Tag Archives: bp gulf oil spill

Analyst: BP Oil Spill Clean-Up Will Have $60-Billion Price Tag; Dividend Elimination Hurts Retirees

We all know the BP oil spill is a huge mess. It’s going to be costly to clean up – but just how much? And while some outspoken critics are calling for BP to eliminate its dividend, they probably aren’t realizing the residual effects. On the June 10 broadcast of Fox Business Network’s “Bulls & Bears,” Fadel Gheit, a senior analyst at Oppenheimer & Co., offered a huge estimate. But, he explained what is done is done and that going after BP with harsh penalties, as in elimination of the BP stock dividend, now will hurt a lot of American retirees. “Couple of things – I mean, it is water under the bridge, it is over and you will have to live with it,” Gheit said. “BP will have to live with it. We have to remember one thing — BP bought 10 years ago, Amoco, Arco, a very large American corporation with a lot of people working for BP today. And the retirees are pensioners from the Amoco and Arco days. So by cutting the dividend we’re penalizing completely innocent people that worked very hard for many years. And now, the dividend is the way they support themselves. So, I don’t understand.” And he suggested a compromise – not the total elimination of the BP’s stock’s dividend but that something should come down in the middle.  “Yes, I understand clearly that we have to set the money aside to clean up and all those things but we have to reach a compromise and not throw [out] the baby with the bath water,” Gheit continued. “So there has to be some balance between my view here, BP should cut dividend by at least 50 percent. And I think they will have the financial feasibility to clean up the mess they created.” But over time, the spill would be cleaned up he explained. “Eventually it will be cleaned up,” Gheit said. “It will cost more” How much more? A lot more, he said. “I estimate it will cost about $60 billion,” Gheit said. This figure was a bit of a shock to “Bulls & Bears” co-host David Asman: “Wow! $60 billion.” And although BP (NYSE: BP ) has a market cap of roughly $100 billion, Gheit explained it won’t come in one lump sum but over 10 years. “But it’s not going to be in a day or a week or a year,” Gheit said. “Might take about 10 years. So, that the present value of the $60 billion is pretty manageable.”

See the rest here:
Analyst: BP Oil Spill Clean-Up Will Have $60-Billion Price Tag; Dividend Elimination Hurts Retirees

