Media and politics always existed side by side. However, in recent years the wonderful world of news media is being used less to report news than to generate hysteria, to sensationalize stories, and to create political showdowns. This blog takes current "news" and turns it into the satirical BS it really is.
Public relations has long been a critical tool in the organizational toolbox. Got a potentially devastating situation threatening your future? No problem, spin the situation so that things look more positive than they actually are and then try to divert attention to other, unrelated things. That is the general formula for success, and it has been proven time and time again. Ask Maytag how it has deflected sustained coverage on its recall of millions of dishwashers. Ask corn growers how they make you feel good about eating so much high fructose corn syrup. Ask Hugo Chavez how he accomplishes anything. Public Relations.
A sound public relations program has saved many a company from certain doom. Enter British Petroleum and their 24-38 million gallon oil spill. The British oil giant has decided that, for some reason, the time is right to rewrite the PR play book. A more traditional response to the spill would have gone something like this:
Be first to address the problem. This allows you to dictate the sequence of events and buy time.
Tell people how bad the problem is, but more importantly, tell them about everything you are doing to solve the problem.
Issue regular press releases that outline all the progress that is being made.
Refute stories that detract from your version of events.
Slowly shift the blame to other people once you have established that, although not your fault, you are dealing with the problem effectively.
Keep a low profile and try to resolve the problem quietly while people are investigating the blame you have heaped onto others.
Announce victory and move on.
Now to some people this methodology might seem a little crass, but I assure you that, when used correctly, this approach pays dividends (literally in some cases). However, there are numerous stories of people or companies that have strayed from this formula and paid the price. Tiger Woods, Toyota, and others come to mind for starters. So with this in mind, when BP's off-shore oil rig burst into flames, exploded, and began gushing oil at record levels into the Gulf of Mexico they took all the lessons of yesterday, took a deep breath, and said, "Fuck it."
The end result has been the complete shit-show that we have witnessed day in and day out. Has it been hard to witness? Yes. Has it been frustrating? Yes. Has the degree of ineptitude been mind numbing? Yes. Here is how their version of PR has played out on millions of televisions nationwide:
Say nothing. Pretend that nothing happened and hopefully no one will notice millions of gallons of oil spilling into the ocean.
Ok, someone noticed, so throw out a ridiculously low estimate of how much oil is actually spilling
Hook up an underwater camera so that people can be horrified by what they see
Tell people that oil isn't so bad and that the spill will probably self-resolve when the oil evaporates
Blame Dick Cheney/Haliburton (not a bad tactic)
Blame Transocean
Tell people that you have a plan, but don't actually explain it
Tell people about all the complications, set-backs, and political problems you are having to try to gain some sympathy
Tell people that you lied and that any plans that you might have referred to earlier will not work
Ask if anyone else has a plan
Decide on a plan, but take forever to put it into action
Go back to saying nothing
Have the CEO tell people that he can't wait for this whole thing to be over so he can get back to his own life
Have local fisherman help to clean up the spill but do not give them protective gear or training
Call the fishermen liars when they complain about feeling sick from the oil/natural gas fumes that they are inhaling
Make it appear as though capturing the oil is a higher priority than sealing the well
Sacrifice a kitten on TV
Tell people that you are collecting 90% of the oil when you have a live video stream which clearly shows that not much has changed from before
Don't pay claims from local families and businesses in a timely manner
Spend millions on TV adds that say that you are paying families and businesses while continuing to delay paying claims
Continue to say nothing of value
Leave everyone wondering how this whole thing is going to work out
I am sure that there will be other equally fascinating steps as this saga continues to play out, and like you, I am anxious to see what they think of next. Will they tell us that for every 30 gallons of oil spilled they will plant a coconut tree? Will we be told that eating oil saturated seafood can actually be nutritious? Who am I to question BP's PR approach to the largest spill in US history? I am just one of a couple hundred million people feeling helpless and desperate. I simply want some good, believable lies to make me feel positive about the slow destruction of the planet. For now, all I am left with is the phrase that keeps running through my mind, "Spill, baby, spill."
"It's kind of like getting out there on the playground, a bunch of kids ready to fight, and one of the kids saying, 'Go ahead, punch me in the face and I'm not going to retaliate. Go ahead and do what you want to with me.'" - Sarah Palin 4/7/2010
I have very mixed feelings about writing this article. Don't get me wrong, I have no problem writing a blistering article about one of the world's most obnoxious and underwhelming people: Sarah Palin. My one drawback in writing this article is that by doing so I am contributing to keeping her politically relevant. This is the political equivalent to hitting "reply to all" on an email you received. Once sent, people constantly perpetuate that email purgatory by hitting "reply to all" to let everyone know not to reply to all. I feel like this article may be similar. However, her abject stupidity and her persistence to try to spread it forces me to get off the sideline and do something verbally that I wish I could do personally: Punch her in the face.
