Last Photos from the Gulf?
These may be some of the last images to come out of the Gulf of Mexico for a while as the ‘Unified Command’ has stated that anyone in the “safety zone,” such as press could face a $40,000 fine and a felony conviction.
To say this will hurt the coverage of the BP Oil spill is an understatement. It’s already a well documented fact that BP’s people are making it difficult for news operations to cover the cleanup. News crews from CBS and other organizations have been told by the Coast Guard, and BP that they are not permitted to film the spill. Freelance Photographers like CS Muncy and videographers outside the major networks and papers simply cannot risk the threat of a fine of this magnitude.
The photographs and video provided by CS Muncy of the Grand Isle beaches to The Mudflats yesterday were taken only moments before he was detained and then asked to leave the area – no reason was given, other than it was a closed beach. Muncy is an oft-printed freelance photographer for publications like the NY Times, Village Voice and the New York Daily News his trip to the Gulf is entirely self-funded.
Muncy will continue providing The Mudflats with photos from the Gulf at least for the next week.
If you would like to help support his work, please go to PayPal.com and donate to OilSpillStory@gmail.com
Zach Roberts is a photographer and videographer currently making a film on Alaska’s Left. CS Muncy and Zach have been friends since grade school and have been threatened with arrest by more police than they care to say while covering the Bush Years.
[Photo credit: CS Muncy, link back TheMudflats.net]
Freedom of the press?
Someone needs to call the ACLU asap.
“The only security of all is in a free press. The force of public opinion cannot be resisted when permitted freely to be expressed. The agitation it produces must be submitted to. It is necessary, to keep the waters pure.”
Thomas Jefferson to Lafayette, 1823.
How appropriate is this quote.
It’s all about liability. They’ll say its for the photographers safety from oil exposure or getting in the way of worker’s and thier vehicles/machinery. But it’s really about liability for BP and any potential cases resulting from cleanup activities, etc.
It’s more likely BP’s PR people don’t want any photos of the cover up and white/green-washing of the bullshit they are doing. That’s my theory. It’s both the crime and the cover up and all the lies. Call in the ACLU and any other organization that supports the freedom of the press. This is Independence Day Weekend–we’re not in a monarchy or dictatorship for crying out loud.
The argument they make about safety is bunk because they could wear hazmat gear. I agree with hedgewytch. This is about BP’s liability for the damage caused by the spill. After all, BP told cleanup crews that they could not wear respirators, right?
The Gulf is now experiencing the Marshal Law (and Exxon was the marshal) we experienced in Prince William Sound 21 years ago. It’s uncanny how the same play book is used.
Terrifying….
Good point.
Some how we need to get either the courts and or Congress to address this illegal kind of Marshal Law. And that is exactly the correct term to use.
Not letting sight seers wander all over the place is logical, blocking access to the press isn’t.
For crying out loud!
Home of the brave, but what happened to land of the Free?
Cloudy and warm in New Orleans. 10,000 delegates to the National Education Association Representative Assembly are gathered here for the largest democratic (no Capital D) deliberative body in the World. Wow.
I’ve met with the Florida Caucus, the Jewish Caucus, the American Indian/Alaska Native Caucus, and the Democratic Caucus so far. Tomorrow we’re in assembly (10,000 folks!) from 11-5. Lots of business to debate…
The Essence Festival is also in town this weekend, Rumor has it that Alicia Keyes, LL Cool J, and Bill Cosby will be staying in the hotel where I am. Forget crow eyes…eagle eyes here in the lobby now.
L’Shalom.
What a terrific experience.
Listen hard, learn a lot and speak truth.
LL Cool J – He’s one person who I imagine would be kinda hard to miss…very large and solidly-built man from what I can tell on television! I’m not into rap or hip hop music so I was never much of a fan in years past, but I’ve been quite impressed at what a good actor he’s become.
Enjoy the experience and being surrounded by all those highly educated people with brain cells buzzing at a rate that could light some exciting sparks. If we could harness all that electrical energy, we’d never have to drill for oil offshore!
Not sure what happened to my reply above which said I had already commented, but maybe this will go through, thanks to BigPete:
“An informed citizenry is the only true repository of the public will.” -Thomas Jefferson.