Media Fail to See Obama’s Fingerprints on Lack of Press Freedom in Gulf

Watch CBS News Videos Online It’s been more than 50 days since a BP oil rig exploded off the coast of Louisiana, beginning a massive leak of oil into the Gulf of Mexico. Miles of beaches have been soiled and birds, turtles and other sea creatures have died. But the most disturbing pictures of the disaster weren’t available to the public for more than 40 days. That was when many people finally witnessed Louisiana’s state bird, the brown pelican, literally covered in thick brown oil. Why so long? Because federal agencies including the Coast Guard and Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) were preventing the press from reaching many areas affected by the disaster. CBS, Associated Press, Mother Jones and The Times-Picayune have all complained about local and federal authorities and and British Petroleum contractors inhibiting their reporting. But while many in the news media blame BP, the real culprit may well be the Obama administration. When asked, Obama and other administration spokespeople say the U.S. government is in charge of the oil spill cleanup. The president has openly stated that the federal government is in charge of the oil spill clean up. The Associated Press (AP) reported that “Obama says all steps BP takes to end the huge spill must be approved in advance by the government.” But journalists and the left have blamed BP rather than point fingers up the federal chain of command. Left-wing magazine Mother Jones called it a “corporate blockade at Louisiana’s crude-covered beaches.” Newsweek magazine pointed out the difficulty that photographers encountered when trying to “document the slow-motion disaster in the Gulf.” In its article, Newsweek placed the blame squarely on British Petroleum from the headline: “BP’s Photo Blockade of the Gulf Oil Spill” to the quote from a Louisiana photographer who said the prefix “BP” ought to be attached to “Coast Guard” on all the vessels. “It’s a running joke among the journalists covering the story that the words ‘Coast Guard’ affixed to any vehicle, vessel, or plane should be prefixed with ‘BP,'” Charlie Varley told Newsweek. “It would be funny if it were not so serious.” It’s also not funny that many in the news media and on the left would rather blame BP for controlling federal agencies like the U.S. Coast Guard and Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) than recognize the similarities between limited media access in the Gulf and Obama’s previous actions controlling the press. Obama also has a long-standing pattern of handling the press, sometimes to the point of blocking access. So now that many reporters are complaining of a lack of access to the oil spill, it is surprising how little blame has been directed at the administration. During the campaign, he had three reporters from publications that had endorsed John McCain kicked off his plane. Since then he has openly attacked his detractors (including Rush Limbaugh) and was once criticized by a couple reporters (Chip Reid and Helen Thomas) for managing a town hall meeting. As of February, Obama had held fewer solo press conferences than most presidents — only George W. Bush, Ronald Reagan and Richard Nixon held fewer. And he went nearly a year, from July 22, 2009 until last week, without holding a formal news conference. Despite the failures of regulators at the Minerals Management Service and Obama’s own claim that the feds are in charge, a Media Research Center analysis of the oil spill coverage found 95 percent of stories had no criticism of the Obama administration whatsoever (148 out of 157 stories). Coast Guard, FAA keeps press away from Gulf spill Even though Newsweek, Mother Jones and others have clearly blamed BP for controlling federal agencies, government officials themselves are the ones that have been turning the news media away. So far, reporters and photographers from many outlets, including CBS, the New Orleans Times-Picayune, Mother Jones and AP have publicly complained about being denied access by local governments and law enforcement, the Coast Guard and the FAA. “More than a month into the disaster, a host of anecdotal evidence is emerging from reporters, photographers, and TV crews in which BP and Coast Guard officials explicitly target members of the media, restricting and denying them access to oil-covered beaches, staging areas for clean-up efforts and even flyovers,” Newsweek wrote. CBS released video of a boat of BP contractors and two Coast Guard officials telling their reporters to leave an area on May 20. The video shows one man on the boat saying, “This is BP’s rules, not ours.” As a company, how could they exert authority over the Coast Guard, and why wouldn’t the Obama administration make sure that does not happen?  AP’s Matthew Brown was one of the few to attach some blame to government, not solely BP. Brown wrote that different media organizations were being restricted “though not all have linked the decision to BP. Government officials say restrictions are needed to protect wildlife and ensure safe air traffic.” While there was no mention of Obama in Brown’s story, Brown said the Coast Guard and FAA told him that “BP PLC was not controlling access.” It is the FAA that has imposed air space restrictions on miles of coastline, according to The Times-Picayune. Flights in certain areas cannot descend below 3,000 feet – effectively preventing aerial photography of the spill’s impact. Rhonda Panepinto, owner of Southern Seaplane charter service, told the New Orleans paper her husband was told ” absolutely no media or press on any planes. The press flights are limited to Saturdays only and only in Coast Guard helicopters.” According to The Times-Picayune, the government decides who can fly and who cannot: “the FAA maintains that BP employees or contractors are not calling the shots on who gets to fly into the restricted air space, saying those decisions are made by the FAA and Coast Guard. But agency spokespeople acknowledge that media access is limited, saying they are only allowing flights into the restricted area that are directly related to the disaster response.” A June 9 New York Times story from cited an incident where