http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2010/05/18/94415/bps-secrecy-keep-facts-on-gulf.html

What's this?!?! BP is using the Coast Guard as their enforcers?!?! Uhm... something's not right about that.

BP has no right to deny access to a public place. I would have let them arrest me, and then straight to the SCOTUS we go!

It's time they got monetarily raped. If I were president I would issue an executive order to have the CEOs summarily arrested, tarred, feathered and then proceed to acquire their assets; which I would liquidate and give the proceeds directly to the tax payers.

BP spends something like a million dollars a day on capitol hill lobbying our ridiculously unethical congressmen.

The coast guard actually does work for them.

So the Coast Guard is acting as BP's shill goons? Shocker. This is why we don't need a heavily armed government.

What Nordlich said. If you take a stand and get arrested for it, it'll go to court and it'll be serious. Plus no Big Time News Organization no matter how devoted to the status quo is going to put up with restricted access. They would raise F'ing Hell and smile at themselves about what anti-establishment rogues they are.

For some reason this video won't play for me. It just plays the advert and then nothing. My Canadian IP maybe?

[Based on comments above]
I think the idea of preventing people from photographing the coastline of this disaster is absolutely unenforceable. I feel bad for the people working for coast guard, just trying to do their jobs as best as they can, based on what they are told to do by superiors.

There's a good 60 minutes report on here about who should be accountable for this mess:
http://videosift.com/video/60-Minutes-Deepwater-Horizon-s-Blowout-Part-2

I think it's Canadian IP, I can't watch it either from my Canucky ip

I am in the fantastic land of the canadian Moose with its bUllmoose horns of plenty and beavers full of beavery goodness. And I , I myself can watch this video.

As well, I think that its bullshit the camera crew caved, a company cant shut down a public place because of a leak they caused 80 km or whatever out to sea. doesnt make sense, if they want to pull that type of shit then they can take the ENTIRE ENT EYE DIDLIY EYE ERRRR COST of the cleanup onto the their shoulders.

which would cripple the company and bankrupt them.

I'm saying this in every BP related video and forum post, Boycott BP. That company should not receive a single cent from their stations after all this crap.

Just to bring some sanity here:

I live in a place called blackpool in england. About a year or so ago, we had a very large transport ship run aground on our beach. Our local council shut down a large portion of the beach parallel to the boat - something like an exclusion zone.

I heard various reasons from "for safety" (which completely makes sense when you have a few thousand tonnes of ship resting on its side) and "exclusion zone" (which i think means for safety) to "we don't want people stealing cargo."

I think you should just settle down a little bit before you go screeching about freedom and oppression, it could be something as simple as safety and common sense:
1. What if people get stuck in the oil/engine problems from boats/anything like that?
2. What if people exacerbate the problem in some way - intentional or accidentally whilst trying to implement some hair brained scheme of their own to 'help out'?
3. What if people think they can somehow steal the oil?

If any of this shit happens, BP would be culpable for that and they've got enough on their hands with trying to save their own fuck up. I think people should keep the hell out, personally, and give them every opportunity to fix such an important problem.

I don't mean that press shouldn't be allowed in or that we shouldn't recieve the TRUE facts and news about the ongoing disaster, just make sure BP allow helicopters and such, release the correct and full information. Do it properly, keep the sensationalism out.

Trying to take a boat straight into a disaster area where they're trying to do cleanup and limitation and they're also floating around an oil rig trying to put a cap over it - and everyone is amazed that they're saying 'err please don't do that? we're trying to solve a problem here'

No news, imo. At least from the stuff i saw in the video. There's got to be SOME rules around a disaster area, otherwise you'd get everyone hanging round making it more problematic and introducing potential further disasters and accidents.

My head feels like its gonna pop every time i see people defend BP

Uh - the Coast Guard works for the U.S. Government. They don't take orders from BP. If the Coast Guard is not allowing journalists into an area, then the responsibility falls on the U.S. Government - not BP. The only reason journalists could possibly be turned back is if the government was wanting it to be that way.

Now - BP may be involved in the motivation for the government to be doing this (though there is no evidence of that beyond hearsay at this point). However - considering the political blowback Obama's administration is now getting for thier weak, slow response to the event - it is entirely possible that it is the OBAMA administration that is the one engaging in censorship so as to minimize the impact.

Consider... Obama has a notorious, even infamous, habit of stonewalling the pres and suppressing information. I'd make a list - but it would take too long. Needless to say he has a LONG history of hiding away facts that are inconvenient to his agenda. He has a frosty relationship (at best) with the press corps. His history as a community activist was oriented towards suppressing/hiding information he doesn't like, while propogandizing information he wants to be talked about. That's about the only thing Obama knows how to do well as he's a dundering incompetent at just about everything else.

