The intense propaganda campaign to protect BP at all costs is heating up. The wagons are being circled and the propaganda flows like a busted oil well.
The current meme in the Tory community, both here and across the ocean, is that Obama’s an evil Brit-hating Socialist out to destroy business.
Seriously, that’s what the Economist, falling in with the other Tory papers, is saying:
The Economist has a pathetic leader this week criticizing Obama for hammering BP and raising the ridiculous idea that his corporate-friendly administration is anti-business.
It actually (really!) calls the president “Vladimir Obama” and writes:
The collapse in BP’s share price suggests that he has convinced the markets that he is an American version of Vladimir Putin, willing to harry firms into doing his bidding.
The normally sober Economist has gone off the wagon here.
First, it knows better than to “suggest” what “the markets” think. Second, that blew up in its face rather quickly. Instaputz points out that BP shares soared 10 percent on news of the $20 billion fund.
Most importantly, you have a giant oil company that cut corners while drilling a mile-deep well, killed eleven people, and sprung a hole in the ocean floor that’s gushing an Exxon Valdez-size spill every four days. The company has consistently lowballed the amount of oil it’s spilling (remember the 5,000-gallon barrel days?), and has caused an environmental and economic disaster in the Southeast United States. It’s a true national emergency.
But this shouldn’t surprise anyone. Tories on both sides of the Atlantic, and the media organs that prop them up (the Economist, Torygraph and Daily Hitler Worshippers in the UK, FOX News et al in the US) have been doing everything in their power to shield the poor ickle BP from the oil-soaked pelicans coming home to roost.
One favorite meme: "BP is at death’s door because of you American meanies!" Erm, not exactly: Shares of BP actually rose nearly 10 percent once the deal to set up a $20 billion escrow fund was reached.
Another favorite Tory Story is the Blame Shirk: "BP’s not the real culprit here — Transocean/Halliburton/Space Aliens are!"
Wrong. The evidence continues to mount that BP (which ignored contractor recommendations in favor of cost- and corners-cutting on the Deepwater well) bears the lion’s share of the blame. As a result, the world’s stock exchanges are easing off of their punishment of Transocean and Halliburton stock.
And of course there’s the "Lay off BP or the grannies get it!" argument, which is undermined by the fact that UK pension fund exposure to BP tops out at 1.5%, at most.
But the new Cameron-led Tory government, which is about to unleash some nasty austerity measures on Britain’s pensioners (and everyone else who isn’t filthy rich), would probably like to see Obama and the US take the heat for Tory-instigated suffering. Think of it as David Cameron’s camouflage — or Cammie-flage, for short.



27 Comments







Yeah, it’s pretty obvious as to which crowd holds the lionshare of BP shares. It’s not little old ladies pension accounts unless you include the Queen in that category.
I’m not surprised that the UK is particularly touchy about the BP issue. They do not have a very diverse domestic economy. Much of thier economic welfare comes from the City of London’s financial black magic. And that extremely lawless square mile is in dire shape. If the Brits are not careful, sheep will become the lynchpin of the British economy.
Meanwhile, here’s Yves Smith just demolishing the FT’s (and other BP apologists’) horsepucky.
Yeah! Right on Billy Let’s invade Britain and send those redcoats a running again!
Send the queen to New Orleans, Louisana for a 6 month vacation. She can dine on oil and shrimp and swim in the oil canal.
Recc’d. Elites aren’t as monolithic as some people would like to believe. So it’s not surprising that sections of the US/UK economic elite will contend for their interests.
Since a moderator here has tried to silence me when I tried to post this, I will let you have this here:
Let me lay out BP for you. Read the following to see what is going on behind the scenes:
http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2010/05/26/94884/bp-could-be-held-criminally-liable.html#storylink=omni_popular#ixzz0p81cchtN
http://www.nola.com/news/gulf-oil-spill/index.ssf/2010/05/joint_hearings_resume_in_kenne.html
http://www.nola.com/news/gulf-oil-spill/index.ssf/2010/05/oil_spill_hearings_bp_man_on_d.html
…and this is what BP Executives were supposedly doing when disaster struck:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KzsUY440h4g
Have a nice day.
Hey, moderators, you do realize that I can post elsewhere?
What are you trying to say here? I see articles with witnesses taking the 5th or calling in sick when called to testify and an old video saying a methane bubble blew up the well. So?
Are you trying to say it’s not BP’s fault? What?
The Economist was a venerable publication, with Walter Bagehot as editor, the standard bearer. It seems to have been co-opted in more recent times, part-owned by the Tory paper, the Financial Times.
That would explain a lot. They’re starting to look like the Daily Mail, and it would seem that all they’d need to complete the resemblance would be a few pro-Hitler articles and a forged letter or two.
This has truthiness:
Yes, Minister!
Props for quoting a great show (and timely).
Thanks, PW, for the info. Not surprised that The City is circling the wagons, as they watch some of their dividends swirling down the oily drain. And thanks also for the brief update re TransOcean and Haliburton in re to how BP is mostly responsible for this mess. I’ve been trying to get more news on that front lately.
Carry on!
Thankee!
