McClatchy's+Page

=The Gulf Coast Oil Spill = = Another Katrina? =

Brief Overview and Summary


On April 20th 2010, an explosion on an oil rig off the Louisiana coast has caused one of the largest oil spills in history. President Obama has described the spill as “a potentially unprecedented environmental disaster.” Recent reports estimate that 3.5 million barrels of oil have already been dumped into the gulf waters. The spill has had an immediate impact on the wildlife killing thousands of fish. As a result, The Louisiana fishing industry and many local seafood restaurants have suffered enormous economic hardship. However, other problems and questions are beginning to surface as the polluted waters near the American coastline. Congress, for example, has been polarized over the question of offshore drilling. Environmentalists contend that the explosion and resulting spill demonstrate the costs of offshore drilling, yet the need for oil has continued to drive such drilling programs in the United States. For so long an event like the gulf oil spill has been merely a hypothetical scenario, but now the problem is demonstrated in reality.

Mainstream Media
Example One = = =[|Obama Vows End to ‘Cozy’ Oversight of Oil Industry]=

=
By [|JOHN M. BRODER] and [|HELENE COOPER]======

WASHINGTON — [|President Obama] on Friday angrily assailed the finger-pointing among the three companies involved in the [|oil spill] in the Gulf of Mexico as a “ridiculous spectacle,” even as his own administration came under criticism for failing to do enough to prevent an environmental calamity. “I will not tolerate any more finger-pointing or irresponsibility,” he said. “This is a responsibility that all of us share.” The president’s comments reflected impatience by the White House over BP’s failure to stop the leaking of oil into the gulf, and alarm that growing public ire could soon overwhelm the administration. White House officials have been meeting daily about how to respond to the spill, but amid reports that the administration may have been hasty in issuing drilling permits to BP and other oil companies, Mr. Obama summoned top cabinet officials to the Oval Office on Friday to discuss how to increase the government’s response. As environmental groups criticized the administration’s record on drilling, Democrats tried to take steps Friday to prevent the issue from causing even more damage in an election year. The [|Democratic National Committee] sent an e-mail message to reporters trumpeting an article in The Atlantic Monthly that cast the administration’s response to the oil spill in a favorable light compared with President [|George W. Bush]’s response to [|Hurricane Katrina]. Most Democrats have refrained from directly criticizing the White House’s response to the spill, even as the calls for fundamental reform of regulation of [|offshore drilling] have grown louder. But with each day the spill is not contained, and with new estimates that it may be many times larger than the government has said, the peril is rising for the administration. Next week, top administration officials, including the cabinet officers directly in charge of the response, will appear before several Congressional committees — and the questions, and possible blame, could shift from the companies to the administration. In the gulf, BP technicians were preparing the latest of several efforts to plug the leaking well and siphon off some of the oil. BP planned to try to insert a tube into the open end of the drilling riser, the source of the biggest leak. A second intervention, a so-called top hat, is already on the seabed, waiting to be maneuvered over the biggest leak in case the insertion pipe fails. A relief well is being drilled to block the leaking well. Officials said it had reached 9,000 feet below the ocean surface, about halfway to the planned intersection point with the original well. Government officials have approved the use of chemical oil dispersants deep underwater after several tests and consultation with scientists, according to Rear Adm. Mary Landry of the Coast Guard, the top commander on the scene. She also said that the weather forecast for the next few days was favorable, so operations to skim and burn oil from the surface would resume. Mr. Obama reiterated that he intended to break up the beleaguered federal [|Minerals Management Service], which oversees offshore drilling, “so that the part of the agency which permits oil and gas drilling and collects royalties will be separate from the part of the agency in charge of inspecting oil rigs and platforms and enforcing the law.” That way, Mr. Obama said, “there’s no conflict of interest, real or perceived.” David Rothkopf, a former Commerce Department official in the Clinton administration, said that Mr. Obama was trying to walk a fine line between capitalizing on populist anger over the oil spill and alienating the business community, which he needs for his jobs agenda. “I think one of the risks associated with his rhetoric on the spill is that it hardens the divide between the [|Democratic Party] and the business community,” Mr. Rothkopf said. “And that’s something that while it seems to be in the spirit of the moment now, could have serious ramifications come election time.” That, he said, could result in money from corporate America going to the [|Republican Party]. Environmentalists and proponents of greater restrictions on offshore oil drilling questioned, for instance, Mr. Obama’s decision to expand offshore oil drilling — announced in March — before first tackling the close relationships between government and industry at the agency. “The ultimate question is how did this decision to expand offshore drilling get made in the first place?” said Steve Kretzmann, executive director of [|Oil Change International], an environmental group opposed to offshore drilling.