowed to in gulf? Something does not smell right here, you may say i need my foil hat i dont care.

[Teller]

We let reporters go with the military and report whatever they want, but they are not allowed to in gulf? Something does not smell right here, you may say i need my foil hat i dont care.

Bush isn't president anymore though, or this would be a 200-pager.

[Special K]

This is usually what happens when everyone and their brother ****s something up royally and creates a major catastrophe. Both the government and the private industry screwed the pooch here and we are all having to pay for it, particularly those living in the Gulf.

[zoony]

Very scary. But, I'll wait for the response as to WHY this directive was put in place. .

If you watch the news story the Coast Guard lays out their reasons

And is it just me, or is 65 feet a whole lot of nothing with the type of zoom lenses available to major news organizations? I might be missing something.

[jpyaks3]

We let reporters go with the military and report whatever they want, but they are not allowed to in gulf? Something does not smell right here, you may say i need my foil hat i dont care.

Uh those reporters with the military can't report whatever they want. What they see and can report is very controlled. Sometime there is the need for greater discretion on some issues now I have no idea if this is one of those issues but it may very well be.

[twa]

I might be missing something.

Cooper's ratings?

Next up the arsenic bomb :ahhhhh:

http://www.nypost.com/p/news/international/gulf_toxic_bomb_xgOomKo8AQzXKzc8aSxh0K?CMP=OTC-rss&FEEDNAME=

[Special K]

I would like to state, however, that I understand a buffer policy being implemented to protect the safety of bystanders as well as the continuity of cleanup operations. That is very much standard procedure in emergency management. So, I don't think this is some grand conspiracy.

However, I am very disappointed in that I feel as though both BP and the government have not been giving us the entire story. And I don't think the reason behind withholding that information is "national security," more like "oh ****, this is a massive cluster****, we need to spin this in as positive a light as possible, even if that includes leaving out information..."

[herrmag]

If you watch the news story the Coast Guard lays out their reasons

Really? did I miss it? I did watch it. Guess my ADD got the best of me.

EDIT: Yep, you're correct, they did, though it was only a snippet. Did the Admiral really only elaborate enough for a 10 second sound byte? I doubt it.

That being said, again, I'm not siding with the Coast Guard. I'd just like some legit facts other than from one side of the fence.

[zoony]

To expand a bit here, is it not reasonable for the government and for BP to ask media to stay clear of their cleanup operations, equipment, boats, and personnel? These people have a job to do. Unattended equipment is hazardous.

I suspect all it took were sightings of a few dumbass reporters driving their boat through an oil slick and over top of a floating boom so they could snap a closeup of a bird.

I suspect there would be some liability on the Coast Guard's part, too, if someone got injured. Not to mention the danger for cleanup crews out on the water dealing with rogue reporters in speedboats trying to get the story.

I mean... 65 feet. Stay clear, 65 feet. I have a $300 home video camera that can zoom in 100 yards like it's nothing. During NBC's olympic coverage they shot a scene with Brian Williams from 20 miles away on top of a mountain, and panned out for effect. This is Mickey Mouse type ****, really.

Like I said, I'm sure I'm missing something here (besides his ratings, lol). Anyone care to fill me in?

[zoony]

However, I am very disappointed in that I feel as though both BP and the government have not been giving us the entire story. And I don't think the reason behind withholding that information is "national security," more like "oh ****, this is a massive cluster****, we need to spin this in as positive a light as possible, even if that includes leaving out information..."

Unfortunately, in today's lawyer-happy, 24 hour news cylce, blogosphere world, that is really the only strategy that organizations CAN take.

Anything you say can and will be held against you in the court of public opinion, criminal court, civil court, etc.

Best thing to do, quite literally is to not say a word and be accused of "not giving the entire story". Best option, unfortunately. But, we've done it to ourselves.

[Special K]

Best thing to do, quite literally is to not say a word and be accused of "not giving the entire story". Best option, unfortunately. But, we've done it to ourselves.

I agree to an extent.