Deja vu all over again. Clause #8 of the contract offered to fishermen during the Exxon Valdez cleanup read “Contractor agrees to avoid unnecessary publicity and to make no statements, admissions or representation on behalf of EXXON or purporting to be on behalf of EXXON. Further, all press releases and or contacts with the press, television, radio or other media discussing the services performed hereunder shall require the prior written approval of EXXON before being released.” BP looks to be taking this to a new level–the total blackout. Frightening.
Hmmm..ya just wonder..with this happening, and..the situation in India..being ‘re-approached’ by the people injured and their lawyers..what avenues ..The People who were so shunned for 21 years..might do..as to a ..Gathering..n Knocking On The Door..AGAIN.. at Exxon! One does..wonder……..
No way it will stand up in court. It’s public property and the oil doe NOT pose an acute risk to journalists. If it stands in court, I am calling for insurgency.
So who has to sue?
It’s magic. The empolyees PB approves of are not in any danger, but non empolyees, the ones not under t contract and under threat are?
This is really really WRONG ~
Check off another one of our freedoms trampled upon by this administration. Shannyn was covering the appointment of Ken Feinberg as escrow fund payment czar today. And the Obama administration is backing legislation that will make me into a terrorist for helping to raise funds in the UK and Europe to rebuild the Anglican Church Hospital in Gaza City. 40-year sentence is what they’re proposing for people like me and the Archbishop of Canterbury, should he be foolish enough to set foot on American soil.
For what it’s worth, I just left a long email at whitehouse.gov asking President Obama (if he gets the email from staff) to come to this site and read the postings about BP bringing sand to the beaches and this post.
I explained that I didn’t think he was getting the full vision of what’s happening. I hope he or someone on his staff does come and read this because BP should not be able to get away with these underhanded dealings.
I also think as many of us as feel willing to do so should contact the major media outlets and demand that they start covering this silencing of the truth.
My thanks to CS Muncy and others as well as to AKM for keeping this story alive!
I wish Rachel were not going to Afghanistan because I believe, if she were given this story, she would run it big time.
To be clear, this is not about safety. If safety were a concern, the oil-soaked, dispersant-laden beaches would NOT be open to public swimming (they are). If safety were a concern, workers would be wearing respirators and hazmat gear.
Though I suspect every reader hear knows that. BP, et al, does not want more reports of their out-of-state, work-release clean up crew trampling the pelican nests and crushing the baby chicks and unhatched eggs on Queen Bess Island. Nor do they want the stories of the haphazard disposal of toxic waste they are dumping in area landfills to be told.
Though the biggest concern is what they are hiding that we don’t know about… the things we know are bad enough alone. I shudder to think what hasn’t been uncovered. Between this media ban and the passage of Obama’s internet kill switch… I don’t recognize this country at all. And here it is Independence Day – oh the irony.
Of course of the oil trash is being dumped anywhere in southern Louisiana, it will be in the water, as the water table in all of southern Louisiana is only a few inches, if even that, below the surface. And it rains a lot along the Gulf coast. So it will eventually go right back to the beaches and marshes and hatcheries and Gulf waters, pretty quickly.
My guess is that the other Gulf Coastal plains are as soggy as La. but the delta and swamps of coastal La are extensive.
Jen,I’d like to clarify something mentioned above. The proposed Internet Kill Switch idea is from Liebermann and Snow. Obama has not commented on it from anything I can tell. As a Constitutional scholar I doubt that he would approve of something that would stop free speech during times of emergency.
I do believe that the US is vulnerable to cyber attack, but shutting down the whole Internet is not the way to deal with it. I’m also not sure that technically it could be done. I’m glad that Obama has put in place some folks who are responsible for cyber security but a shutdown switch is a dumb idea and would do more harm than good.
In the old days I spent many years working on networks and we have always had monitoring. When an attack starts it’s really not that difficult to tell were it is coming from and it is possible to shut down a source.
I think maybe the baggers may use this as some new talking point to “prove” how we libs want to take their freedom. It’s just more nonsense designed to scare folks.