BP certainly has a vested interest in minimizing its damage here to be sure. But they don't control the Coast Guard. Who does? The Obama administration. Ultimately - who is responsible for the USCG? Obama. He's the one you need to be pointing fingers at here. BP is probably more than happy to be complicit, but they aren't the ones giving the CG its orders.

WTF is wrong with these reporters?

That would've been the perfect time to call BP's bluff. The two guard officers would most likely back down, because they know perfectly well that it's not a crime to film the coastline.

Why does the video title and description imply that the filming was prohibited when the video (vaguely) implies that they just weren't allowed to be on the beach? (Edit: or in a boat near the contaminated area)

If the beach is closed to everyone, for whatever reason, then I can only assume that includes journalists. Nothing in the video was said about telling them to stop filming, just to leave the area. If a truck turns over and spills oil on a highway they let people film it, but they don't let them stand in close proximity to the oil.

It's very likely true that BP is doing everything they can to minimize the PR damage from the spill, and that certainly isn't helping matters, but this seems like less of a free press issue and more of a debate over whether the beach should be closed.

It's really very simple... Reporters as majority today are a bunch of lazy, stupid cowards that are in the tank for Obama.

Remember a few weeks ago when a SINGLE security guy managed to browbeat an entire cadre of White House reporters away from protestors that chained themselves to the White House fence? It was bad press for the man-child President. So the vaunted courage of our so-called free press was cowed like a bunch of sheep by a single, lone, elderly security guard until they were over 100 yards into the park across the street. All the while they are whining into their cell phones about how bogus it is. But not a single one took it on themselves to ignore the guard and do their freaking JOB as journalists.

But why should they? That particular story only involved the suppression and oppression of gay activists by a Democrat controlled administration. How does reporting on that fit the media template of Obama being a great president?

^ Ah yes, closing a contaminated beach = oppressive dictatorial president. I really need to work on my pattern recognition.

I agree with dannym3141.

Looking at the video, the journalists were in a boat. The "older" footage was taken from a helicopter. Makes sense to stop the mode of transportation that could cause an amplification of the issue from entering the affected area.

And anyway, nothing like this has happened before (in terms of scale and location of the oil leak) and as such no-one knows what to do to fix the spill. A massive company like BP will never ever get things done within 24 hours, there's just too much bureaucracy involved. It'll take weeks for them to find a viable solution in a lab that will scale up and to then roll it out.

Tags for this video have been changed from 'BP, Oil Spill, Gulf, Coast Guard' to 'BP, Oil Spill, deepwater horizon, Gulf, Coast Guard' - edited by kronosposeidon

Let them try to arrest you.. filming an oil spill by a British firm on US soil. Well... fuck you BP Go back to Britain then. Try the arrest. Just try it. Lets see who gets fucked even worse than is already fucked.

Listen people. If it is a public beach, the government has no authority to keep you out; only if it is a state of emergency. That means something dangerous to people is taking place. The oil spill is not directly dangerous to humans, ergo they cannot keep people out.

If it is a private beach they have no authority to keep people out, because the beach does not belong to them; it belongs to whatever municipality the beach falls in.

This is why the whole 'drill baby drill' shit is bogus. All the talk of 'we need to drill our oil so that we can be energy independent' is bullshit and they know it. It may be oil off our shores, but it isn't even an American company that's drilling it!

We need to get off oil, that is the only real answer. But it won't happen until we hit crisis stage simply because there is way to much money to be made and millions put in the pockets of our congressmen and women as to make sure we won't stop using as much oil as we can until such a crisis happens... And no, this isn't it. I sure wish it was but just like in the 70's, in 20 years when this is finally cleaned up, we'll continue on sucking at the oil tit for as many years as we possibly can.

The video is loading for me now.

This censorship of the media is absolute bullshit.

>> ^NordlichReiter:

Listen people. If it is a public beach, the government has no authority to keep you out; only if it is a state of emergency. That means something dangerous to people is taking place. The oil spill is not directly dangerous to humans, ergo they cannot keep people out.
If it is a private beach they have no authority to keep people out, because the beach does not belong to them; it belongs to whatever municipality the beach falls in.


I honestly don't know what the deal is here, but I can guess. Back in 1989, after the Exxon spill, Congress passed a law that basically put the entire responsibility on oil companies to clean up their own mess. The government oversees it, but we expect the company to have planned ahead, have the expertise, pay for the equipment, etc. It sort of makes sense then that the company gets some say in the procedure. If one of the rules is meant to prevent gawkers from getting in the way of clean-up crews, then I suppose it makes sense. Obviously, they can fly over the site (as many people have) or send crews to the beaches, the just can't expect to send a bunch of boats into the middle of the slick. It isn't much different than police roping off a scene - you can stand outside it and take pictures, but you can't expect to waltz in the middle.

