posted by mikevotes at
Would it be more or less aggressively covered? My thinking is the Oilmen in the Whitehouse would have been spinning in overdrive to minimize the impact of the spill (as well as the challenge of stopping the flow, and the risks of deep water drilling). The already restricted media access would be even mores o under Bush and therefore it would be like covering an event on the dark side of the moon: out out sight, out of the papers.
By -epm, at 11:48 AM
See, I think they would have gotten blasted harder because of ll the ties to big oil.And, I'm imagining inserting it in the 2007/2008 time frame, not 2003.
By mikevotes, at 12:19 PM
But the media has had extremely restricted acces -- including airspace -- to the affected areas as it it. I can only imagine how much more restricted they would have been under a Bush/Cheney government. I see your point, but I wonder if the lack of information would result in much of a media storm.
By -epm, at 3:32 PM
I think we'd be seeing alot more pictures of "defenseless animals" and alot more portrayal of evil corporation than we are.
By mikevotes, at 5:16 PM
I think we'd be hearing a lot less about the spill, myself.
By Will, at 2:58 PM
So, I'm the only one....? Hmmm......
By mikevotes, at 6:36 AM
Post a Comment
This is not the America I was brought up to believe in.
This blog seeks to highlight abuse of power, deception, corruption, and just plain bad ideas in government and corporations.
Updated several times a day.