the Dept. of Homeland Security told Sen. Bill Nelson’s, D-Fla., that no journalists would be allowed to accompany him on a gulf trip on a Coast Guard vessel. Though the Times clearly blamed some government agencies, like DHS, it did not mention the Obama administration at all. Plaquemines Parish President Billy Nungesser condemned the federal response to the oil spill calling for Coast Guard admiral Thad Allen to resign . Nungesser also called on Obama to support Gov. Bobby Jindal’s EPA request for dredging permits to protect Louisiana. On May 28, ABC’s Jake Tapper reported that Nungesser had a private meeting with Obama. Nungesser said Obama “chewed me out” and said “we need to communicate.” “You pick up the phone and call the White House. And, if you can’t get me on the phone, then you can go blast me,” Obama reportedly said to Nungesser. The Coast Guard has defended itself, specifically regarding the CBS incident, by saying that the media do have access: “In fact, media has been actively embedded and allowed to cover response efforts since this response began, with more than 400 embeds aboard boats and aircraft to date.” That wasn’t sufficient for Ralph Ranalli, chief blogger for WGBH’s Beat the Press website. He chalked up the continued access problems up to ” cluelessness ” on the part of the Obama administration, but criticized the lame response from the Coast Guard. Ranalli said that the CBS clip should have “shamed” the Obama administration into making “a rational plan for media access.” “Embeds are fine in a war zone. But for the federal government to say the media should be satisfied with ride-alongs with an oil company under criminal investigation for the worst environmental disaster in U.S. history is insane. It just staggers the imagination,” Ranalli wrote. Newsweek also took issue with such embeds arguing that “even when access is granted it’s done so under the strict oversight of BP and Coast Guard personnel.” Who’s really in charge? Media outlets have been determined to blame BP for the lack of access, despite the local and federal governments’ involvement. Unlike many reporters, one green blogger did call the president out on the Mother Nature Network. Karl Burkart, an architect and blogger about green technology, pointed out that “The Coast Guard, as one of the branches of the U.S. Armed Forces, answers to the commander in chief – President Obama.” Ultimately Burkart said he “believed” Obama was ” aiding and abetting ” BP. But the question remains, is the White House powerless to control federal agencies like the Coast Guard? Or unwilling – because more coverage would mean more potential criticism for Obama? Or are these agencies puppets in the hands of BP? No matter the option, things don’t look good for the administration. Robert Gibbs, WH press secretary, deflected criticism of the administration on CBS’s “Face the Nation,” May 23 saying “There’s no doubt that we have had some problems with BP’s lack of transparency.” But the White House has been careful to claim that they’ve been charge of the clean up operations. Carol Browner, Obama’s energy and climate czar, said on “Meet the Press” May 30, “the government’s been in control from the beginning … don’t make any mistake here, the government is in charge.” ( Watch video ) Obama told AP the same thing, saying that BP had to get permission from Washington for all the clean up. So it stands to reason that the White House wouldn’t have trouble telling BP to allow the media unfettered access to report on the oil spill if it wanted to. But the Obama administration has a history of managing the press. Despite an often-“fawning” news media that helped get him elected , the president rarely holds formal news conferences. According to Byron York, Obama has done fewer brief Q&A sessions than Bush or Clinton. Even at a bill signing for the Daniel Pearl Freedom of the Press Act May 18, Obama refused to answer questions from CBS’s Chip Reid. Reid asked, “”Speaking of press freedom, could you answer a couple of questions on BP?” Obama replied, “You’re certainly free to ask them, Chip.” When Reid pressed further asking, “Will you answer them?” Obama said flat-out: “We won’t be answering.” York said that former Bush White House press secretary Dana Perino was astounded by Obama dodging the press. “I think it is astonishing that there isn’t carping about this from the press every day,” Perino said. “Believe me, they would have nailed us to the wall.” Reid, along with liberal Helen Thomas, also challenged Obama for a “tightly controlled” town hall meeting in July 2009. “The concept of a town hall is to have an open public forum, and this sounds like a very tightly controlled audience and list of questions,” Reid said to Gibbs. “Why? Why do it that way?” Later in that White House briefing even liberal journalist Helen Thomas accused the administration of “a pattern of controlling the press.” During his presidential campaign, Obama kicked three reporters off the press airplane –  all from conservative papers. ABC wrote, “the papers are calling foul, claiming they were targeted for their editorial-page positions and kicked off while nonpolitical publications like Glamour and Jet magazines remained on board.” The Washington Times, New York Post and Dallas Morning News were eliminated from the airplane. Since taking office, the Obama White House has hit back hard at critics in the media, including Rush Limbaugh, Matt Drudge and CNBC’s Rick Santelli and Jim Cramer . According to Limbaugh, Obama has simply been following the liberal Saul Alinsky strategy: “Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, and polarize it.” Jonathan Martin of Politico agreed, saying on March 4 , all this isn’t coincidence; it is an effort to frame Limbaugh in the Alinsky mode. After Santelli’s rant about bailouts, Gibbs suggested that the CNBC floor reporter didn’t understand Obama’s mortgage plan. Gibbs also criticized Cramer and attempted to discredit him. But each of these actions by Obama, Emanuel or Gibbs has triggered a media-feeding frenzy and ensuing grassroots efforts to capitalize on the media attention and destroy the target. Like this article?  Sign up  for “The Balance Sheet,” BMI’s weekly e-mail newsletter.