First, I just need to get a couple of things off my mind so I can get on with making my point. One, Sarah Palin really needs to stop criticizing the media. I say this not because I believe that news today is substantive. In fact, this blog was created as an arena for satirical articles based on the shoddy journalism of today. I say this because the media has made her part of the political discussion. When she starts to become irrelevant she stands up and says things like, "Barack Obama will kill all of you in your sleep" or "Socialists are stealing your tax dollars" and the media carries that message far and wide. She hates the media so badly that she decided to prove it by taking a job......in the media (although Fox barely qualifies as media). Hypocrisy just earned her a punch.
I could spend most of the night writing about other punches to the face she has earned by contradicting herself or blindly towing party lines. Instead, I will allow you to choose how many times to punch her in the face:
I am leaning toward vigilante today. Now let's broach a subject that plays to Palin's strengths: Foreign Policy. After all, this is really the origin of this article. For anyone who cares to read the President's nuclear non-proliferation plan, here is what he is suggesting:
1) Countries with nuclear stockpiles will reduce the number of weapons in their possession 2) Countries without nuclear weapons will not be allowed to acquire them 3) A repository on nuclear material should be created so that a centralized system for tracking/safeguarding nuclear material is put in place 4) Tangible and clear consequences for rogue states are outlined 5) Nuclear weapon tests would be banned by the United States
Sarah Palin considers these goals a mistake mainly because it would signal to the world that we can't or won't defend ourselves if we were to reduce our nuclear stockpiles. Uh.......huh? I'm sorry, I missed that. Would you care to explain our lack self-defense in Afghanistan and Iraq? How about we look at just how much we are stepping out on the limb by reducing our weapons stockpiles. The United States and Russia both have about 10,000 nuclear warheads each. North Korea has enough plutonium for about 12 bombs, but doesn't have any missles on which to put them (to blow up America). That ever pesky Iran has 0 nuclear warheads or delivery systems. I think it would be safe to say that reducing our weapons stockpile by a couple of thousand doesn't really give Iran or North Korea a death-grip on the scrotum of the United States. Add another punch to the tally.
Let's also for a minute consider the cost of the United States' nuclear weapons program. The United States has spent over 5.5 trillion dollars on developing nuclear weapons. This figure does not include the storage, transportation, disposal, or delivery costs of handling nuclear material. Nor does this figure take into account the cost of producing fissure material. I for one an so glad that the United States has spent the equivalent to half of the total current national debt on something we all hope to never use. That makes perfect sense. Sarah Palin is so brilliant and so in tune with the needs of America that she believes that we should be spending more money in this area and less on more "socialized" things like Health Care and national infrastructure. After all, those things are too expensive. Plus one in the face punching category.
Here is my last point, and then I seriously need to go to bed. Sarah Palin has been drinking from the teat of Tea Party Movement for most of the past year. This is another group that I can't quite figure out. I understand the desire to have more than a 2-party system, especially given the infantile behavior on Capitol Hill. However, sanity has to enter the equation at some point. Tea Party Members (and Sarah Palin as an unofficial figure-head) are carrying the socialism/government spending banner high and proud. What they should be carrying is a mirror. 90% of tea party members say that the US is becoming a socialist society, while 70% want a more active government role in job creation. I guess it would make sense that a group of people this hypocritical would look to Sarah Palin as a leader. Need more fuel for this fire? The vast majority of tea party members either don't consider any of the following domestic programs as socialist or want the government to continue to run them: Medicare, Medicaid, VA benefits, and Social Security.
How could this be? A poll that came out by Gallop last month shows that they are old, retired, Republican white men making over $50,000 per year. The fact that about 50% of tea party members are unemployed or retired also interests me since I doubt (heavy sarcasm here) that any of them collect unemployment benefits, disability claims, or money from some other government program, let alone from government pension plans. For Sarah Palin to stand at the front of this line while receiving huge government subsidies before quitting as governor of Alaska (not to mention hundreds of thousands of dollars from the RNC during her Vice Presidential campaign for hair and make-up) then she has definitely earned her last punch to the face.
