Did BP buy scientists silence?

BP’s PR disaster is getting worst every day. After the fake pictures’ scandal, the oil major is now accused of “buying” scientists silence to minimize the ecological disaster in the Gulf of Mexico. A very good article from the BBC explains the whole story:

The head of the American Association of Professors has accused BP of trying to “buy” the best scientists and academics to help its defence against litigation after the Gulf of Mexico oil spill.

“This is really one huge corporation trying to buy faculty silence in a comprehensive way,” said Cary Nelson. BP faces more than 300 lawsuits so far. In a statement, BP says it has hired more than a dozen national and local scientists “with expertise in the resources of the Gulf of Mexico”.The BBC has obtained a copy of a contract offered to scientists by BP. It says that scientists cannot publish the research they do for BP or speak about the data for at least three years, or until the government gives the final approval to the company’s restoration plan for the whole of the Gulf. It also states scientists may perform research for other agencies as long as it does not conflict with the work they are doing for BP. And it adds that scientists must take instructions from lawyers offering the contracts and other in-house counsel at BP.

Bob Shipp, the head of marine sciences at the University of South Alabama, was one of the scientists approached by BP’s lawyers. They didn’t just want him, they wanted his whole department. “They contacted me and said we would like to have your department interact to develop the best restoration plan possible after this oil spill,” he said.

// // Russ Lea from the University of South Alabama: Some clauses in the contract “were very disturbing”. “We laid the ground rules – that any research we did, we would have to take total control of the data, transparency and the freedom to make those data available to other scientists and subject to peer review. They left and we never heard back from them.”

What Mr Nelson is concerned about is BP’s control over scientific research. “Our ability to evaluate the disaster and write public policy and make decisions about it as a country can be impacted by the silence of the research scientists who are looking at conditions,” he said. “It’s hugely destructive. I mean at some level, this is really BP versus the people of the United States.” In its statement, BP says it “does not place restrictions on academics speaking about scientific data”.

 ‘Powerful economic interests’

 But New Orleans environmental lawyer Joel Waltzer looked over the contract and said BP’s statement did not match up.

“They’re the ones who control the process. They’re depriving the public of the data and the transparency that we all deserve.” But some scientists who have been approached by lawyers acting on behalf of BP are willing to sign up.

Irv Mendelssohn is a professor in the Department of Oceanography and Coastal Sciences at Louisiana State University. “What I’m doing wouldn’t be any different than if I was consulting with one of the natural resource trustees. I am giving my objective opinion about recovery.” Some scientists approached by BP lawyers have been offered as much as $250 an hour. Prof Mendelssohn says he would negotiate his normal consulting fee, which is between $150 and $300 an hour. But he says that is not why he is doing it.

 “Good scientists, they’re going to be giving their opinions based on the facts and they are not going to bias their opinions. What’s most important is credibility.” But Cary Nelson is concerned about the relationship between corporations and academia.

 “There is a problem for a faculty member who becomes closely associated with a corporation with such powerful financial interests. “My advice would be: think twice before you sign a contract with a corporation that has such powerful economic interests at stake.”

The presence of unslanted truth in The Economist would, apparently, be puzzling

Unlike Reuters and The New York Times, which have strict policies against altering the content of photographs, the Economist reached a new low last month with its June 19, 2010 cover, which featured President Barack Obama standing all alone on the Louisiana beach with his head bowed, staring at the oil-polluted water caused by the British Petroleum disaster.

Apparently the Economist would like readers to think Obama went for a walk on the beach all by himself to contemplate the massive disaster, as the news magazine edited out the two people standing beside the President: Adm. Thad W. Allen of the Coast Guard and Charlotte Randolph, a local parish president.

The Economist’s altered photograph sends the public a very false and very dangerous message: that this is President Obama’s and America’s disaster alone, and his sole responsibility to fix it. We would expect this kind of image manipulation from tabloids. But as a highly-regarded British publication, the Economist does readers a huge disservice by using altered images. When did Rupert Murdoch buy the Economist? We must have missed it!  The media are now in the business of making news to support a one-sided narrative, the one the media publication supports. We hoped the Economist was above this.

Further, the British publication places a suspicious amount of responsibility on America to clean up a disaster caused by a British company, a disaster that extends far beyond the United States and has become a global environmental concern. By altering the photograph, the Economist changed the meaning of the image. This is not news coverage it is storytelling at its worst, pretending to depict reality and instead giving readers fiction.