View original post here:
Media Fail to See Obama’s Fingerprints on Lack of Press Freedom in Gulf

Mika: Boehner Should ‘Just Bend Over’

Has Pres. Obama’s ass-kickin’ line given license to MSM members to offer cruder commentary?  Could be, judging from Mika Brzezinski’s Morning Joe performance today, in which she suggested that House Republican leader John Boehner should “just bend over.” Mika normally plays the role of Morning Joe hall monitor, keeping the rambunctious trio of Joe Scarborough, Mike Barnicle and Willie Geist in line. But with Joe away today, it was Mika who indulged in some off-color imagery.  Prompting Mika’s remark was a clip of Boehner wondering why Pres. Obama isn’t looking for someone’s “ass to kick” on the subject of unrestrained federal spending. HAROLD FORD: The problem with his question, it’s probably himself if he’s looking, if the president’s looking for that word to kick. MIKA BRZEZINSKI: Yeah! FORD: Because John was one of the leaders in the Republican caucus who actually voted for, we didn’t pay for the entitlement spending, the new Medicare prescription-drug plan.  We didn’t pay for the war, for the first time we go to war without paying for it in the history of the nation.  So if he’s looking for one, he might — BRZEZINSKI: Just bend over.  Just bend over. Seriously. Check out Willie Geist’s horrified reaction to Mika’s line: the look of a fourth-grader shocked to hear his revered teacher say something dirty.

Read more:
Mika: Boehner Should ‘Just Bend Over’

MSNBC’s Joe Scarborough Continues Defense of Obama; Comparisons to Katrina ‘Obscene’

Joe Scarborough continued his open defense of the Obama administration’s response to the BP oil spill, on Wednesday’s “Morning Joe.” Facing off against Rep. Peter King (R-N.Y.), Scarborough called comparisons of the president’s handling of the current crisis with Bush’s handling of Katrina “obscene.” “Behind the scenes, President Obama from day one was actually very engaged,” Scarborough argued. “[Obama] told his White House staff ‘This is job one,’ ordered all of the agencies to throw the full force of the federal government behind this. I mean…we’ve got the minutes of the meeting from April 22 where he said that.” Rep. King countered that the administration lacked style in its handling of the crisis, and took eight days to declare it a “matter of national significance.” Though Scarborough said that President Obama has done everything of “substance” to respond to the spill, King also asked Scarborough what more President Bush could have done to handle the Katrina crisis. “What could George Bush have done?” Scarborough asked. “A hell of a lot.” “This is one of the most obscene comparisons, between Katrina and BP,” Scarborough spat out. “I was on the ground from day one. I can tell you the federal government was not there. The state government was not there. The local government was not there.” “No, you’re wrong, You’re wrong. That is not FEMA’s job,” Rep. King shot back. “That is the job of the mayor and the governor for the first two or three days.” A transcript of the show’s segment is as follows: MORNING JOE June 9, 2010 8:06a.m.–8:09a.m. JOE SCARBOROUGH: But–but–but Peter, you do understand–you do though understand, Peter, that behind the scenes President Obama from day one was actually very engaged, told his White House staff ‘this is job one,’ and ordered all of the agencies to throw the full force of the federal government behind this. I mean we’ve got that actual–we’ve got the minutes of the meeting from April 22 where he said that. MIKA BRZEZINSKI: It’s actually also in a press release released to the media. JOE SCARBOROUGH: Right. So is this about substance, or is this about style? REP. PETER KING (R-N.Y.): It’s both. It’s about leadership. And the fact is, it did take them–what–eight days to even declare this a matter of national significance. You know, leadership and style–Ronald Reagan had it, Franklin Roosevelt had it, John Kennedy had it, Bill Clinton had it in Oklahoma City. And you have to show–you have to connect with the American people. If you lose the American people on an issue like this, you’re going to hurt your administration, you know, for the next two years. SCARBOROUGH: So Peter, let me ask you, technically, can you name one thing that you would have done if you were running the White House operation technically, that Barack Obama did not do? REP. KING: I would have paid more attention to Gov. Jindal. I think Gov. Jindal is showing leadership, in fact, he wanted those berms off the coast. I think that is something that should have been done, that should have made more attention to him– SCARBOROUGH: But–but–but–but if you put the berms off the coast, that pushes the oil over to Mississippi. That may be great for Louisiana. I don’t think Haley would have liked that a whole hell of a lot. REP. KING: Well…the President should have engaged with Gov. Jindal. He didn’t engage with the Louisiana delegation, didn’t engage with Gov. Jindal, and he stayed away. And again, what more could President Bush have done with Katrina? The fact is, people like you are very critical of him. (Crosstalk) JOE SCARBOROUGH: Let me tell you–I’ll gladly tell you. I went down to Katrina the day after, and I can tell you unlike Florida, the year before, where we had four hurricanes, FEMA wasn’t there on the ground. The National Guard wasn’t there on the ground. (Crosstalk) SCARBOROUGH: This is one of the most obscene comparisons between Katrina and BP. I was on the ground from day one. I can tell you the federal government was not there. The state government was not there. The local government was not there. I saw children walking around in dirty diapers that they had been wearing for three days, four days. I saw kids wandering the streets of Biloxi and across Louisiana without any water, three days into it. What could George Bush have done? A hell of a lot. REP. KING: No, you’re wrong, you’re wrong. That is not FEMA’s job. That is the job of the mayor and the governor for the first two or three days. (Crosstalk) REP. KING: And you’re wrong, you’re wrong. SCARBOROUGH: No I’m not wrong! Peter! I’m in Pensacola, Florida. We have Ivan the year before and they’re flying supply planes in from Washington, D.C. the next day. Come on, Peter. I don’t tell you what’s happening in Long Island Sound. Don’t tell me what’s happening on the Gulf Coast. REP. KING: Joe, I’m telling you that everything that was done could have been done, until– the federal government does not come in until the third or fourth day. There was a failure of leadership by Mayor Nagin, by Governor Blanco, and Haley Barbour did a great job in Mississippi, Bob Riley did a great job in Alabama.     