** While myriad reports and investigations showed that the minerals service was essentially the handmaiden of industry before Mr. Obama took office, the administration failed to take any significant action until after the spill. The White House said in a news release on Friday that it knew of weaknesses in the policy on so-called categorical exclusions or blanket exemptions from required environmental impact assessments, but had not taken final steps to change them. Accordingly, the White House and [|Interior Department] announced Friday an accelerated review of all actions taken by the minerals agency under the National Environmental Policy Act, known as NEPA. The law, a foundation of environmental policy enacted after the 1969 Santa Barbara, Calif., oil spill, mandates that federal agencies must complete a thorough environmental assessment before approving any major project, especially offshore drilling. The minerals service short-circuited the process in granting hundreds of recent drilling permits, The New York Times reported Friday. The BP well that blew up in the gulf last month was granted an exemption from the NEPA process because company officials had assured regulators that it carried little hazard. Government officials went along with the company and granted the permit. The administration said it would study the way oil regulators apply the environmental law and make changes if necessary. Interior Secretary [|Ken Salazar] said a review of the policy procedures for the minerals agency “is an important part of the ongoing comprehensive and thorough investigation of this incident, but it also continues the reform effort that we have been undertaking” throughout the Interior Department. He said he would review how the laws on endangered species and marine mammals are applied in offshore oil regulation. Kieran Suckling, executive director of the [|Center for Biological Diversity], said that the steps announced this week by the president and Interior Department do little to ensure the safety of current and future offshore drilling. “Ken Salazar came into office announcing, ‘There is a new sheriff in town,’ and promised to reform the deeply corrupt Minerals Management Service,” Mr. Suckling said. “He took action regarding personal, criminal actions, but did absolutely nothing to address the agency’s dangerous practice of rubber-stamping offshore oil-drilling permits.” Commentary
 * In remarks during an appearance in the Rose Garden, Mr. Obama also criticized what he called the “cozy relationship” between the government and the [|oil] industry that has existed for decades, even into his own administration. He acknowledged that federal agencies had failed to ensure that safety and environmental standards were being met and announced a thorough review of the oversight process.**
 * Even as Mr. Obama outlined the government’s latest actions in response to the spill, his administration was coming under fire for allowing the minerals service to continue with business as usual in granting the permits even after Mr. Obama came to office vowing to clean it up.
 * An article from the New York Times written by John Broder and Helene Cooper
 * In this article, Broder and Cooper report on Obama's comments on the oil spill and his criticisms of BP for blaming the spill on other groups.
 * "He acknowledged that federal agencies had failed to ensure that safety and environmental standards were being met and announced a thorough review of the oversight process."
 * The American people have to come to grips with the fact the government is not perfect and will make mistakes.
 * As seen in my previous exmple of mainstream media, this article voices no political opinion

Citizen Media
Example One By: Jake Sherman ||
 * =[|Response to Gulf oil spill examined]=
 * After beating up on Big Oil all last week, congressional panels are beginning to pick apart the federal response to the oil spill, as the Obama administration will face questions about why key agencies seemed unprepared for the scope of the disaster.

Sen. Joe Lieberman (I-Conn.), chairman of the Senate Homeland Security Committee, said Monday that the government might not have been equipped to handle such a large oil spill, and he criticized regulators for relying so heavily on the blowout preventer, the mechanism meant to stop a massive deep-water oil gusher.

Maine Sen. Susan Collins, the top Republican on the Homeland Security Committee, expressed outrage that only the Minerals Management Service approved oil-spill response plans without the Coast Guard having a say.

Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano, the first of several Cabinet officials scheduled to testify on Capitol Hill this week, admitted the government has “limited capability and expertise” in dealing with such disasters in very deep water.

And she said nobody would have predicted that a blowout preventer wouldn’t work.

“I think before the blowout, it is clear that there was an assumption that a [blowout preventer] would never fail,” Napolitano said.