The New York Times, among other reputable media sources, would never allow this kind of image alteration. The Times’ photo guidelines state clearly that “Images in our pages, in the paper or on the web, that purport to depict reality must be genuine in every way,” adding that altered images must be labeled as a photo illustration.

Maybe BP should have all of its photos of the Gulf run through the Economist’s photo manipulation office. Not a bad idea. At this point, readers are just as likely to find an accurate depiction of reality in the latest Harry Potter novel as they would in the media.

Shame on the Economist. We should all “edit” our subscription.

LeBron James free agency: a PR nightmare

For weeks, in an egomaniac US media tour, LeBeron James, the world best basketball player in search of a new team, has tried to sell himself as the player he is as well as a global entrepreneur. The Americans are now bored with “King James” and the free agency that should make him an ever bigger star has been a disaster.

Even though LeBron James’ free agency officially started a week ago, the real impact of his upcoming decision started about two years ago.  

In those two years, what is supposed to be a business process has turned into a media circus so unbelievably unprofessional it makes the coverage of the Tiger Woods scandal look like the coverage of the Lawrence Taylor trial—trivial. 

At least with Tiger though, you could blame the networks and so-called “journalists” for covering gossip like news.

It was clear that Tiger, in his non-question-taking press conference and timed interview, was not going to play into the game everyone was hoping he would.

It doesn’t feel that way with James. 

What is most amazing in this entire process is that people are actually getting paid, and by James, to promote what will inevitably become his downfall.

That century old cliché that no press is bad press in the world of the media may have just been laid to rest. 

With the announcement of an hour long special celebrating LeBron’s decision, on top of the multiple hours each day that ESPN and every news outlet across the country already covers the matter, James’ public relations specialist just put the last nail in the coffin for the NBA superstar. 

No matter where James decides to head tonight, he will only be salvaging how the public perceives him, he will not be changing their negative perception.

As of now, if public perception of James had to be gauged on a grading scale, James’ PR GPA would be a -3.9.

Choosing a destination tonight may bring him up as high as a -1.0, but either way he’s still a sinking ship. 

No matter the decision for James tonight, he’s in a lose/lose situation.

The people he employs, coupled with his incredibly large ego, have put the baby in the corner—in the corner of a hole they dug in the middle of a volcano.

If James goes to Miami, he goes to a team with more talent than any other roster in NBA history, proving once and for all that he will never be as good as Jordan, and that he can’t win a championship of his own volition. 

If he goes to Chicago, he will forever live in the shadow of Michael Jordan.

Unless he is able to win seven championships with Boozer and a team with a questionable future, he will never be the greatest NBA player of all time—something he clearly holds on to. 

If he goes to New York, then he announces it tonight in front of his home-state, his current team, and a city who is struggling economically and clinging on to their one hope of entertainment in a contending basketball team. 

If James tells the world tonight that he is leaving the Cavaliers, while in Cleveland, it would be one of the most shameful acts an athlete has ever committed.

You don’t announce that you’re skipping town—you just skip town.

You don’t look at all the people who you’ve been teasing for the past year—with the release of your special edition shoe in New York, your donning of the Knicks colors, your hanging around Jay-Z and attending Yankees games every chance you get—then hold an hour long conference to let them know their extra money, support and unconditional love regardless of a championship isn’t equal to a pay-cut, a depleted roster, a coach who has yet to win a championship, and the world’s most fickle fan base. 

Then again, what happens if you stay in Cleveland? 

The fan bases of those cities mentioned above, and the entire nation who have been dragged through this process in order look forward to some sort of outcome will look at the past two years and say “for what?”

Every sports fan, no matter the sport, has put up with the constant barraging, meetings, updates, tweets regarding LeBron’s free agency for days on end… and for what?

For a player who has likely known where he is going to end up since this debacle started, not seven days ago, but seven hundred days ago. 

The inevitable answer people across the nation will conclude from the question of “for what?” will be: “for James’ ego.”

Not to mention the fact that any recognition James may get in the realm of being a loyal player will be immediately countered with the notion that he may have taken the job in Ohio solely due to the fact that there is more money involved. 

Cleveland also presents a happy-medium for the superstar, with Chicago and New York not being good enough, and Miami being too good a team to get any national credit and athletic respect from, James’s future in Cleveland could just be a way for the big fish to stay in the small pond.

No matter the decision tonight, James will not just be picking a franchise.

He will be picking a poison.

One that he and his hired personnel have concocted. 

It is a mix one part ego, one part bad publicity, and ten parts media relations. 

When he drinks it, he may want to swallow the bitter pill that is his ego in order to gain back some sort of respect from a nation of sports fans.