U.S. media union to monitor restrictions on spill coverage

source

A major U.S. union representing broadcast journalists said on Thursday it would monitor reports of censorship and restrictions on access for reporting on the oil spill crisis in the Gulf of Mexico.

The American Federation of Television and Radio Artists (AFTRA) said it had launched a website to gather published accounts about journalists being hindered from gathering information about the worst oil spill in U.S. history.

"We are concerned about continuing reports that journalists are being denied access to sources and public places necessary for them to fully cover this important story," AFTRA national president Roberta Reardon said in a statement.

"The causes and effects of the explosion of the Deepwater Horizon (oil rig) must be uncovered and analyzed, and our only hope of getting to the truth is through investigative journalism by professionals with unfettered and unfiltered access to the sources," she added.

i didn't know that there were actual hindrances to those seeking to report on the situation in the Gulf. i know it seems like we don't hear much of anything, at all, except what seems to be well-scripted PR type "news," but i didn't realize actual censorship attempts might be part, or all, of the problem.

i hope this is truly what it seems to be, an attempt at informing the public more fully and truthfully than so far has been the case.

if there are purposeful obstacles to investigative reporters, by BP and friends, then i wonder if there is even more, possibly worse, evidence being concealed?

if so, at what cost?

Well here's the site they set up:
www.aftra.com...

From their page:

Tell us your story!

If you are a broadcast journalist working in the Gulf region and you have been denied access by a government or corporate entity to accurately report on this catastrophe, please fill out the form below and tell us your story. All stories will be kept confidential and will not be shared or made public by AFTRA without your support and express permission.

So, if they're not going to make anything they learn public without "support" and express permission, how exactly is this different that just hearing accounts directly from affected journalists? After all, if they are going to go public with a story of interference, they'd do it with or without "supporting" AFTRA.

well, that's a heck of a note, isn't it?

thanks for the info and the link.

i'm disappointed.

reply to post by queenannie38


Excuse my cynicism. Actually, it's a good sign that there's at least a commonly-evolving understanding that BP and the government aren't the best entities for reporters to rely on, in deciding how to pursue their stories.

Man if we just had more professional investigative reporters in this country! I mean, really -- does a real reporter need some kind of advocacy web-page to help them get the story. No! They just get in there and get it, regardless of what obstructions are in their way.

The hope here is, as examples of this slumbering media become more obviously undeniable, and cynicism of the media becomes more and more entrenched, we'll be raising a new generation of reporters, fresh out of school and ready to take on the world. Look at the complicity of the MSM as fuel for their emerging passion. Wish it would happen faster!

reply to post by Ian McLean

Good job getting the link Mclean! And thanks to the OP person who's name I can't make out...
I'm meeting with a BBC reporter tomorrow to get their feed back on some of the Deepwater issues raised on ATS. I'll show them this link as well as Kindra Arnesens testimony. Wonder if there are 'no go' areas for the Beeb? Will let folks know what, if anything they make of this post and some of our other discoveries/theories submitted here. I'm looking for a balanced response as SO much of what is discussed on this forum is terrifying. (Hoping, possibly against all hope, that things aren't as bad as they seem...)

[edit on 4-7-2010 by 5senses]