As the old saying goes, a photo can say a thousand things. But what it can't say is how it can be used to say one thing, but really be another thing. And that's just how The New York Times used it.
In the Oct. 9 issue of the Times, an article by Simon Romero and Clifford Krauss examined the events in a decade-and-a-half-long legal battle between a left-wing environmental group, supposedly representing the people of Ecuador, and Chevron over pollution allegedly left behind by Texaco.
However, the Times took liberty with a photo of "murky" polluted water with its Oct. 9 story, one that could lead a reader to Chevron is really at fault for pollution in Ecuador. (h/t Carter Wood, ShopFloor.org) The photograph, taken for the Times by Moises Saman (for photo see here), was captioned "a pool of oil in Lago Agrio, an Ecuadorean town in the Amazon where Texaco left contamination."
However, as blogger Carter Wood, at ShopFloor.org, the blog of the National Association of Manufacturer, revealed - this was a case of the Times attempting to mislead its readers.
"So the Times has illustrated a story about charges of pollution against Chevron with a photo of an oil pit (and flare-offs) created by Petroecuador," Wood wrote on Oct. 10. "And doesn't bother to tell the readers what they are seeing in the paper has nothing to do with Chevron."
As Wood explained, this is a common trick of activists, and the Times played right along with it.
"The activists use the trick all the time, pointing to unrelated pollution and claiming Chevron is to blame, but shouldn't the Times have higher standards?" Wood wrote. "The truth isn't THAT murky."
The story itself by Romero and Krauss examined the future of the case after an undercover video revealed a $3-million bribe scheme in $27-billion suit against the U.S. oil giant.
The Ecuadorean judge in question, Juan Núñez, had recused himself after he appeared in the recordings discussing the case and potential damages. But since then he has been put back on the case and taken back off, which puts the future of the suit in question.
Editor at Large
Comments Policy
They used to get away with it.
October 12, 2009 - 08:58 ET by JWFUntil the rise of alternative media and the internet.
I caught a little bit of a talking head show yesterday. Somebody was on talking about how the bad bad bad corporations don't care and just wantonly pee all over our planet. They were using this case as a jumping off point.
Now I have not been following this case closely but as I understand, Chevron had an agreement with the local state run oil company. Chevron has spent gobs of money cleaning up it's mess, and the local state oil company had a much worse mess and still has a much worse mess. It looks to be a case of suing the guy with the deep pockets.
This also speaks to a bigger issue. Corporations, like people, want to protect their name. Corporations get caught doing bad things and people do not want their product. Think Exxon with Valdez spill. Think fast food companies when their employees are caught doing nasty things with peoples food. Think the chicken companies and salmonella. Think the peanut butter companies and cleanliness of the factories and salmonella. Think companies with employment discrimination scandals. Think blah blah blah....
Bad publicity equates to lower sales equates to lower profits. It is that simple. Most corporations, ney, all corporations want to be good citizens. They do not want their name tartnished.
Ecodummies lie, they lie a lot.
Sincerely,
a Veteran of a 1000 psychic wars.
DISCLAIMER!
October 12, 2009 - 09:22 ET by JWFI own lots of stock in corporations and had no right to say what I said because I am part of the evilness. Some of my evilness that I own -
Sincerely,
a Veteran of a 1000 psychic wars.
JWF
October 12, 2009 - 22:04 ET by MrShyYou are guaranteed laughs with almost every post.
I hope NB is paying you under the table.
In a liberal's true true TRUE eyes.... being alive is evil.
Black mail
October 12, 2009 - 09:21 ET by sevenFrom what I read, Chevron is accused of polution from wells that are not even theirs. The judges want extortion and the pressure is on the company. Urban radicals feed the problem. I saw a spil and clean up in alaska. The farther from the spill, the more dramatic the story. By the time I read news 300 miles away, it was intentional negligence and about 20 times as much oil in the spill.
Outrageous
October 12, 2009 - 09:58 ET by slickwillie2001This sad miscarriage of justice in Ecuador is one example of a case where a strong US government should be using what influence it has to press for justice for an American company. Unfortunately we have a weak and unpopular President that seems to be guided by one principle –don't do what President George W. Bush would do.
Another example? Nah...
October 12, 2009 - 10:06 ET by BKeyserAs someone who has taken a few liberties with photos in the past- not recently, in the past- I can tell you that this does happen, but only rarely. For example- some might disagree, but I know for a fact that this is a very recent picture taken from the north pole, looking south. No trickery here. As you can see, the global warming folks may be on to something...
Looks like a nice
October 12, 2009 - 10:34 ET by general companyVacation spot, whats the problem?
My Gov. thinks I am dangerous, so be careful
"Television is a freak show" Bernie Goldberg
fact checking...?!