Interesting. Thanks for the clarification and additional insight! Everything I’d read had pointed towards it being Obama’s bill… oh I dream of a day when we just get the facts and are all left to interpret/form our own opinions.
It’s common for the FAA to initiate flight restrictions around and in areas where heavy aircraft activity is being conducted, such as around and in the Deepwater Horizon area, where you have helicopters and other aircraft including those aircraft spraying dispersants at low altitudes. The restrictions the FAA has put in place for Deepwater Horizon are not that unreasonable, and private aircraft are still allowed to fly over the beaches. They’ve placed an altitude restriction that aircraft that can not fly below 1000 feet, which would still allow photographers to get good photos of the beaches, especially with telephoto lenses. One thousand feet is pretty low, but being in a plane would also allow news reporters and photographers the opportunity to cover large areas quickly with good photographs. I’m sure they’re aware of that, and I’m wondering why they’re not making more use of small aircraft.
“…I’m wondering why they’re not making more use of small aircraft.”
I don’t dispute what you say about the FFA and aircraft safety. But following along my own thoughts…
One reason small aircraft are not being used more may very well be that, relative to walking the beach, they are really expensive. There are thousands of square miles of open Gulf that are not in the immediate area of the well, but that do have oil and sheen, and as we have seen dying familys of porpoise etc. Why are they restricted?
Why can’t press planes that pool their coverage be permitted? And in the context of supressing press access on the ground it is hard not to see this as the US government as overtly abetting the coverup of a crime of pretty horrendous proportions.
It is simply not acceptabe that flight plans that have been filed and allowed for the last two months are now over night somehow a problem of crowded airways.
Please read my comments below that I think addresses some of your concerns. I’m primarily familiar with this because I’m a pilot and I’m famiar with the regulations. One hour in a plane with cover at least 100 miles, vs 3 or 4 miles by foot. The restictions put in place by the FAA, our put in place for very legitmate safety concerns because of the large number of aircraft currently operating in the area.
I may be duplicating some of Marnie’s reply, but I’d say:
1) It costs quite a lot more to rent a small plane than to walk along the beach. Also, in order to get meaningful photos from a plane cruising at 100 mph at 1,000 feet, you need fairly major camera apparatus, enormous patience, and hair-trigger reflexes
2) The more wide-view aerial shots — easy to get — all look the same. What’s the point of printing the same abstract photo over and over again?
I seem to recall a few reports that when the press tries to charter a plane or helicopter they get denied at the field.
I agree that press need to be allowed to cover this story. While it is expensive for indie reporters and photographers surely the big channels can afford to make some noise if they are denied access.
First, small aircraft rental with a pilot runs areound $150.00 an hour and could survey at least about 100 miles of coast line during that period, far more miles than walking the beach. It would take you several days to walk that many miles. Dying porpoises, or any other large mammal suffering from the spill could easily easily be photographed from the air. The cameras would only need a common telephoto lens at the altitude and would provide very sharp images from the altitude. You can fly into the restricted airspace as long as you remain in radio contact and look out for other aircraft in the vacinity.
As I stated below, to rent a small aircraft and pilot would cost about $150 and cover esily about a 100 miles of beach area. At that altitude, any photographer’s photo equipment should be very capable of capturing sharp images on the ground without any problems. Also, with flaps extended a single engine aircraft is very capable of flying at 70-80 miles per hour. Some other aircraft such as Piper Cubs can fly even slower.
I for got to add to my reply, the FAA which has sole and final autority in the air, are the only ones who have that authority to restrict aircraft from taking off or landing, and no one else can legally prevent a pilot from taking off. That would include local and State authoraties, or BP and their secuity people. I reread the FAA flight restriction again tonight and they have not changed their restrictions. State and local people must abide by the recommendations of the FAA, unless they want to challenge the FAA in Federal Court, which has been done in other areas in the past with very little success.
Doesn’t the Coast Guard, because of its mission in this disaster, have more than it’s usual complement of craft in the air? Many, many more? [They usually only have crafts up for spotting and identifying smuggler's boats and directing resultant drug intradictions; and to keep an eye out for boats in trouble and coordinate rescues, if I'm not mistaken.] I should imagine even the additional number of CG aircraft flying around in the area would be enough to make for some quite crowded skies and air lanes. beth.
