Press Conference with President Obama, The White House, Washington, D.C.

Thursday, May 27th, 2010

http://blogs.suntimes.com/sweet/2010/05/obama_on_bp_oil_spill_im_fully.html

What do you think about President Obama’s actions? Weigh in here!

Here is another interesting update from the NY Times…

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/05/28/us/28flow.html?partner=rss&emc=rss&src=igw

-Zoe Burgess

I got this email recently..This is where you can learn more –

http://www.genejuarez.com/Style/Blog.aspx?utm_source=tms&utm_medium=email&utm_content=5_21_10_gulf-hair_blog&utm_campaign=5_21_10_gulf-hair

–Abby Jermasek

From Zoe Burgess!

Bp has also been making significant strategic communication and Public Relations efforts to  help the energy company save face, here is an interesting link to their website specifically created to deal with questions about the spill:http://www.bp.com/bodycopyarticle.do?categoryId=1&contentId=7052055&nicam=USCSBaselineQ409&nisrc=Google&nigrp=Branded_Crisis_Management&niadv=General&nipkw=bp

API, another industry leader with a stake in the tragedy has set up a website about relief efforts, solutions and recovery plans for the Gulf of Mexico, the link is here: http://www.api.org/Newsroom/safetyresponse/index.cfm

API also has an interesting commercial that I saw a few weeks ago about offshore drilling in America, it is very intriguing to watch after this crisis. Here is the link: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=32VgYHuj_mk

Lastly, if you would like to get involved or more information about grassroots efforts and democratic campaigns for a quick reolution then check out these sites: http://www.democracynow.org/2010/5/5/bp_funnels_millions_into_lobbying_to andhttp://www.gulfoilspill.org/

By Zoe Burgess

Post by Zoe Burgess

The incident began on April 20^th when an explosion erupted on the platform which was drilling an exploration well for BP in the Gulf of Mexico. Shortly after an oil slick appeared on the surface of the water and on April 24^th cameras finally spotted the leak. President Obama spoke about the matter on April 30^th and took political action. He announced that no new drilling will be authorized in Federal waters. Efforts to stop the oil leak are still continuing today. President Obama has said that he is “deeply frustrated” by the response so far and is forming an independent panel to investigate the disaster. Here is a great link to check out for an up-to-date timeline of events from the BP oil spill and here is a powerful photo journal and some more additional resources.

It is clear here that multiple interested parties are deeply involved in this tragedy but where are the American people in all this? Government officials are taking direct action and industry leaders and launching advanced crisis communication PR campaigns. Are the American people truly being politically engaged and even civically involved in this significant disaster? According to communication scholar Zukin, there are key differences between civic and political engagement. He writes that, “political engagement is activity aimed at influencing government policy” where as “civic engagement… refers to participation aimed at achieving a public good, but usually through direct, hands-on work in cooperation with others“ (51). It is obvious that in the wake of this tragedy that the government is taking an active role, as is the news media, in recuperation efforts but I have yet to hear of any grassroots campaign implemented by citizens. After spending time researching ways to get involved in I found little to no information, signifying to me that indeed Americans are disinterested as Zukin asserts about the DotCom and GenX generations of the present. Similarly, if there is no civic engagement can there be political engagement? Which begs the question; with no civic action taking place what is going make the government pay attention and make the necessary changes that must take place to ensure the safety of fisheries in America? With an event of such magnitude and great impact taking place and no social action occurring we must truly be at a low level of both political and civic engagement. So how do we increase both civic and political engagement?

Post by Zoe Burgess

"Coal Keeps the Lights On"

What does coal really power?

We know that the U.S. has the largest amounts of  natural coal deposits and the current logic is since we have it we should use it–coal burning plants provided over 40% of U.S.  electrical energy in January 2010, according to Electric Power Monthly.

We also know that burning coal  is extremely harmful–the Union of Concerned Scientists states the fact simply that coal, “is the single biggest air polluter in the U.S.” They also list the whole host of unpleasant results that accompany this controversial energy source.

The film  Coal Country illustrates the emotionally bitter battle between the coal industry/ devoted workers and the activists working to stop the destruction of Mountain Top Removal and coal production’s negative impact on the health, safety, economy and  livability of their community’s. This power struggle, or more accurately  “David and Goliath” fight against the dominant coal company’s is waging in the poorest region of the U.S. –Appalachia. The fear is  real that coal is the only thing keeping people from abject poverty and yet the contrast is huge between the deserted, stagnant coal towns and the flourishing recreational and tourist industry’s in non-coal towns. Many wonder how long the scare tactics of the coal industry will work and  the environmental/ economic degradation will continue. Others praise the restoration of the mountains used for coal and the ingenuity and  opportunity’s of coal/ “clean coal” production.  So… Does coal keep the lights on or does it keep the jobs out?

Despite the facts and figures on either side,  I believe  the  deciding factors in the struggle will come down to the Strategic Communication of the Coal Industry.

And the industry’s relationship to its audience is failing, that was easy to see in Coal Country. There is a lack of communication about the public health crisis those regions are in. Coal is the perceived culprit and trust in the industry is lacking. They may have national television commercials but how are the people most affected being catered to?