October 12, 2009 - 10:49 ET by wizardjrwe don't need no stinkin' fact checking!!!
I guess they took some training from ABC News. Any one remember the GM truck exploding gas tank? or the exploding watermellon shot with an AKS using FMJ bullet? etc., etc., etc.
disclosure
October 12, 2009 - 10:51 ET by wizardjrI once took a set of steak knives from Shell Oil in the 70's. [/sarc]
I saw that!
October 12, 2009 - 10:59 ET by JWFYou are missing one of those steak knives. It, I can't, uhhh, can someone get it out of my back? ;-)
I was Awakened
October 12, 2009 - 11:09 ET by Tugboat PhilIn 1993 when the U.S. tried to reinstall Arristide as President of Haiti. I was with a small Navy group that was going to offload construction equipment and supplies, under the UN banner, in preparation of the event. We we anchored off Port au Prince the day we arrived. The reception that we'd been promised wasn't there.
I watched events onshore from about a mile out, through our large binoculars mounted on the boat. A crowd had gathered in the city square that we could see. It couldn't have been larger than 150-200 people. I judged this by their size compared to a bus that was parked nearby.
Long story short, it was a fiasco and the next day we were directed back to Guantanamo to await further tasking. When we got settled in there I turned on the TV and saw a news story on our recent trip. The camera shots were such that the view was always looking into the crowd and never a distance shot showing the edges of the group. It appeared as though the streets were packed with people protesting.
I have never taken "photo-journalism" on face value since. I also credit Rush and Brent Bozell for showing me how to hear not just what is being said by a politician, but more importantly what is NOT being said. Well, I'll have to add Bill Clinton to the list, as he provided me the most practice in developing that sense.
Gun Control - The theory that a woman found dead in an alley, raped and strangled with her own pantyhose, is somehow morally superior to a woman explaining to police how her attacker got that fatal bullet wound.
take the money and run...
October 12, 2009 - 13:19 ET by AnnaKayWhat do you mean those waste pits have nothing to do withChevron/Texaco? Texaco built them! Thecontaminants leaked out of them because they were badly designed and it IS Texaco’sfault. Leaving the mess to PetroEcuador,does not release Chevron from the responsibility of building a faulty systemthat caused the contamination.
Texaco/Chevron didn’t care to make sure its systems are upto standards… they took the oil and left the mess…
YOU FREAKING UNASHAMED
October 12, 2009 - 14:49 ET by criticalthinkingYOU FREAKING UNASHAMED IDIOTS!!!!! SOME RIGHT WING BLOGGER SAYS "THIS IS CLEARLY FLASE" BUST GIVES NO EVIDENCE, YET YOU FOOLS GIVE IT COMPLETE CREDENCE. YOU ARE FECKLESS AND HELPLESS
→ FLASE
October 12, 2009 - 15:04 ET by Cool Arrow"BUST GIVES NO CREDENCE"
Are you speaking in Jihadi code?
YOU FREAKING UNASHAMED
October 12, 2009 - 14:49 ET by criticalthinkingYOU FREAKING UNASHAMED IDIOTS!!!!! SOME RIGHT WING BLOGGER SAYS "THIS IS CLEARLY FLASE" BUST GIVES NO EVIDENCE, YET YOU FOOLS GIVE IT COMPLETE CREDENCE. YOU ARE FECKLESS AND HELPLESS
We heard you the first time, trollboy
October 12, 2009 - 14:55 ET by BlondeWe need a better class of troll, here. ©
P.S. Stop shouting.
I hope he fails, too.
J & criticalcondition
October 12, 2009 - 15:02 ET by MrShyP.P.S. Learn to spell and write like at least a 9th grader, knucklehead troll.
i'm in my knees begging for
October 12, 2009 - 15:31 ET by criticalthinkingi'm in my knees begging for one tiny little shred of evidence to support a claim that you guys have all bought hook line and sinker
Are you talking about any
October 12, 2009 - 15:44 ET by FeynmanFanAre you talking about any claim in particular, or are you just venting?
And, for God's sake, get off your knees. That's only going to get you in trouble.
"Reason and persuasion are the only practical instruments against error. To make way for these, free inquiry must be indulged" - Thomas Jefferson
i'm in my knees
October 12, 2009 - 15:53 ET by ckc1227Ouch, that's gotta hurt.
I'm betting no one asks you...
Sniff. Sniff. I is begging you. I is.
October 12, 2009 - 21:49 ET by JWFWhat is there support. It is a picture of oil laying out in the open exposed to air, sun, wind, & rain.
Chevron left in 1992. 17 years ago. There is a name for oil that is left out in the open for 17 years - tar.
That look like tar to you, pinhead?
Sincerely,
a Veteran of a 1000 psychic wars.