by demosthenes
www.selparis.com
If the stories examined in detail by news networks accurate represent the interests of the American public, then it seems we are resolutely focused on political mudslinging and trite accusations. What we are evidently uninterested in, except in the wee hours of Saturday morning, or any time when it will not unduly attract attention, is the Iraq and Afghanistan Wars (which are nowhere in sight on twenty-four hour news), the economy, and oil prices.
You might have seen some coverage about the economy and oil prices, but it is nothing more than the usual drivel repeated hour after hour. Has there been a single examination of the potential impact of offshore drilling? Somehow, it has largely slipped mention that the executive ban on drilling was originally instituted by our current president’s father, George H. W. Bush, and no one has broached the subject of why the ban was established in the first place. It was there to protect the tourism industry because unsightly oil rigs detract somewhat from the beauty of our country’s beaches. In other words, the reason was economic rather than environmental. Has anyone bothered to explain, for the benefit of the public, what the actual economic impact of the offshore drilling plan would be? Of course not, with all the juicy innuendo about race baiting in the campaign flying around. Needless to say, this neglect has contributed to polls showing support among the public for expanded drilling.
Sheer distraction can be the only reason why the public has missed the fact that oil companies already have leases they have failed to put to use. And do these companies really want to drill more to lower oil prices? What reason would they have for doing so? Why do Exxon-Mobil, BP, and Shell want Alaska’s Wildlife Refuge and the continental shelf open for drilling?
The answer is simple: having those extra territories open to them will ensure their profits for the relative long-term. They won’t drill there this year, in five years, or in ten years. They will drive prices as high as possible, and keep them there for decades, drilling in new locations only when it is absolutely necessary and will not substantially increase supply.
In addition to this, they also want to show that they can get away with ruining our beaches. They want to show environmentalists that they can outright fool Americans about their environmental record by putting immense advertising budgets to concerted use. In July of 2006, BP admitted to spilling 270,000 gallons of oil in the Alaskan tundra due to poor maintenance of their pipelines, and yet this same company has the gall to trumpet their environmental awareness. Exxon-Mobil has fought for twenty years to avoid paying damages for the Valdez oil spill even though the company, with record profits, could easily afford the penalty for its failure to make a reasonable attempt to clean up the notorious 11 million gallon discharge. Are these the companies we are seriously thinking of entrusting our beaches to?
Perhaps there is a misunderstanding at work as well. “Offshore oil drilling” makes it seem as if the activity will be safely away from the country. Phrasing it as “beachside oil drilling” might, perhaps be more accurate and produce more appropriate responses. To be sure, the oil platforms would be miles away from the beaches, but the structures are enormous, and their impact to the aesthetics of our shoreline would be devastating. Not that our beaches are pristine as they are, mind you, but what exactly is Florida without its tourism revenue, without people across the country flocking to its beautiful ocean front? Who paid the Governor of Florida, Charlie Crist, to embrace the fundamental destruction of his state’s economy after his ardent opposition to drilling? Why isn’t any of this being mentioned, when it seems our country is being swindled by oil companies into giving them rights to territory we should fight to protect from their hands?
The offshore drilling issue is only an example. The truly abominable example of media neglect is the War on Iraq. News agencies have reasoned that people do not want to keep hearing about the war day after day. The problem is, because no news is coming out of Iraq, Americans have come to think that no news means good news, and have been fooled into thinking that the surge is working. When Republican talking heads appear and make this claim, they are not challenged, even though the surge was meant to make the Iraq government self-sufficient, and that government is nowhere near that state. If the surge was working, we could leave Iraq today. We are not leaving, therefore the surge has not worked. It is that simple.
Instead of troubling everyone with the real story, the cable news networks have chosen to deliver up yarns about presidential election that have nothing to do with important issues or reality. Why? Because fiction is so much more attractive than the hard facts of life in the economic doldrums we have faced since 1970. Because trite gossip is so much more comforting when our great nation is being outpaced by upstarts. But if the American people are not exposed to the truth, we cannot expect to rise up from our rut. If denied accurate information on which to base decisions, we will make mistakes detrimental to our future.
This post is licensed under a Creative Commons License.