Why does media minimize the oil spill?

Until yesterday, how many barrels of oil per day had you been informed were fueling the Deepwater Horizon oil spill calamity?
   a) 1,000    b) 5,000    c) 50,000    d) 100,000 +
Experts who aren’t BP said the answer from the beginning was D. The media is only now warming the public to C, even as analysis qualify it’s “at least” that, but BP is refuting revision of their original estimates saying now that it’s impossible to calculate the rate of flow at such great depth. They’re estimating the oil leak like a potential civil liability. Until a claim is made, appealed and/or settled, on the books it’s nothing. The bigger question: why is the media standing between you and the ugly truth?

1 thought on “Why does media minimize the oil spill?

  1. AvatarBrother Jonah

    Yeah, BBC did like a story today on this very subject.
    Seems BP has been deliberately misinforming about oh, let’s see… Everything,simply everything.

    I can easily see how and why the Bush crowd liked them so much.
    Apparently we should add a zero on the right, to the daily flow totals they were claiming yesterday.

    Meanwhile, allowing BP to manage the salvage operation would be like having Tex Watson do the forensic evaluations of the Tate and LaBianca crime scenes.

    Some readers might be slow on the uptake. He left a bloody handprint on the lintel of the front door on the way out.
    Similarities, and one crucial difference, BP is Being Permitted to trample all over the Crime Scene and, once a case is ever made, their Lawyer Legion can simply say “Evidence? What evidence?”

    Truly nice fellows. Of course the denial of it being a Crime Scene is already being stridently sung.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *