Posts
By Hector Chacin
GULF OF MEXICO-After enduring weeks of bad press and environmental degradation, BP has decided to ramp up its public relations campaign in response to the massive oil spill it caused in the Gulf of Mexico. BP Chief Executive Tony Hayward told reporters Wednesday that BP had declared its official campaign as the “War on the Oil Spill” in order to persuade a skeptical public that they are doing everything possible to staunch the cataclysmic effect of the spill. Hayward went on to note- for the benefits of its stockholders- that none of BP’s practices would change; he promised that they would continue spending as little money as possible on precautionary measures while engaging in extremely risky drilling practices, but that they would also put much more effort into making it sound like they care.
BP decided to use the PR technique of declaring War on the Oil Spill because it captures the imagination. According to Hayward, “People really like to hear violent military
terminology when discussing mundane annoyances. We talk about annihilating sports teams, using the nuclear option in political campaigns, and even exterminating insects, so why not have a war on an oil spill?” Hayward went on to point out that the picture basically paints itself, since the environmentally toxic cleaning agent is named Top Kill and people already fear the oil because it is black.
GULF OF MEXICO-After enduring weeks of bad press and environmental degradation, BP has decided to ramp up its public relations campaign in response to the massive oil spill it caused in the Gulf of Mexico. BP Chief Executive Tony Hayward told reporters Wednesday that BP had declared its official campaign as the “War on the Oil Spill” in order to persuade a skeptical public that they are doing everything possible to staunch the cataclysmic effect of the spill. Hayward went on to note- for the benefits of its stockholders- that none of BP’s practices would change; he promised that they would continue spending as little money as possible on precautionary measures while engaging in extremely risky drilling practices, but that they would also put much more effort into making it sound like they care.
BP decided to use the PR technique of declaring War on the Oil Spill because it captures the imagination. According to Hayward, “People really like to hear violent military
terminology when discussing mundane annoyances. We talk about annihilating sports teams, using the nuclear option in political campaigns, and even exterminating insects, so why not have a war on an oil spill?” Hayward went on to point out that the picture basically paints itself, since the environmentally toxic cleaning agent is named Top Kill and people already fear the oil because it is black. [RIGHT- BP ships try to clean up some water in the middle of their beautiful Gulf of Oil.]
BP’s War on the Oil Spill is the most recent in a long line of Wars waged largely for PR purposes. In the 1960s, President Johnson declared a War on Poverty. Fifty years later, the income disparity in America has grown exponentially, but the upper class no longer feels bad about exploiting the poor. In the 1980s, President Reagan and his wife, Nancy, declared a War on Drugs in order to imprison black drug dealers so the white drug dealers would have easier access to the best turf. Noted social scientist Tupac Shakur questioned the motives of the War on Drugs, speculating that the government really launched the war so the police could bother him. Most recently, President Bush declared a War on Terror, which was initially marginally successful, but became sidetracked when the Saw movies were released and terrified everyone who saw them.
In addition to Hayward, BP’s officials have hurried to turn America against the oil spill in hopes that people will feel extremely proud of BP when the oil well runs dry and BP claims that it has successfully stopped the spill. In an official press release earlier today, BP described the oil as “a dangerous threat to the American way of life,” that wants to keep citizens from driving their cars or enjoying a day at the beach. They continued to say that, “Just to be clear, nothing is actually changing. If you are still reading this press release, we trust that you are smart enough to buy our stock. We know that 90% of the public will just read the headline and move on, so they will be comforted and pacified. But between you and me, we are not going to spend on dime on this cleanup effort.”
In reality, the oil spill is not so much a “spill” as it is an overpowering jet of oil that is exploding into the ocean. Scientists have said that BP has “spilled” oil in the same way that fire hoses “spilled” water on civil rights protesters in the 1960s. In fact, so much oil has been released into the ocean that economists have estimated that BP has lost over $5 billion. Additional, scientists say that the total amount of oil exceeds the Exxon Valdez spill off the coast of Alaska, which means that at least 270,000 barrels have spilled. Why we still measure the oil in barrels when it has spilled throughout the ocean is beyond me. Are the barrels going to siphon it out of the water? Does BP plan on putting it back into barrels at some point? That seems unlikely. In any case, with a possible $4,300 civil penalty for each barrel, the total losses to BP could total well over $6 billion, a cost so steep that Hayward has already volunteered to cut his vacation on his private island short by a week to save on servant costs.
Critics of the BP on the left have complained that the War on the Oil Spill isn’t about oil at all, but that BP has a hidden agenda to provide democracy and stability to the citizens of Iraq. Furthermore, some of argued that BP’s approach to stop the flow of the oil into the ocean is the same mistaken application of supply-side economics that doomed the War on Drugs. They argue that the water is to blame for allowing itself to be corrupted, and as long as the water is seeking out oil to be contaminated with, they will find a way to get it. Instead of trying to stop the water, they say, BP should be investing in rehabilitation for the water, as well as job programs and halfway ponds to re-acclimate the water to a normal environment.
Troublesome as the oil spill has been for all parties involved, there is at least one group that can breathe a sigh of relief. After engaging in a contentious election, the nation of Great Britain is extremely grateful that BP dropped the moniker British Petroleum when it expanded into the US market, as they are sure that Americans would find some way to blame them for it if there name was anywhere to be seen.
BP’s War on the Oil Spill is the most recent in a long line of Wars waged largely for PR purposes. In the 1960s, President Johnson declared a War on Poverty. Fifty years later, the income disparity in America has grown exponentially, but the upper class no longer feels bad about exploiting the poor. In the 1980s, President Reagan and his wife, Nancy, declared a War on Drugs in order to imprison black drug dealers so the white drug dealers would have easier access to the best turf. Noted social scientist Tupac Shakur questioned the motives of the War on Drugs, speculating that the government really launched the war so the police could bother him. Most recently, President Bush declared a War on Terror, which was initially marginally successful, but became sidetracked when the Saw movies were released and terrified everyone who saw them.
In addition to Hayward, BP’s officials have hurried to turn America against the oil spill in hopes that people will feel extremely proud of BP when the oil well runs dry and BP claims that it has successfully stopped the spill. In an official press release earlier today, BP described the oil as “a dangerous threat to the American way of life,” that wants to keep citizens from driving their cars or enjoying a day at the beach. They continued to say that, “Just to be clear, nothing is actually changing. If you are still reading this press release, we trust that you are smart enough to buy our stock. We know that 90% of the public will just read the headline and move on, so they will be comforted and pacified. But between you and me, we are not going to spend on dime on this cleanup effort.”
In reality, the oil spill is not so much a “spill” as it is an overpowering jet of oil that is exploding into the ocean. Scientists have said that BP has “spilled” oil in the same way that fire hoses “spilled” water on civil rights protesters in the 1960s. In fact, so much oil has been released into the ocean that economists have estimated that BP has lost over $5 billion. Additional, scientists say that the total amount of oil exceeds the Exxon Valdez spill off the coast of Alaska, which means that at least 270,000 barrels have spilled. Why we still measure the oil in barrels when it has spilled throughout the ocean is beyond me. Are the barrels going to siphon it out of the water? Does BP plan on putting it back into barrels at some point? That seems unlikely. In any case, with a possible $4,300 civil penalty for each barrel, the total losses to BP could total well over $6 billion, a cost so steep that Hayward has already volunteered to cut his vacation on his private island short by a week to save on servant costs.
Critics of the BP on the left have complained that the War on the Oil Spill isn’t about oil at all, but that BP has a hidden agenda to provide democracy and stability to the citizens of Iraq. Furthermore, some of argued that BP’s approach to stop the flow of the oil into the ocean is the same mistaken application of supply-side economics that doomed the War on Drugs. They argue that the water is to blame for allowing itself to be corrupted, and as long as the water is seeking out oil to be contaminated with, they will find a way to get it. Instead of trying to stop the water, they say, BP should be investing in rehabilitation for the water, as well as job programs and halfway ponds to re-acclimate the water to a normal environment.
Troublesome as the oil spill has been for all parties involved, there is at least one group that can breathe a sigh of relief. After engaging in a contentious election, the nation of Great Britain is extremely grateful that BP dropped the moniker British Petroleum when it expanded into the US market, as they are sure that Americans would find some way to blame them for it if there name was anywhere to be seen.
No comments:
Post a Comment