Visit link:
MSNBC’s Joe Scarborough Continues Defense of Obama; Comparisons to Katrina ‘Obscene’

Antiquated Law Preventing Foreign Naval Aid for Gulf Oil Spill Says CNBC’s Santelli, Heritage Foundation

When a protectionist law is enacted and nearly a century later it is inhibiting a recovery from major ecological catastrophe, it’s probably time to scrap it or at least temporarily waive it. But instead a nearly century old provision known as the Jones Act of 1920 is wielding the wrath of unintended consequences. According to the Heritage Foundation, this protectionist measure was put in place to defend the American maritime industry, but is endangering far more jobs than it is protecting. “The Jones Act, which is supposedly about protecting jobs, is actually killing jobs,” Heritage co-authors James Dean and Claude Berube wrote in a June 8 The Foundry post . “The jobs of fishermen, people working in tourism and others who live along the Gulf Coast and earn a living there are being severely impacted. There are also additional private sector jobs which are NOT being created in the United States since the Jones Act effectively prices U.S. based companies out of the ability to be competitive on the competitive global market. As we strive to develop new technologies for a cleaner environment at sea, the Jones Act continues to hobble our own capabilities, sometimes with devastating results.” And CNBC’s Rick Santelli also noted this impediment to recovery. According to the Belgian newspaper De Standaard , European firms could complete the task in four months, rather than an estimated nine months if done only by the U.S., and just three months if working with U.S. firms. “They are playing this war of words,” Santelli said on CNBC’s June 9 “Closing Bell.” “Just consider this, there’s an old law on the books Ron, called the Jones Act of 1920. I’ve looked at three articles in a Belgian newspaper. They have special ships that could make a big difference in cleaning this up. But they were told by the State Department that they can’t because that act, Jones of 1920 prohibits ships that aren’t made in the U.S. to do such things in U.S. waters.” And Dean and Berube suggest the law should be done away with altogether. “The Jones Act needs to be waived now in light of this catastrophe and permit those whom we have helped and cooperated with in the past to assist us in our need,” they wrote. “After waiving the Jones Act for the Gulf clean up effort, Congress and the administration should repealing it all together.”