Think this is the last straw!!!!!!
I hate to say it, but America has lost it’s voice as regards journalistic integrity.
There is a wonderfully sick irony that the dictitorial nazi style tactics that people like Beck and Sarah have been predicting are actually being used, but they won’t say anything, it because it protetcts “private interprise.”
A bit off topic, but apparently Doogan is not well.
http://www.adn.com/2010/06/29/1347101/legislator-to-have-surgery-for.html
Well, that’s too bad. Doogan is a jerk, but doesn’t seem to be actively evil. I hope for a speedy recovery.
That story is a few days old. Here is the update, it looks promising.
http://www.adn.com/2010/07/02/1351265/aide-doogan-prognosis-very-good.html
BP north slope….disaster waiting.
AK BP worker says another nightmare looms:
http://www.wdsu.com/video/24021940/index.html?source=CNN
A career worker at BP says conditions in Alaska could lead to a catastrophe greater than the oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico.
DH told me yesterday that the average life span of anyone involved in the Exxon Valdez cleanup is 51 yrs. He said regardless of age at the time of the spill, premature death of oil spill workers has been documented. Does anyone have more info about this? Can it be true that lifespans have been shortened so dramatically without widespread notice? Also – I hate the phrase “spill” in this context – it sounds so offhand, so temporary – like we’re waiting for Nancy Walker to show up with the Bounty towels.
This is not a spill this is a DISASTER think aboot it when you fill your gas tank!
Really, if you haven’t stopped the oil at the source which is not a “spill” rather an underwater oil and gas volcano, how are you going to get it out of the Gulf ecosystem? What you clean will just get dirty, over and over and over again.
This is a crime scene, and BP and their army of green washing PR people are trying to hide everything they can from the public. Hideous.
[!!! RANT ALERT !!!]
I understand the sentiment, the incredible sense of betrayal, and the dismay aimed towards the ‘powers that be’ for instituting ‘no reporting’ zone(s) (and corresponding fines/felony charges) in areas along the Gulf; an incredulous Whoa! of disbelief, as expressed in the above article, that this is happening, here, in America; I get that. I, too, have a zillion questions about *why* things are being done as they are, along the coast — and nearly as many about why things are *not* being done. I also know, though, there are things that have to be done for a whole slue of reasons I haven’t even thought about…or would even know to ask about; things that people who are intimately familiar with the situation are grappling with daily and who are coordinating across multiple levels and agencies in a concerted effort to get optimal results from all the players.
That said, I think we *all*, all of us who are forced to rely on second, third, even fourth (or more!)- hand information, have to be *very* careful about *not* jumping to conclusions, about *not* using ‘wibbly-wobbly’ words that can be ‘interpreted’ to mean something different than the reality they are meant to convey, and about *not* seeking out confirmations and explanations from primary sources *before* passing judgement. (Remember how “death panels” were born?)
To my way of reckoning, too many folks are reacting to *anything* about BP [and the Feds] out of the Gulf in the *exact same* way the GOP-Tbaggies react to *anything* POTUS does — automatically condemning it…automatically assuming it *must* be nefarious… automatically reacting *without* finding out the reasoning behind the [taken] action/idea…automatically tossing out critical thinking and, instead, slamming the idea/action, first, foremost, and always. Speak first; think later.
POTUS is automatically and always ‘wrong’?– I don’t think so, but the GOP/Tbaggies would insist otherwise. BP is *automatically* ‘wrong’ in all its clean-up efforts?–I don’t think so, but many would insist otherwise. The “safety zone” is *automatically* a BP/Fed attempt at a cover-up?–sheesh, how mirror-image GOP/Tbaggie can you get?
With that in mind, I’m seriously having a bit of trouble, here. I fully realize it’s foolhardy to “bite the hand that feeds you,” but I’d be less than honest if I didn’t say I found the above article *not* up to the standards I’ve come to adore on this site; standards that have always included precise wording and totally reliable, completely supportable information that’s never (as far as I can recall) veered off into the realm of ‘worst case scenario’ *without* specifically making to clear that it *is* only ‘worst case.’ For some reason, I didn’t get that impression from the above article; I got the impression that, *because* of the “safety zones” and the $40K fines that can be imposed, the total cut-off of all media access to Gulf sites, is a fait accompli.
