.
.
Key has made a challenge to Deep Sea Oil Drilling Protesters,
.
.
That’s quite a challenge.
However, issuing such a challenge is ultimately futile. For a challenge to be accepted, there has to be a measure of trust on both sides.
Quite simply, the days of trusting our current Prime Minister – with all his broken promises; bending the truth; lying by omission; ducking responsibility; shifting blame onto others; telling only half the truth (or less); and outright lies – is long gone.
As just one example. Let’s not forget that when Greenpeace first released their modelling of a deep-sea oil blow-out, it was dismissed as “scare-mongering” by the Prime Minister,
.
.
Two months later, and documents released by Maritime New Zealand (prompted by an Official Information Act request for Anadarko’s discharge management plan) revealed even more disturbing news – Greenpeace had actually under-estimated the effects of a deep-sea oil blowout!!!
.
.
So Key’s dismissal of Greenpeace’s report had been wrong. Greenpeace’s modelling was not only shown to be correct, but actually under-estimated any disaster scenario.
Did Key admit that his initial assessment of Greenpeace’s report was premature and wrong?
Did Key apologise?
Did the Anadarko report prompt Key to review his support for deep sea oil drilling?
Did Key announce “I’ll join your protest!”?
The answer to each of those four questions is a flat out; “No”.
So this blogger wonders; why should any protestor take up Key’s challenge when our Prime Minister has already demonstrated he is not to be trusted?
.
*
.
References
Radio NZ: PM dismisses Greenpeace oil spill report
Fairfax media: Oil leak numbers far worse than assumed
Radio NZ: PM says deep sea protesters misled
.
*
.
Above image acknowledgment: Francis Owen
.
.
= fs =
rebuttle?
“Ahem, come on, I always wipe up after any ejaculated “spill”, do you doubt I or my contracted explorers will not do the same?” JK
I found his statement disturbing for two reasons. The first is that it is almost exactly the same as the Tag Oil boss used in his TV interview which proves the Govt and the Companies are closely aligned in their tactical PR approach.
Secondly their strategy is to falsely quote individual Iwi members or Iwi generically to give some kind of weight to their statements and to undermine protest.
Today Iwi in Taranaki have confirmed they do not approve of oil drilling and they say as there are ten Iwi in Taranaki they’d like to know which he’s quoting.
The Tag Oil boss Drew Cadenhead said on national TV an individual with much respect here had watched him draw figures on the whiteboard and now agrees with his company drilling (you have to watch that clip to believe it) I now know that this was a complete lie on his behalf.
I am concerned if the media doesn’t catch up with this tactic and check the sources quoted before reporting then National and Corporates and Oil companies will get a lot of political mileage from misrepresentation and outright lies in their media coverage.
Its not so hard. If an Iwi is quoted than ask which ones and for their spokespeople’s names if an individual is quoted likewise pick up the phone and check the facts. If this can’t be done then Journalists shouldn’t report it.
Its news not PR surely? In an election year we should be able to trust media much more than we currently can to report accurately.
This tactic is going to be used over and over by the talking heads.
Umm… didn’t Cunliffe say Labour was in favour deep sea oil drilling, regurgitating exactly the same kind of “international safety standards” bullshit that Key is using?
Enjoy the kaimoana, it could be your last, unless we all punch ourselves in the head with our left hand, so there’s more of us than the one’s punching themselves in the head with their right hand.
David Cunliffe’s support for Deep Sea Oil looks sicker every day.
Who would have guessed?
Would these be the same sort of harsh conditions (or worse) that are experienced in the Southern Ocean, that would also prevent any “emergency response”?
Is 123 lives in 3 decades and now the recent spill an acceptable level of death and destruction for the Labour Party?
And what if after Labour approve all this, National get in again and “cost savings” take precedence over safety and emergency response, as is currently happening in Norway even under a Labour Government?
Comments are closed.