Continued here:
Antiquated Law Preventing Foreign Naval Aid for Gulf Oil Spill Says CNBC’s Santelli, Heritage Foundation

In the Gulf, We Need Action, Not Finger-pointing

I believe the oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico is the fault and responsibility of British Petroleum, and I believe they should be held accountable and made to pay for stopping the leak, cleaning up the water, beaches and wetlands, even if it takes every cent the company makes for the next ten years. I believe that they should be sued by the feds, the state government and the families who are suffering from the millions of gallons of crude oil that’s not only poisoning their waters but also threatening their very way of life. And having said that, I want to say this. Now is not the time for lawsuits, finger pointing, meaningless meetings and bureaucratic BS. Now is the time for action and all energy should be focused on getting the spill stopped and the mess cleaned up. Eric Holder’s presence on the Gulf Coast is about as useless as mammary glands on a boar hog. The time will come for lawsuits and plenty of them, but right now anything that distracts from fixing the catastrophe in the Gulf should be put on the back burner. If Holder wants to do something useful he should investigate the Sestak situation. Fat chance of that. And if President Obama wants to do something useful he should cut through the bureaucratic red tape that seems to throw a roadblock in the way of anything anybody wants to do to remedy the situation. Governor Bobby Jindal has been screaming for weeks that he needs containment equipment, and he wants to dredge sand and build some barriers to stop the oil slick before it gets on shore. He has been denied his request by the government. They say it’s because there has not been an environmental study done as to what the effects would be. The truth of the matter is that by the time the lethargic Obama Administration gets around to doing something meaningful there may not be an environment to protect on the Louisiana coast. Obama’s policy seems to be, do nothing and let nobody else do anything. People, can you imagine what would happen if America was to have a major terrorist attack. Would there have to be an environmental study before we respond or would Obama send Holder to sue the terrorists. Oh I forgot, he doesn’t sue terrorists, he defends them. Besides, it would probably be George Bush’s fault anyway. This country is leaderless. The incompetency of the Obama Administration is putting this nation in terrific and immediate danger. Somewhere on this planet there is someone who knows how to stop this leak. It may not be a politically correct method and it may not be something Obama can take credit for but there is a way to do it and the federal government should put away politics. Swallow their pride and put out the call for help. People of the Gulf Coast please know that my heart is with you, my prayers are for you and I know what kind of people you are. You’ll never give up. I only wish you could get some sensible help from the government you pay taxes to.