However, one of the big things I learned in emergency management (not that i've practiced this much, I have more book experience than real life experience) is to MAKE SURE you are getting a correct picture of the disaster out to the public. One of the biggest things that can hamper relief efforts is losing the public's trust in either 1) that you are fully in control and/or 2) your truthfulness about the situation.

I think that BP totally screwed themselves by massively underestimating the amount of oil pouring into the Gulf shortly after the initial explosion. Whether they did that b/c they truly didn't know how much oil was being dumped, or whether they were trying to make the situation seem better than it was to keep the feds at bay for a bit is debatable (I personally believe it was some of both). Regardless of the reason, as more reports came out and the amount of oil spilling increased on almost a daily basis, that initial trust was shattered, and no matter what they do now they are screwed.

Obama and his administration I am dissatisfied with because the bulk of their press conferences have been spent pointing the blame finger at BP and trying to distance themselves, and their responsibility, from the issue.

For me, it's the frustration from this essential run around that has my confidence shaken....

[zoony]

I agree to an extent.

However, one of the big things I learned in emergency management (not that i've practiced this much, I have more book experience than real life experience) is to MAKE SURE you are getting a correct picture of the disaster out to the public. One of the biggest things that can hamper relief efforts is losing the public's trust in either 1) that you are fully in control and/or 2) your truthfulness about the situation....

well, that's more experience than I have in emergency management. You make a good point here.

However, is there a disaster of this scale in modern history that has been handled well? I mean, we're not talking about Tylenol pulling it's product here.

[Madison Redskin]

If you watch the news story the Coast Guard lays out their reasons

And is it just me, or is 65 feet a whole lot of nothing with the type of zoom lenses available to major news organizations? I might be missing something.

That pretty much sums up my thoughts. Maybe it's part of some effort to conceal problems, but it seems appropriate to ensure that cleanup efforts aren't hampered.

[Sandman69]

If you watch the news story the Coast Guard lays out their reasons

And is it just me, or is 65 feet a whole lot of nothing with the type of zoom lenses available to major news organizations? I might be missing something.

I was thinking the same thing. What is wrong with no one within 65 feet of the boats, booms and anything else? Hell my digital camera will zoom that much easily.

[Special K]

well, that's more experience than I have in emergency management. You make a good point here.

However, is there a disaster of this scale in modern history that has been handled well? I mean, we're not talking about Tylenol pulling it's product here.

You're right, a disaster like this, of this scale has not been encountered before. So there is definitely new territory being forged here.

I know 9/11 was a completely different disaster with a very different dynamic, but the response by the local government (Giulliani) and the feds has been used as an example of what should be done immediately following a disaster. People can say what they want about Giulliani, but that man was extremely visible post-disaster, pounding the pavement, talking to people, attending funerals, etc. In addition, Bush (and yes, he's made mistakes, particularly in his PR handling of Katrina) was very visible in post 9/11 relief efforts and very "seemingly" forthcoming about what the government was going to be doing in response to the attacks. Both these men in this incident provided examples of how PR should be handled and public trust should be won following a major disaster. And again, I realize there was a completely different dynamic and American mindset following that disaster.

Personally, I'm not really happy with the way Obama's admin. and BP have handled this entire cluster****. However, I readily admit disaster management is very tricky and much of the time it's a damned if you do, damned if you don't type of scenario.

[Thiebear]

So were spending time to ensure felonies are given out to Media for pictures?

I don't remember this in my Fema classes? Wait, where is fema again?

Your doing a Helluva job: [insert name here] of the shadowing guy you never hear from.

Has the information gotten BETTER or worse or the same.

The only information has been coming from the news agencies, who now have to "watch out"

[Bang]

I think Zoony's on target. Complaining over a 65' buffer zone is pretty much crying for the sake of creating a story.

~Bang

[aREDSKIN]

Par for the course for this admin. One of the most "opaque" administration in US history.

[ACW]

Par for the course for this admin. One of the most "opaque" administration in US history.

Yeah, they're about as bad as the Bush admin.

[aREDSKIN]

Yeah, they're about as bad as the Bush admin.

That may be and I'll let you decide for yourself, however, the Bush admin never voiferated endlessly about how that they'd be the "most transparent administration" ever.