I should note that “the Daily Hitler Worshipper” is another name for the Daily Mail, which is such a fascist outfit that they backed Hitler right up to the Battle of Britain. A favorite name for them among Labour backers is “the Forgers’ Gazette”, as they once published a fake letter that purported to be a communication between Grigori Zinoviev, a high-ranking Soviet Russian official, and various British Communists; the letter led to the downfall of the UK’s first Labour government.
And yes, that does sound an awful lot like what Nixon’s Segretti did when he created “the Canuck Letter” and had the Loebs run it at the Manchester Union-Leader during the run-up to Watergate, doesn’t it?
The same “The Economist” piece was cited today by George Will on TV’s “This Week” as proof that the world agrees that Obama is anti-business and the world economy is therefore in deep, deep trouble.
It was sort of amusing when Will tried to get the other panelists to agree that “The Economist” was a ‘mainstream’ publication, but none seemed to want to bite at that.
Listen, I just last night saw a video clip of Meridith Whitney, whom I had thought a fair and balanced straight shooter, stridently warning that the finreg bill will not allow credit issuers to “price for risk.” And here I thought the point was to prevent gouging. And not doing a very good job of that, either. Someone here at Meridith’s level enlighten me.
I don’t think BP will survive as we know it. I’ve been trying to get people interested since May 1st, in possibly buying up the Alaska assets of BP at fire sale prices.
Good idea. Makes sense to me. I suspect you’re right about BP’s long term prospects. Of course, BP (and the UK?) will blame us heartless mean serfs here in the colonies, rather than take responsibility for their criminal negligence. Twas ever thus.
At the end of day, it’s the end of the day
I am going to write that down.
Would you make a copy for me?
The Economist has really gone downhill. Years ago their biases (Airbus, Eurozone) were quirky and amusing but lately they’ve gotten all Murdochy. Witness the awkward and crude ways of defining Obama and his policies (statist?).
I have canceled my subscription to The Economist.
Dean Baker is upstairs!
Will It Go Round in Circles: Alan Simpson and the Social Security Trust Fund
This is the biggest piece of baloney yet–in regard to “tories” on this side of the Atlantic.
Yeah, some Brits for sure.
I see a lot of conservative commentators–and liberal ones, too–and I have not seen even one defend BP. Jump on Obama, yes, but not defend BP.
Now, I don’t watch Beck, so maybe him.
O-Reilly, Hannity, Liz Cheney, Bill from the Weekly Standard, Krauthammer, etc.
I know you want so very badly to link conservatives to BP, and Obama F’ed it up by endorsing drilling a few months before the blowout, but in this case, you are barking up the wrong tree.
Aside from that, Obama is only jumping on BP for PR sake, he isn’t really doing anything to rough them up. It’s a appearances only.
And, I have seen far more conservatives getting on Obama for NOT doing enough to stand up to BP than trying to protect them.
In the case of BP, and not the separate issue of drilling, but in the actions of BP and the lack of being held accountable, I think conservatives are on the same page as progressives. Obviously, you might find a few exceptions like the bozo Barton. But, most want Obama to go after BP pretty hard. And, he isn’t doing it.
BP is certainly a true villain and that is just how the GOP would like to keep it.
But we cannot afford to let it obscure the real issue which is it is simply too dangerous to permit most offshore and land drilling now. I hope progressives don’t get sucked in to the GOP strategy of feigned outrage at just simple ineptitude and not the technology.
Without good p.r., corporations as we know them won’t survive.
Part of the irony in this case is that Cameron succeeded in getting ‘the environment’ highlighted as a legitimate policy issue in U.K. He was born in the 1960s, as was Obama (and Hayworth may have been born in the 1960s, as well).
This is a different political cohort than the Cheney, Bush I, Bush II, and even Clinton group born prior to 1955. For those born in the 1960s — which, FWIW, includes Medvedyev — the environment is more salient than for some of the ‘boomer’ and WWII generation politicians.
So BP has pretty much screwed the pooch, though it will take a while to play out. Corporate propaganda is different in the era of YouTube — it’s still pernicious, but the more information that gets out about BP’s thuggish conduct of their cleanup crews, and ‘vanishing’ carcasses of dead sea animals are going to screw them.
I don’t know who wrote that ‘Economist’ piece of hash, but I’d bet they were born in the 1940s or 1950s. Well intentioned, old school rules, unquestioning assumptions about the importance of corporations in economic life. (Especially energy multinationals.)
They may comfort the George Wills of the reading world, but that kind of trash is not going to cut it with the 20-somethings.
Bad editorial judgment.
I’m against the death penalty and no fan of Stalin, but it makes one think about what Stalin did to corporate executives he called “wreckers”
at this point I wonder if we might see eventually see show trials of the parasitic bankers, oil company execs, etc. who are wrecking our world for short-run personal wealth accumulation
ttp://www.awitness.org/reflections/capitalist_wrecker.html
It’s too funny; when the left makes valid criticism of Obama’s bushian policies, it’s dismissed. I mean, we could be running his political ‘nads through a blender, and his people and most of the dems would giggle and chide us. (“Fucking retards” comes to mind, handily…)
But one word of dissonance from the assholes who’ve nearly ruined us (and so many of whose ruinous policies, Obama has sustained) and they shit green nickels, like new priests getting an asschewing from the Pope.