As far as the government's authority goes, that thing about "only if it is a state of emergency. That means something dangerous to people is taking place." is completely wrong. The federal government certainly has the authority to keep people out of the water affected by the spill regardless of whether it is a public or private beach. There's no question here. The better issue is whether they improperly delegated the power to a private party (BP), but it looks like they made sure to have coast guard officials present.

I can see what dannym is saying. Yet I've been tracking this story for a bit and I see no explanation for any of this. There's been no reasons given...nothing, it's actually kind of annoying how there's hardly any follow up. BP doesn't have the right to restrict beaches...they can tell the government that if the coast guard doesn't restrict the beach people could be in danger. No official orders of the sort have turned up and there has to be in order for this to be legal.

Sorry I'm not buying it, BP did something bad and they appealed to the government to try and handle the media part of this. The government responded and the Coast Guardsmen were a bit too honest when they stated this flatly. It's not science it's just smarts...keep cameras away and salvage a little of our bottom line, it's what any sane company would do. The point here is they shouldn't be allowed to do it.

>> ^NordlichReiter:

Listen people ... The oil spill is not directly dangerous to humans, ergo they cannot keep people out ...

Is that your expert opinion, professor nordlichreiter? I for one think we should take his word for it.

Did you know that it's more difficult to try and swim or float in oil because it's less dense than water? (hence why it floats on top of the water) I mean even in that respect ALONE oil is directly dangerous to humans. I've named one property of oil and proved you wrong.

>> ^dannym3141:

>> ^NordlichReiter:
Listen people ... The oil spill is not directly dangerous to humans, ergo they cannot keep people out ...
Is that your expert opinion, professor nordlichreiter? I for one think we should take his word for it.
Did you know that it's more difficult to try and swim or float in oil because it's less dense than water? (hence why it floats on top of the water) I mean even in that respect ALONE oil is directly dangerous to humans. I've named one property of oil and proved you wrong.


I'm sure drinking it, like..say if your boat accidently flips and you go into the water with your mouth open, is totally fine, too.

>> ^dannym3141:

>> ^NordlichReiter:
Listen people ... The oil spill is not directly dangerous to humans, ergo they cannot keep people out ...
Is that your expert opinion, professor nordlichreiter? I for one think we should take his word for it.
Did you know that it's more difficult to try and swim or float in oil because it's less dense than water? (hence why it floats on top of the water) I mean even in that respect ALONE oil is directly dangerous to humans. I've named one property of oil and proved you wrong.


Excellent! Elementary my good dear dannym3141. You fell for my trap. You assumed that meant people should go into the water. If a person stands on the beach, how can the oil be a direct danger to them? Touche.

On a serious note, with all trolling aside, I didn't word my opinion well enough. I was of the position that if a person is on the beach filming then they would not be in direct danger of the oil. Unless there's a fire.

>> ^NordlichReiter:

>> ^dannym3141:
>> ^NordlichReiter:
Listen people ... The oil spill is not directly dangerous to humans, ergo they cannot keep people out ...
Is that your expert opinion, professor nordlichreiter? I for one think we should take his word for it.
Did you know that it's more difficult to try and swim or float in oil because it's less dense than water? (hence why it floats on top of the water) I mean even in that respect ALONE oil is directly dangerous to humans. I've named one property of oil and proved you wrong.

Excellent! Elementary my good dear dannym3141. You fell for my trap. You assumed that meant people should go into the water. If a person stands on the beach, how can the oil be a direct danger to them? Touche.
On a serious note, with all trolling aside, I didn't word my opinion well enough. I was of the position that if a person is on the beach filming then they would not be in direct danger of the oil. Unless there's a fire.


There's no trolling, there's "sarcastically showing up very poor advice." I don't know if you've ever been on a beach that's been hit by an oil spill, but it's pretty fucking grim. At blackpool, we've had the odd occasion where small patches of oil have hit the shore, and i think i once accidentally walked into one.

It was IMPOSSIBLE to spot, it looked like a very clean patch of dry sand. When i stood on it, i sunk immediately up to my knee, which i pulled out and was entirely black down to the toe, i was INCREDIBLY lucky that i didn't fall forward and a friend was close enough to grab me, because i sometimes remember that moment and shiver a little to think - if i'd fallen forward, arms first onto a knee-high trap like that, how quickly could i have gotten out? Could i have gotten out? I'd have got a face-full of sticky black shit. Clothes made heavier to make it harder to extricate myself, would it have got in my eyes, would i have breathed some in?

Let's not pretend you set up a trap, because in my email box i have your original post.

Don't forget this is all in reference to you refuting the "exclusion zone" based on oil not being dangerous to humans. They were excluded trying to get a boat in. If they'd been excluded for trying to get on the beach, i'd say they're not perfectly safe there either.

I apologise for being sarcastic originally, it was light-hearted. But it's time to stop trying to argue your way into being right and just say "fair enough, oil is dangerous to humans, i took a guess."

I did take a guess, fair enough. I still don't think that should be enough to keep the media out.