See the rest here:
In the Gulf, We Need Action, Not Finger-pointing

Unlike With Katrina, Media Stay Away from Gulf Spill Competency Questions

The mainstream media seem to have boiled down the president’s reaction to the Gulf spill to two caricatures: either he has failed to satiate public appetites by feigning outrage, or he is succeeding by acting angry. Whereas journalists rightly expected President Bush to do something about Katrina–and excoriated him when he supposedly didn’t do enough–the media seem content listening to Obama speak. That the president may not be doing everything in his power, like, say, meeting with the CEO of British Petroleum , seems not even to cross their minds. So the only critique of the president that remains is one of style. By focusing on what the president has said–rather than what he has done–and how he has said it, the media have diverted (albeit unintentionally) attention from the administration’s actual response to the spill to its emotional and verbal response. Obama and his predecessor both accepted responsibility for the spill and Hurricane Katrina, respectively. But the mainstream press took the former at his word; they rightfully held him accountable for his administration’s actions. No such accountability is present in the media’s reporting on Obama’s response to the Gulf spill. “I as president am responsible for the problem, and for the solution,” Bush stated. Obama echoed this sentiment late last month, when he said, “I take responsibility. It is my job to make sure that everything is done to shut this down.” Now contrast, by way of example, the two New York Times headlines covering the respective admissions of responsibility. “Responding to Spill, Obama Mixes Regret With Resolve,” the Times’s editors wrote on May 27. That tone stands in stark contrast to this headline , from September 16, 2005: “Bush admits Katrina response was inadequate”. The Times captured the spirit of the media’s coverage. In Bush’s case, the concern was with what had and had not been done. But today the same journalists seem more concerned with what the White House is saying about the spill than with what it is doing about it. Some, such as MSNBC’s Norah O’Donnell, have even bemoaned how badly the administration feels about the situation. White House staffers are apparently having nightmares in between beer pong games . If Obama hasn’t succeeded at solving a problem, the media narrative goes, it is because the problem cannot be solved, not because he has failed in any way. After all, he caaaares . After the president claimed he was looking for “whose ass to kick” in an interview with Matt Lauer on Monday, the media seized on the statement as a tangible example not just of the president’s new commitment to mitigating the disaster, but even as an example of his hands-on attitude towards the spill. NewsBusters reported Tuesday on network TV journos going gaga over the president’s newfound combativeness. “In a TV interview aired today, the President said if BP’s CEO worked for him, he’d be fired,” stated Katie Couric. So Couric parroted the president saying what he would do in a hypothetical situation with a person with whom he has not actually met in the 50 days since the spill began. Obama’s kick-ass quote or his hypothetical threats against Tony Hayward have been touted as proof that the president is responding to the public demands that he do domething about the spill. But Obama still has not done much of anything. That fact seems lost on the media. So readers are left shaking their heads when the Atlantic’s Marc Ambinder says this : The American Prospect’s Adam Serwer notes today, “One of the things I used to like about the president is that he always seemed indifferent to village demands that he acquiesce to whatever empty political gesture they wanted him to make.” Well, Serwer can relax. President Obama did not conjure up the posterior metaphor on his own. He turned Matt Lauer’s “butt” into an “ass,” and his annoyance seemed to be more a consequence of Lauer’s questions than of any effort to appear angry.    Appearing angry and appearing engaged are two different things. The White House understands how anger can be appropriately channeled and employed, but at this point, they are eager for the public to see the president as engaged — as problem solving. If President Obama hadn’t said “ass,” then he’d be accused of not being angry enough. Because he did say “ass,” he’s accused of titrating his response to criticisms that he’s not angry enough about the oil leak. The man cannot win. Well yes, as Ace notes , “he can win — he can do something about the oil slick.” Not just talk about it or “strike the right emotional notes,” but actually do something about it, something tangible, something real, something with real-world impact. That’s how he “wins,” dude. And that, I’m sad to report, is the only way he wins. But for media personalities so used to covering a president whose tongue won him the White House, talking has supplanted action. Obama talking is Obama acting. Hence before the president’s kick-ass moment, the public’s sour mood towards the Gulf spill response was due to Obama’s failure to adequately communicate how well he has been doing. Now that he has succeeded in communicating, the narrative goes, he has simply succeeded. Why anyone would continue to deny him credit accordingly is completely lost on these pundits. Ace hits the nail on the head: So, that’s what we have going on. We are allowed two permissible storylines — Obama’s not emoting enough, or Obama’s emoting just enough — and the MFM won’t entertain other storylines, like, “This has nothing at all to do with emoting, but rather to do with reality and real-world achievements.”

Originally posted here:
Unlike With Katrina, Media Stay Away from Gulf Spill Competency Questions

Jillette Mocks BP Boycott Try: ‘Oh No, Now They’re Boycotting us on Facebook’

There are a lot of people angry at BP for causing huge damage to the Gulf of Mexico. As a way to vent some of this emotion, some are volunteering their help to clean up where the oil has washed ashore. Others are petitioning lawmakers to clamp down on oil companies to ensure this doesn’t happen again. However, there’s one option that has proved to be pointless according to Penn Jillette, half of the famed Vegas duo Penn & Teller.  On the June 8 broadcast of the Fox Business Network’s “Imus in the Morning,” Jillette said the first thing that amazed him about the entire oil spill catastrophe was the notion of a Facebook group geared toward boycotting BP. “Well, you know, I don’t know there’s many different takes to take on it,” Jillette said. “I mean, it’s just a horrible disaster and a catastrophe. What amazes me about it is on Facebook, they just, they put this thing up, you know, ‘Boycott BP.'” Aside from hurting only local station owners, as Jonathan Berr pointed out for AOL’s Daily Finance on June 2 , Jillette explained this would likely be the least of BP’s worries considering the current circumstances. “A Facebook thing to boycott BP?” Jillette said. “And all I could think is, you know, 11 people dead, a corporation being destroyed, the biggest natural ecological disaster in American history and I picture these people on Facebook going, ‘But, this will get ‘em.’ And BP will be going ‘Oh no, now they’re boycotting us on Facebook.'” Jillette suggested these people take a step back and realize how their anger could not remotely come close to the emotions of people suffering from effects of the spill. “I mean, the idea that whatever punishment or anger people could have towards BP could come anywhere near the horror and misery of being part of that is just amazing to me,” Jillette said. “It’s amazing to me that people think that attacking a corporation is the way to get out of this. No one knows more about stopping this than they do and unfortunately, it’s not enough.”

More here:
Jillette Mocks BP Boycott Try: ‘Oh No, Now They’re Boycotting us on Facebook’