For the industry’s credit it is quite hard to make coal look attractive and that is the problem, when looking beyond the funded commercials and into the lives of those in coal towns  having to wipe black dust off their furniture, what kind of idea about coal would resonate a positive feeling for them?

Resonance?

The American Coalition for Clean Coal Electricity did a study that found creating  new power plants with clean coal technology would create 150,000 new jobs . Those results are hard to trust as they have yet to be seen.

It is daunting to think of an acceptable solution for all involved in this issue…here is one example of what could be done.

http://www.good.is/post/one-west-virginia-coal-town-s-fight-for-a-clean-energy-future/

Ultimately, either the “Clean Coal Technology” message will inspire people or “Wind Farms” will inspire people. Leaders will need to run with the message, time will tell which message will resonate and what the  impacts will be.  At least at the end of the story little David does beat big Goliath.

–Abby Jermasek

When we hear the word “Wal-mart”, dozens of characteristics may come to mind when thinking about one of the world’s largest corporations. Maybe it’s the plethora of products offered at  incredibly low prices, or the bouncing smiley face in their advertisements. We may even think of those uncoordinated, horrifying outfits posted on the internet phenomenon, People of Wal-mart. Yet how often do consumers think of Wal-Mart as a sustainable department store? Surprisingly, Wal-Mart is working closely with the EDF (Environmental Defense Fund) to reduce it’s carbon footprint in our environment.

Since Wal-Mart sells an overwhelming quantity of cheap goods of everything from printer paper to packs of socks, environmentalists are worried about the increased consumption of energy and resources. According to Industry Market Trends, Wal-Mart is estimated to be the largest private energy consumer and cotton buyer in the United States. However, Wal-Mart announced in February 2010 that they will make conscious efforts to reduce green house emissions by 20 million metric tons. By selecting products with high life cycles of carbon emissions, Wal-Mart hopes to address the problem of climate change as well as increase personal profitability and popularity. For specific examples of environmental changes, check this website.

Corporate behavior can have a large impact on how the population views environmental problems. By changing their policy to address important issues, not only do these companies inform the community by taking action, but they also add credibility to their brand image. Wal-Mart is also starting to sell environmentally-friendly products such as fair trade coffee, organic cotton clothing, and compact fluorescent light bulbs. These goods can also promote Wal-Mart consumers to shop smart in order to take action as individuals.

Although Wal-Mart may have the right mindset to protect our environment, they may be encountering obstacles that could discourage hopefuls. In May 2010, Wal-Mart agreed to pay $27.6 million dollars ending a five year settlement for disposing of hazardous waste such as pesticides, chemicals and acid in California. Although Wal-Mart can easily afford the settlement, our planet is unfortunately stuck paying the price.

Despite this setback, it is still worth mentioning the environmental progress Wal-Mart strives to accomplish. Whether it be wind and sun energy to power the stores, or the fresh organic produce, we can still applaud the efforts of this large corporation.

For more information on how Wal-Mart is making an impact, check out their sustainability website.

-Tara Slosberg

“…that the public has a constitutionally protected freedom of expression over the public airwaves.

At issue is the right of all Canadian citizens to have (as stipulated by the Canadian Broadcasting Act) ‘a reasonable opportunity…to be exposed to the expression of differing views on matters of public concern (http://www.marketwire.com/press-release/Adbusters-Media-Foundation-The-Right-to-Communicate-807099.htm).”

            This lawsuit is important to the future of environmental communication for two reasons.  First, ignoring the public versus private debate regarding the use of the airwaves, it could be extremely damaging to the cause of environmentalists if they are unable to communicate with the public through broadcast advertising due to censorship by the private broadcast companies.  Second, this lawsuit calls into question the media’s obligation to be fair and balanced by allotting equal airtime to competing sides of public issues.

            The motivation behind the broadcast companies refusing to air Adbusters ads is clear.  These broadcast companies are private; hence they make a great deal of their revenue through advertising.  As such, it is not in the best interest of the broadcast companies to air ads that would discourage consumers from using the products of their other advertisers.  Should the media content produced by private broadcast companies be regulated in a way that could negatively impact their bottom line?  That depends on how one answers the question of to what extent the media is responsible for providing fair and balanced coverage of an issue.

            If one believes that private broadcast companies should be obligated to provide equal time for all sides of an issue taking into account that the airwaves are considered a public medium, it would stand to reason that Adbusters should in fact be able to have their ads broadcast.  On the other hand, if one believes that because these broadcast companies are private entities and thus should have autonomy over the content they produce, that person would argue that the broadcast companies should have the right to deny Adbusters request for airtime.

            Ultimately, in both the United States and Canada, the laws generally appear to favor the rights of the private broadcast companies over the obligation of the media to produce balanced content.  As Gary Leonard, an English professor at the University of Toronto specializing in advertising points out, “This is a case of free speech versus free enterprise. A company has the right to decline business.  Only if Adbusters can show that the decision not to run the ads is based on something other than business can it make the case that it’s an infringement of free speech (http://www.nowtoronto.com/news/story.cfm?content=146899).”

–Jason P. Courter