Posted by Luke Ormand on April 22, 2012 at 2:09 PM
I read about this on the Fox News Website. . . While there is certainly no doubt that the deepwater horizon spill had negative effects on marine life (and human life) - I would be very skeptical about the information in that article considering the sources. If this is all true - why is Al Jazeera of all media outlets the one breaking the story? And why is Dr Cowan, with Louisiana State University's Department of Oceanography and Coastal Sciences, speaking with Al Jazeera but not making a big stink to American media outlets?
If anyone wants to read that article I'd also press you to read the book review I wrote for A Sea in Flames (by Carl Safina) which was published on NPN (though portions of my original review were selectively omitted by NPN). For the un-edited version, please go here: A Sea In Flames Book Review . Furthermore, I urge people to read A Sea in Flames which gives much more well rounded view of everything that happend compared to what must of us got from media outlets.
Again, I'm not saying the information in the above article isn't true (I'm not a scientist and I've never even been to Louisiana) but just because there's an article about it doesn't mean it's true. A lot of people were convinced the entire Gulf of Mexico would be a dead zone following this spill and we know that hasn't happend.
Luke, this is FAR from the only report, just the one I chose to post because of it's detail. Al Jazeera did not "break the story" - I believe Fox did.
Similar reports, if you'd do a web search, from Discover, red orbit, Huffington Post, Atlantic and many others, and especially all the environmental groups.
Sandy
Posted by Jim Erhardt on April 23, 2012 at 9:13 AM
This belongs in Hot Topics.
Posted by Luke Ormand on April 23, 2012 at 9:35 AM
Sandy,
Again, I'm not saying none of this is true - I'm just saying it should not be assumed to be 100% factual. Yes, other media outlets "reported" the story - but they simply based their articles on what Al Jazeera reported. Al Jazeera is the media outlet that "broke" the story and conducted all of the interviews. From what I've read, no one else has independently verified this information and it seems curious to me that a media company owned by a middle eastern country who of course has strong ties to oil (and is notorious for abuse of water and energy resources within its own borders) would come out with this story. A lot of "experts" and "long time fishermen" gave their comments and opinions to anyone who would listen during the oil spill - but plenty of them were flat out wrong.
Gosh Luke, I can't imagine that anyone with an interest in factuality would go to Fox News except for a laugh.
Lynn
Posted by Luke Ormand on April 25, 2012 at 9:37 PM
Lynn,
I try to have a balanced outlook on everything - even Fox has its place in this world, BUT yes, they are a media outlet notorious for a slant (despite their slogan). Unfortunately the story didn't even originate at Fox but a far more questionable source given the subject matter.
Posted by Ross Warner on April 26, 2012 at 9:34 PM
Fact is this. You can believe anything. What is written in a news report is not necessarily a fact. The man with only facts is Ed (I shot my hunting dog) Schultz.
Not sure why a non-Al-Jazeera source is necessary, actually. They are the ones that broke the news, so other news agencies are obligated to cite them as the source. Besides, the photographer who is the source of the images is from (and was born) in the US, if that's a critical part of determining what one believes about the world.
Daniel, I personally appreciate your persistence and your research here. I especially appreciate your last sentence. I believe a view of the world based on news reported by Al Jazeera is likely a far more accurate view than that based on news reported by many U.S.-based news agencies. Of course, that is based on "world" being larger than the United States.
Posted by Richard Ditch on April 28, 2012 at 5:37 PM
Daniel: my thanks as well.
I've recently added Al Jazeera's news app to my iPhone, along side my BBC app and ones from all four of the local network stations here in Phoenix. I've been impressed with Al Jazeera's scope and coverage, and I find them to be a lot more reliable than anything from Fox.
I've been watching this thread with great interest, and staying silent on purpose.
I wanted to see how the posts evolved without my attempting to defend Al Jazeera.
