(Thumbnail Image: BP/University of Miami)

 

Get more multi-source news from Newsy.com.


In a recent article for TIME Magazine, writer Michael Grunwald says the Gulf oil spill is no catastrophe at all, it's just overhyped.

We’re analyzing coverage from CNN, Russia Today, Time Magazine,The Washington Post and Mother Jones.

In his article, Grunwald writes, there is a lack of data providing evidence that the Deepwater Oil spill was as harmful as everyone made it out to be. Grunwald appeared on CNN’s "American Morning" to defend his stance.

“For three months we've had nonstop hysteria about how this is the worst environmental catastrophe ever. Then suddenly you hear some scientists saying, well, there's no data to show that. There are some dead birds but less than 1 percent of the dead birds that they had in the Exxon Valdez. This is lighter oil, it's a warmer gulf, you've got fresh water from the Mississippi pushing it out to sea. So 
 but suddenly you hear people saying it is premature, it is way too early to say how bad this is going to be.” 


But on its blogpost, CNN notes, even incoming BP CEO Bob Dudley admits 
— the spill has been catastrophic.


"Dudley stressed during a visit to Mississippi that BP has made a 'long-term commitment' to the region.  'We'll be here for years,' he said. The spill has been a 'catastrophe' and a 'real wake-up call for change,' he told reporters."

In an article for Mother Jones, one reporter expresses his outrage.

 

"It's BP's job to whitewash this story and make it easier to indulge the desire to forget about the scope of the devastation, guys. Not the media's.”

 

But Grunwald says on Russia Today the media has been doing just the opposite.

 

"The media has an obvious interest in sort of hyping these things to drive ratings. Some politicians were using it to attack Obama. Some politicians were using it to say that we need to get away from fossil fuels. But nobody really has an incentive to say hey the data doesn't really seem to show that this is quite what's it cracked up to be."

 

Still, while a writer for The Washington Post agrees with Grunwald, he also says we should still be cautious of long term results.

“He has a point 
 lots of the oil has apparently degraded without making landfall, and nature is surprisingly resilient. Plenty of the rhetoric about the spill was overblown. But be careful not to overreact in the opposite direction. There’s still a lot we don’t know... The long-term damage other oil spills caused took years to develop  let alone to understand. It’s too early to become comfortable with this one.”


So what do you think? Has the Deepwater oil spill been overhyped?

 

Get more multi-source news from Newsy.com.

 

WRITER: Maurice Scarborough

PRODUCER: Newsy Staff

BP Oil Spill: Has Damage Been Overblown?

by
0
Transcript
Aug 1, 2010

BP Oil Spill: Has Damage Been Overblown?

(Thumbnail Image: BP/University of Miami)

 

Get more multi-source news from Newsy.com.


In a recent article for TIME Magazine, writer Michael Grunwald says the Gulf oil spill is no catastrophe at all, it's just overhyped.

We’re analyzing coverage from CNN, Russia Today, Time Magazine,The Washington Post and Mother Jones.

In his article, Grunwald writes, there is a lack of data providing evidence that the Deepwater Oil spill was as harmful as everyone made it out to be. Grunwald appeared on CNN’s "American Morning" to defend his stance.

“For three months we've had nonstop hysteria about how this is the worst environmental catastrophe ever. Then suddenly you hear some scientists saying, well, there's no data to show that. There are some dead birds but less than 1 percent of the dead birds that they had in the Exxon Valdez. This is lighter oil, it's a warmer gulf, you've got fresh water from the Mississippi pushing it out to sea. So 
 but suddenly you hear people saying it is premature, it is way too early to say how bad this is going to be.” 


But on its blogpost, CNN notes, even incoming BP CEO Bob Dudley admits 
— the spill has been catastrophic.


"Dudley stressed during a visit to Mississippi that BP has made a 'long-term commitment' to the region.  'We'll be here for years,' he said. The spill has been a 'catastrophe' and a 'real wake-up call for change,' he told reporters."

In an article for Mother Jones, one reporter expresses his outrage.

 

"It's BP's job to whitewash this story and make it easier to indulge the desire to forget about the scope of the devastation, guys. Not the media's.”

 

But Grunwald says on Russia Today the media has been doing just the opposite.

 

"The media has an obvious interest in sort of hyping these things to drive ratings. Some politicians were using it to attack Obama. Some politicians were using it to say that we need to get away from fossil fuels. But nobody really has an incentive to say hey the data doesn't really seem to show that this is quite what's it cracked up to be."

 

Still, while a writer for The Washington Post agrees with Grunwald, he also says we should still be cautious of long term results.

“He has a point 
 lots of the oil has apparently degraded without making landfall, and nature is surprisingly resilient. Plenty of the rhetoric about the spill was overblown. But be careful not to overreact in the opposite direction. There’s still a lot we don’t know... The long-term damage other oil spills caused took years to develop  let alone to understand. It’s too early to become comfortable with this one.”


So what do you think? Has the Deepwater oil spill been overhyped?

 

Get more multi-source news from Newsy.com.

 

WRITER: Maurice Scarborough

PRODUCER: Newsy Staff

View More
Comments
Newsy
www2