Coast Guard Rear Adm. Peter Neffenger admitted that “clearly this is beyond what we anticipated.” But the candid responses from top federal officials at a Senate Homeland Security Committee on Monday stood in stark contrast to the oil industry’s strategy at the hearings.

Even after a fervent presidential admonishment, Lamar McKay, BP’s top American executive, told the committee Monday that Transocean was responsible for the operation of the now-sunken Deepwater Horizon rig, which killed 11 and perhaps permanently altered the nation’s energy policies.

“BP is one of the lease holders and the operator of this exploration well,” McKay said in testimony handed out at the hearing. “As operator, BP hired Transocean to conduct the well drilling operations. Transocean owned and was responsible for safe operation of the Deepwater Horizon drilling rig and its equipment, including the blowout preventer.”

He also maintained that the blowout preventer should have worked, and he avoided answering whether there was an overreliance on one piece of hardware to prevent what has become an ecological disaster. He “couldn’t comment” on too much reliance, McKay said, until the investigation has concluded.

If Napolitano proves precedent, Obama administration officials could score major points on Capitol Hill by signaling openness to a wide swath of regulatory overhaul.

Interior Secretary Ken Salazar and Environmental Protection Agency Administrator Lisa Jackson are also set to appear on Capitol Hill this week to face both House and Senate lawmakers probing the oil spill. The House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee and Senate Environment and Public Works and Commerce, Science and Transportation committees will all have hearings this week.

The hearings will very likely take a largely new tone — one with the background of progress in the Gulf. BP has said that one of the three leaks has been plugged and a relief well is being drilled to provide some permanent relief to the leak; this process will take up to three months.

As the hearing began Monday, BP announced that it was giving $25 million to Florida and $15 million to Alabama, Mississippi and Louisiana to “promote tourism.” Also, in testimony, both Napolitano and McKay said that BP has been judicious in filling insurance claims — Napolitano said $6.6 million has been disbursed; McKay said BP had paid $12 million.

While key congressional committees have been much harder on BP and its contractors, the Obama administration will not escape criticism from Republicans. Collins on Monday criticized what she believes is an “unwise” reduction of the Coast Guard’s budget, but Napolitano did not respond.

Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.), meanwhile, asked what the worst-case scenario might be for the spill. Napolitano managed to stay vague.

“The worst-case scenario is that we’ll be at this for quite a while,” she said.

Democrats seem intent on continuing to bash BP.

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid said BP’s “greed” led to the spill, and Lieberman asked Napolitano what she thought of the company’s response to the disaster.

Napolitano submitted that it would be “premature” to say whe­ther their response was adequate.

“I would like to, if I might, reserve judgment on the adequacy of the private-sector response,” Napolitano said. || Commentary
 * A news article written by Jake Sherman from Politico.com
 * The article reports on the Governments response to the oil spill
 * With Theodore Lowi in mind, the oil spill reflects the Mineral Management Service's failure to engage in long term planning and to establish effective regulatory policies.
 * Although the article examines the many criticisms leveled against the White House, it projects no obvious political bias.They cite both Democrats and Republicans.
 * With quotes from experts and reliable sources, it is evident that some investigatory work was done.

Mainstream Media
Example Two

media type="custom" key="6160505" align="center"

Commentary
 * News segment on Gulf Coast oil spill from PBS News Hour with Jim Lehrer
 * The PBS News Hour is considered one of the most reliable sources of news in mainstream media, but does not have the same level of entertainment seen on other news programs:Fox, MSNBC, CNN.
 * The news story provides the facts absent of an opinion and political context.
 * This particular segment gives information on the efforts to contain the spill and it's damages to the environment
 * This type of news allows viewers to absorb the information and then form their own political opinions. This story, for instance, may trigger debates regarding off-shore drilling.

Citizen Media
Example Two

media type="custom" key="6189911" Commentary
 * A clip form Rush Limbaugh's The Rush Limbaugh Show.
 * A great example of talk radio. (Remember Mr. Maddox's rant?)
 * This segment especially demonstrates Limbaugh's ultraconservative and ridiculous political point of view. His popularity is frightening.
 * Note that the program is called The Rush Limbaugh **Show**. Rush's popularity is connected to the entertainment he provides his listeners.
 * In this particular segment, Limbaugh suggests that the explosion on the oil rig was an inside job planned by "environmentalist wackos."