From more than a few of the responses in this thread, I see that others have decided, too, it’s a fait accompli. And that’s just wrong. beth.
Sorry for the rant; it’s over now…I’ve gotten it out of my system. Thanks for your patience in hearing me out. b.
(The catalyst for my rant: Context and accuracy….and, in not ensuring said, unwittingly inflaming sentiments in a non-productive, frustration-manufactured direction. On the one hand, it’s being reported C.S. was “detained” — a ‘wibbly-wobbly’ word that can mean “stopped’, but usually meaning *more* than that; a word strongly implying the taking of someone into physical custody or physically placing them in temporary confinement. On the other hand, we have *him* saying he was “stopped” — a precise word usually meaning nothing more than ‘the hindering of, or the preventing of, passage.’
“…[pictures] taken only moments before he was detained and then asked to leave the area – no reason was given, other than it was a closed beach.” [- from the above article. emphasis added. b.]
“… But then, soon after, we were stopped by some local sheriffs – actually, scratch that, they weren’t local sheriff – they were working for the local sheriff, but these guys were bussed in from… (C.S. asks Judson if he remembers where they were bussed in from) …from Jefferson Parish – from way up north – he was a city guy, and there were two of them that stopped us, and they weren’t unpleasant about it – they weren’t mean – but we could hear them talking on the radio, and their job was to run us off. So they told us, no more pictures – at least no more pictures of them. In fact, they stopped me from going out onto the beach a little bit further, and taking more pictures.” [from an interview with C.S. Muncy, the reporter, as posted on HuffPo: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/allison-kilkenny/allegations-emerge-bp-is_b_632954.html - emphasis added. b.])
Mmm, beth, I’m sympathetic to your point that it isn’t necessarily the case that everything President Obama, or BP, does is automatically wrong. However, regarding access to the shoreline, it has been pretty evident from the get-go that some agency — BP? Thad Allen? The Trilateral Commission? — has been heavily invested in restricting the ability of journalists to get there. And it has been equally evident that the principal motivation for this restriction is not safety — if it were that unsafe, the workers would be wearing respirators, would they not?
Now, as an old corporate middle manager, I can understand the desire to keep the media from getting in the way of the folks doing the work. But, since there are probably dozens of media, and — one hopes — thousands of cleanup workers, it hardly seems that the inefficiency caused by media access would be significant. That appears to leave, as the reason for blocking media access to the shoreline, only a desire to control the PR image. While it makes sense for BP to want to do this, it is disappointing to learn that the Government is following suit.
There’s so many stories told as “truth” that never get corrected when they’re wrong, like the sand dumping story, but I’ve sort of figured out that the truth isn’t really the point, is it?
This is another one being blown totally out of proportion IMO. I fail to see how twenty meters is a great burden to telling a story in this day of long lenses. I also don’t see how it’s in BP’s interests to limit access to the clean up really, other than the valid safety concerns–both for the photographer and the workers. Don’t they want people to see them cleaning up? Isn’t that the kind of publicity they’d like?
The idea that anyone can “hide” what’s going on with a twenty meter buffer zone is pretty ridiculous. What it does is keep people safe and allows the workers to work without distraction.
Doonsbury is hitting hard. I still can’t really wrap my mind around this. In many ways, it reminds me of Vietnam and the 1960′s.
i am totally confused here. and that is why i love this blog. as i read each comment i say to myself “dang that’s a good one.” next post i read and i say “now that makes sense.” and on and on. i really hope more peeps will pile on tomorrow. this thread was very interesting. it is 3:20 am in New York so i will turn in now and reread all the comments later.
This should clarify things.
http://www.laaclu.org/PDF_documents/Media_Public_Access_Oil_Spill_Letter_062810.pdf
Also of interest: AFTRA is soliciting information on press restrictions. http://www.aftra.com/access4media.htm