About the "refusal" of foreign assistance...

In order to be able to tag this thread, I broke one of my own principles and clicked the link. It's a Media Matters for America item:

Media Matters said:
Fox & Friends misleadingly suggests we are not "us[ing] the rest of the world's offers to help us skim up the sludge"

While discussing the Jones Act, Fox & Friends' Brian Kilmeade misleadingly referenced "our inability or decision not to use the rest of the world's offers to help us skim up the sludge." In fact, the U.S. has used cleanup equipment from other nations "and will continue to do that," according to Coast Guard Adm. Thad Allen.
Click to expand...


Something I like about Media Matters is that, unlike many other groups which make claims of media bias, Media Matters states clearly (in their headlines and first paragraph) what the lie, misrepresentation, or example of bias is which they think occurred. Then they provide a clear summary of what the person or outlet they are targetting said, generally followed by a reasonably complete transcript and a link to where complete transcript can be found, as well as a clear summary of what they believe to be the actual facts of the matter and links to their sources on this. It makes it much easier to see whether they have a good point or not.

I think that's highly praiseworthy. I wish more media-criticism groups (on the left and right) would follow this model.***

In this case, I think they do have a good point. I would be interested in reading Kilmeade's and his co-hosts' response to this criticism, if they have one; but on the face of it, Media Matters analysis seems clear and appears accurate.

*** For that matter, I wish more people who post online, particularly in the JREF Politics section, would follow this model. But that's probably best left as a topic for a different thread.
 
Are you sure about that Lefty? I can buy Fox news getting something like that wrong out of animosity to Obama, but Radio Netherlands Worldwide?

Two Dutch companies are on stand-by to help the Americans tackle an oil slick in the Gulf of Mexico. The two companies use huge booms to sweep and suck the oil from the surface of the sea. The US authorities, however, have difficulties with the method they use.

What do the Dutch have that the Americans don’t when it comes to tackling oil spills at sea? “Skimmers,” answers Wierd Koops, chairman of the Dutch organisation for combating oil spills, Spill Response Group Holland.

The Americans don’t have spill response vessels with skimmers because their environment regulations do not allow it. With the Dutch method seawater is sucked up with the oil by the skimmer. The oil is stored in the tanker and the superfluous water is pumped overboard. But the water does contain some oil residue, and that is too much according to US environment regulations.[media:factfile1]

US regulations contradictory
Wierd Koops thinks the US approach is nonsense, because otherwise you would have to store the surplus seawater in the tanks as well.

“We say no, you have to get as much oil as possible into the storage tanks and as little water as possible. So we pump the water, which contains drops of oil, back overboard.”

US regulations are contradictory, Mr Knoops stresses. Pumping water back into the sea with oil residue is not allowed. But you are allowed to combat the spill with chemicals so that the oil dissolves in the seawater. In both cases, the dissolved oil is naturally broken down quite quickly.
Click to expand...

Then there is the fact that Obama hasn't suspended the Jones Act - (or has he finally suspended it?).

The CSM doesn't seem like a paper with a political agenda.
Jones Act: Maritime politics strain Gulf oil spill cleanup
Pressure is building for President Obama to lift a 1920 protectionist law so that high-tech foreign oil skimmers can help with the Gulf oil spill.

...

The Coast Guard Friday "redoubled" efforts to keep the Deepwater Horizon oil spill from impacting Gulf states by calling in more skimming boats and equipment from the Netherlands, Norway, France, and Spain after previously telling one Dutch official "Thanks, but no thanks," to an offer of help.

...

Confusion has steadily built around the exact US skimmer strategy and the role of the 1920 Jones Act. President Bush waived the act temporarily to allow foreign ships to help with the hurricane Katrina relief effort.

Only a day after Fox News quoted Admiral Allen saying, "To date, nobody has come for a Jones Act waiver," Coast Guard Capt. Roger Laferriere, the second-in-command, told ABC World News that both Allen and Mr. Obama had, in fact, worked to waive the Jones Act to allow more foreign vessels to attack the spill.

"We have exhausted all our East Coast supply of skimming vessels," Captain Laferriere said. "We are now looking at Norway, France, Spain, and other European vessels."
Click to expand...

From the CSM article, it appears the Jones act has been waived? It just looks like things were really confused and that there were bureaucratic SNAFUs, but foreign vessels offering to help were indeed turned away. Now, whether that offered help was along the lines of "we volunteer to help you with this oil spill" or "please hire us", I don't know.
 
There are far more vessels accepted and suitable in operation on the oil spill than the idiots at Faux News would have you belioeve. Not all help offered is suitable to this spill.

Leave it to the people who have a clue.

Remember the thread about the Coast Guard shutting down one or two barges on safety issues? We have a lot of people whining about the CG's not allowing people or companies to do some pretty stupid crap, like putting non-seaworthy or ill-equipped vessels into service just because this is an emergency. Dumb.
 
In other words: yes, I was wrong, but Fox news is evil!!!! There is a more important truth than the actual truth...a higher truth, fortified with added truthiness.
 
If all we have proof of is that some vessels whose equipment is not allowed to be used in USA waters were turned away then this is a bit of a non-issue.
 
MikeMangum said:
In other words: yes, I was wrong, but Fox news is evil!!!! There is a more important truth than the actual truth...a higher truth, fortified with added truthiness.
Click to expand...
Faux News rarely gets anything right. Their "in-depth" reporting is like the GOP's typical thinking, too shallow to float a cockroach.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom