¯\_(ツ)_/¯ Posted July 10, 2010 Share Posted July 10, 2010 While I find the story hard to believe, my role in coastal restoration of southern Louisiana can attest to the annoyance of getting my work done due to media companies reserving every...single...available hotel/motel/rental down near Venice. It's really frustrating when I try to get a crew down there and am unable to get a hotel room because it's been practically bought out. The worst part--nobody's even in the rooms! I recently had a subcontractor tell me that she has been in every part of the world and has never paid such an exorbitant amount of money for a place to stay. http://www.flickr.com/photos/lagohsep/ there are plenty of pictures being taken, by the way. huh, imagine that. the media getting in the way. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sharkticon Posted July 10, 2010 Share Posted July 10, 2010 Can't see the forest for the trees? I don't want to debate how far away the press should stand any longer. Look at the bigger issue. The further undermining and stripping of personal, basic rights is the outrage we're upset about. This is no longer just an issue of BP trying to cover their asses and play PR games. The government is now involved, by enacting a law, to restrict the free press. Where else can/will this be applied? It's already illegal in 3+ states to film police officers, citing "obstruction of government operations". Net neutrality could possibly give the government, ISPs, and special interest groups complete control over the content available to the public over the internet. The government is, in theory, supposed to work FOR us. Transparency is the best way to keep that luxury in check. Further, this is yet more proof of corporate hold and influence on law-making decisions. Calling this a "democracy" or "democratic republic" is laughable at best when coporations - not even US-based ones in this example - can influence actual action and results in their favor. Why would you ever defend said behavior? I don't want to fight over where the line should be drawn regarding how far away the press should stand from oil spill crews or damage. If it were my job to cover the oil spill I certainly would not want to be in the way of progress. But progress isn't being made nor is it being attempted and that's what needs to be said. What I'm upset over is the stripping of the right to be able to show the lack of dedication and responsibility, the lobbying, and the wrong business decisions that lead us to where we are today. I'm upset at the willingness to violate basic rights in order to preserve an image of a corporation. Hell, just the willingness to violate basic rights. It's not about 65 or 300 feet. It's about greed, deceit, and unconstitutional decisions. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
¯\_(ツ)_/¯ Posted July 10, 2010 Share Posted July 10, 2010 blah blah blah, you dont want to talk about it but then you write a short novel. im not talking about it or reading what you wrote or any one rights anymore. im wrong, you're right Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sharkticon Posted July 11, 2010 Share Posted July 11, 2010 I look forward to many others, like yourself, not reading my above reply or the rest of the thread out of intellectual cowardice. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mcm1610 Posted July 11, 2010 Share Posted July 11, 2010 There's numerous previous precedents of the government limiting people's rights for their own safety. If you don't agree it's for safety, then I guess we disagree there, and it's not worth getting too far into a discussion beyond that. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lonesomexloveus Posted July 11, 2010 Author Share Posted July 11, 2010 blah blah blah, you dont want to talk about it but then you write a short novel. im not talking about it or reading what you wrote or any one rights anymore. im wrong, you're right i wish that this made sense. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
¯\_(ツ)_/¯ Posted July 11, 2010 Share Posted July 11, 2010 I look forward to many others, like yourself, not reading my above reply or the rest of the thread out of intellectual cowardice. ive got better things to do than waste any more time on this thread Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lonesomexloveus Posted July 12, 2010 Author Share Posted July 12, 2010 I look forward to many others, like yourself, not reading my above reply or the rest of the thread out of intellectual cowardice. ive got better things to do than waste any more time on this thread lol @ you keep posting in it anyways. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sharkticon Posted July 13, 2010 Share Posted July 13, 2010 See? An agreement can be made. An understand of the vitality of either sides roles. - http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2010/07/breaking-news-update-due-to-popular.html Now if only they'd scale up the effort on this mess. We have thousands upon thousands of unemployed people in this country. If only they could create a public works effort to get things moving, clean up the spill, and give some people some work. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jimmythescumbag Posted July 13, 2010 Share Posted July 13, 2010 I wonder how much money the press had to pay to get this "ban" reversed? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sharkticon Posted July 13, 2010 Share Posted July 13, 2010 Probably more than BP will ever pay for the entire incident. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mcm1610 Posted July 14, 2010 Share Posted July 14, 2010 Who cares how much they paid. Hopefully it just goes into the relief effort. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.