Comparative Analysis
Introduction During the latter decades of the 20th century, the public relied on a handful of television news programs and national newspapers to provide information on current events. The competition for news stories was minimal, and the information released to the public was reliable and of a high quality. However, overtime, the media industry began to change. New technologies, readily available to anyone of any economic status, offered new means in which the public could acquire news. The invention of the Internet, especially, triggered an explosion of information, creating great competition among news sources and reducing the quality of reporting. Although often a great tool, the Internet has cluttered the news environment with blogs and politically partisan sites. Today, news sources can be categorized into two different groups: mainstream media and citizen media. For the most part, mainstream and citizen media differ. Even so, they do contain some commonalities. These similarities and differences are evident in the reporting of the recent gulf coast oil spill. Example One In my first example, I compare an article published in The New York Times entitled “Obama Vows End to ‘Cozy’ Oversight of Oil Industry” and an article posted on politico.com called “Response to Gulf oil spill examined.” In this instance, mainstream and citizen media are very similar. Politico and The New York Times are two very reputable news sources, and the quality of information in both articles is comparable to that of traditional reporting. Both articles raise political questions on the effectiveness of government during the oil spill, but present the facts absent of political opinions or exaggerated claims. In the Times article, for example, the author quotes Obama recognizing the Mineral Management Service’s failure to plan for a disaster like the oil spill. “He [Obama] acknowledged that federal agencies had failed to ensure that safety and environmental standards were being met and announced a thorough review of the oversight process.” Similarly, the Politico reporter examines the criticisms that the Obama administration has been facing in light of the predicted damages that the oil spill will ensue. “Sen. Joe Lieberman (I-Conn.), chairman of the Senate Homeland Security Committee, said Monday that the government might not have been equipped to handle such a large oil spill, and he criticized regulators for relying so heavily on the blowout preventer.” These types of news articles are meant to present the facts as objectively as possible, so that the readers can develop their own political opinions. Example Two My second example compares a television news segment from The PBS News Hour with Jim Lehrer and a sound clip from Rush Limbaugh’s talk radio show. The PBS News Hour is perhaps one of the only television news programs that has preserved the aspects of traditional reporting and has refused to attract viewers through entertainment. In this particular segment and in others, the reporters give the plain facts without hinting at their own political beliefs. To augment the quality of news they provide, each piece usually includes a factual commentary from experts on certain issues. In the oil spill segment, for example, an expert from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration explained the cause of the spill, the resulting consequences, and the efforts to prevent further contaminations of the gulf waters. In addition, Mark Shields and David Brooks, two well-known columnists, appear on the program regularly to provide political analyses. Shields, a liberal, and Brooks, a conservative, create a politically balanced atmosphere. Rush Limbaugh’s talk radio show, on the other hand, projects an extremely conservative ideology and borders on radicalism. All of Limbaugh’s segments are aimed to bash the liberal agenda by making false accusations. In my example, Rush suggests that the oil spill was an inside job masterminded by “environmentalist wackos” to galvanize support for the termination of oil drilling. He resorts to name calling and hyperbolic language to make his point. Politically sane listeners would most likely dismiss these accusations as ridiculous and unrealistic, but others might absorb Limbaugh’s claims as the truth. Conclusion Overall, I think that the Mainstream Media does a better job in reporting the gulf oil spill. Mainstream Media journalists and reporters have access to extremely reputable sources that will provide the best information. It would be nearly impossible for Rush Limbaugh, for instance, to have David Brooks and Mark Shields on his show to provide further in-depth analyses of other future environmentalist terrorist attacks. However, I have realized that, in many ways, the line differentiating mainstream and citizen media is beginning to thin. The quality of news seen in mainstream media is dropping to the level of that in citizen media. Programs such as Fox and MSNBC project political biases and, perhaps, are more concerned with attracting viewers through entertainment rather than giving them the highest quality of news. The high competition for news stories has left news networks fighting for dominance on television. The most entertaining shows--The O'Relliy Factor, Hannity, Glen Beck--have risen to the top. Again, press groups like the New York Times and PBS do in fact provide good news, but the newspaper business is dying and the PBS News Hour is not watched.The ultimate question is will the quality of objective journalism continue to diminish on this trend?