«--Previous Post | Blog Index | Next Post--»
Beyond Propaganda: New Republic Rolls Out BP-Sponsored Enviro Blog

So, The New Republic has added a new blog to its roster: the Environment & Energy blog, which is sponsored, nay "powered," by BP. (Quips blogger Andrew Daniller: "I assumed their whole magazine was sponsored by military contractors.") Maybe this is where the blogosphere is headed, magazines selling off their real estate like major league ballparks, to the highest bidder. And we're all for creative ways to bring in revenue to support the cause, but there's a qualitative difference between running BP ads in a magazine and having the BP logo emblazoned on all energy and environment content—i.e. all the content that could relate to BP. Certainly the sponsorship raises issues of editorial-advertising line-blurring, potential self-censorship, the deterioration of journalistic self-respect, etc.
The company formerly known as British Petroleum (it now prefers "beyond petroleum"), despite furious rebranding efforts, has a typically abysmal environmental record: "Although BP put $500 million into solar power between 2000 and 2005, it spent $8.4 billion exploring and producing petroleum in 2004 alone." And BP at one time lobbied hard to open ANWR to drilling. Then again, so did TNR, asserting in 2002 that the plan to drill in the wildlife refuge "would almost certainly cause little environmental damage."
So what are environmentally- and ethically-minded TNR staffers to do? It's already a bit late for a preemptive strike against the sponsorship (like the one last year at the Memphis Commercial Appeal, where gutsy reporters rebelled and sunk a management-hatched plan to allow FedEx to sponsor a series on world business). BP must see the TNR blog as a relatively safe forum, one where it won't face persistent, searing criticism. So why not test BP's assumption? Why not scrutinize and heap journalistic abuse on BP and Big Oil till they can't take it anymore? TNR staffer Bradford Plumer engaged BP a bit today, calling out the company for "shamefully working behind the scenes in Congress to oppose strong climate legislation." That's a start.
—Justin Elliott
Comments
ARCHIVE
RECENT COMMENTS
Making Iraq Fertile (2)
researcher wrote:
let americans pay for it.
wanna bet how much they hate us...
[more]
Brazil Changes on Climate Change (4)
Jimmy wrote:
I took care of my own guilt by getting a bunch of free car...
[more]
Steve Irwin, Illegal Whaling Ship Hunter? (11)
Thundersalmon wrote:
Steve Irwin never went about using acts of terrorism to sp...
[more]
More Genetic Tests: Still Creepy (2)
dan wrote:
Well said Michael. I'd also note for every LaBron James (...
[more]
Charge Your Cellphone By Talking (3)
Bill Moore wrote:
I think we should harness all of the hot air coming out of...
[more]
Obama's (And Our) Clean-Coal Blues (5)
Scott wrote:
The media is not the last word on all things green. Two e...
[more]
WTF? ExxonMobil Funds Research—By An Astrophysicist—On Polar Bears And Climate Change (4)
Tina wrote:
As of now, the Minister of the Environment has asked Envir...
[more]
Listen Up, Pandas, You Need to Fight (17)
ziggxzagg wrote:
i totally agree,
ive been asking for a panda for the last ...
[more]
Huntington vs. Burlington: How to Grow a Healthy City (20)
yerbatera wrote:
Great story! Have lived in both urban liberal enclaves & ...
[more]
All-Expenses-Paid India Vacation, Courtesy of Your Health Insurer (7)
fixedknee wrote:
I agree that doctors' bills are high. Part of the problem ...
[more]
Movable Type 3.33