My thoughts? I have long been a reader and advocate of Al Jazeera for exactly the reasons mentioned by several here ( most notably Barbara and Daniel). The US media (and apparently many people, too ) are automatically slanted against anything non-US and quickly discount it.
I'd like to see people do some open-minded research before assuming that everything non-US is invalid .
Sandy
Posted by Ross Warner on April 29, 2012 at 9:45 AM
I apologize for not takiing an Al Jazera article as gospel. But then again I'm not overly religious. It just seems more than one original source would be beneficial. Sick fish seem understandable from pollutants present. Severe reoccurring genetic mutations is in my mind are another matter. Genetic mutation happen quite frequently. My question is, are the mutations (eyeless schrimp) widely spread throughout the area with a strong lilelyhood they are linked to the oil, caused by other factors or just random mutations.
Discussion
14 repliesEyeless shrimp and other marine deformities are part of it's horrendous legacy.
Very disturbing article from AlJazeera here:
//www.aljazeera.com/indepth/features/2012/04/201241682318260912.html
If anyone wants to read that article I'd also press you to read the book review I wrote for A Sea in Flames (by Carl Safina) which was published on NPN (though portions of my original review were selectively omitted by NPN). For the un-edited version, please go here: A Sea In Flames Book Review . Furthermore, I urge people to read A Sea in Flames which gives much more well rounded view of everything that happend compared to what must of us got from media outlets.
Again, I'm not saying the information in the above article isn't true (I'm not a scientist and I've never even been to Louisiana) but just because there's an article about it doesn't mean it's true. A lot of people were convinced the entire Gulf of Mexico would be a dead zone following this spill and we know that hasn't happend.
Similar reports, if you'd do a web search, from Discover, red orbit, Huffington Post, Atlantic and many others, and especially all the environmental groups.
Sandy
Again, I'm not saying none of this is true - I'm just saying it should not be assumed to be 100% factual. Yes, other media outlets "reported" the story - but they simply based their articles on what Al Jazeera reported. Al Jazeera is the media outlet that "broke" the story and conducted all of the interviews. From what I've read, no one else has independently verified this information and it seems curious to me that a media company owned by a middle eastern country who of course has strong ties to oil (and is notorious for abuse of water and energy resources within its own borders) would come out with this story. A lot of "experts" and "long time fishermen" gave their comments and opinions to anyone who would listen during the oil spill - but plenty of them were flat out wrong.
Lynn
I try to have a balanced outlook on everything - even Fox has its place in this world, BUT yes, they are a media outlet notorious for a slant (despite their slogan). Unfortunately the story didn't even originate at Fox but a far more questionable source given the subject matter.
And Tampa Bay Times: USF study finds more sick fish in oil spill area than rest of Gulf of Mexico
And on dolphins (and others), via National Geographic Daily News: Gulf Spill Pictures: Ten New Studies Show Impact on Coast
To search for pre-Al-Jazeera reports of eyeless shrimp, of which there are some: Google search for "eyeless shrimp" -al-jazeera louisiana 2011 -2012 (excludes anything mentioning al-jazeera and 2012), including Mother Jones from Nov 2011: Did BP Oil Make Shrimp Lose Their Eyes?
Not sure why a non-Al-Jazeera source is necessary, actually. They are the ones that broke the news, so other news agencies are obligated to cite them as the source. Besides, the photographer who is the source of the images is from (and was born) in the US, if that's a critical part of determining what one believes about the world.
I've recently added Al Jazeera's news app to my iPhone, along side my BBC app and ones from all four of the local network stations here in Phoenix. I've been impressed with Al Jazeera's scope and coverage, and I find them to be a lot more reliable than anything from Fox.
I wanted to see how the posts evolved without my attempting to defend Al Jazeera.
My thoughts? I have long been a reader and advocate of Al Jazeera for exactly the reasons mentioned by several here ( most notably Barbara and Daniel). The US media (and apparently many people, too
I'd like to see people do some open-minded research before assuming that everything non-US is invalid .
Sandy