Earlier this year, Japanese whalers in the Antarctic were accused of ramming a Greenpeace boat. The evidence suggested it was the other way around, that Greenpeace had rammed the Japanese.
Nevermind, when Greenpeace returned to Australia they were given a pat on the back by the Environment Minister Ian Campbell. He said in Parliament:
“Over summer, we as a nation have witnessed the Greenpeace ship not only visiting the Southern Ocean and running a policy of harassment against the whalers but also, very constructively, sending photographic images of the whale slaughter by the Japanese in the Southern Ocean all around the world. I had the great pleasure of meeting Shane Rattenbury and the Greenpeace team in my office [at Parliament House in Canberra] just before question time. I think other members and senators will have the chance to meet them. I must say that the work they did over the summer was in distinct contrast to the actions of Paul Watson on the Sea Shepherd, who I think set back the cause of whaling by unnecessarily taking potentially illegal action, causing collisions and potentially putting life at risk at sea.”
While the Minister may have preferred the footage from Greenpeace, the Sea Sheperds were also their with cameras rolling.
According to a recent Media Watch program, the Sea Shepherd was paid $70,000 “a decent chunk of money” to send video footage back to Channel Seven. In fact a deal was done before they had even got to the Antarctic.
Media Watch concluded that:
“Whatever you think about cheque book journalism or whaling – it’s not Seven’s job to help Sea Shepherd stage the news events that Seven is buying exclusive access to!”
Perhaps both Greenpeace and the Sea Sheperd were providing us with a form of reality television dressed-up as news?
Jennifer Marohasy BSc PhD is a critical thinker with expertise in the scientific method.
And this is exactly why the Japanese should form their own activist group with a ship of their own, and manned by a few fellows with the odd bit of missing finger, to show the world what wonderful viewing can be had from “stunt TV”.
The similarities between the anti-whaling campaigning and the disgusting international anti-forestry propaganda designed to interfere in the Tasmanian election, are to numerous to mention.
Suffice to say that the enemy of my enemy will be my friend.
The Greenpeace boat collides with other boats, crashes into a coral reef, fails Alaskan enviromental regs, their members fall overboard or get tangled in ropes… maybe someone should take their drivers’ license away.
Schiller.
Sorry, I thought you said Sea Shepherd were paid $70,000…
And Channel 7? Reporting news? When?
What the ABC transcript says is
“Channel 9 tell us the group (Sea Shepherd) asked them for “upward of $70,000.” Nine weren’t prepared to pay that much, so the deal went to Seven.”
Thanks Rog, I was working off an email from a reader as much as from the transcript and got it wrong. I’ve made the correction to the post. Many thanks.
Living-with-Matilida, It all happened in January this year – do you watch TV?
TV stations paying people to engage in dangerous and illegal activity holds great promise for exciting new viewing and the apparent government endorsement is most hopeful. $70,000 should secure exclusive coverage to the next Mafia killing or terrorist spectacular. Spectator sports just haven’t been worth watching since the Romans closed the Colosseum but this development looks like the good old days are back again.
Jennifer
You seem to have completely missed the point of Living-with-Matilida’s comment about Channel 7 “reporting” “news”. I read this as a query as to when did Channel 7 ever report news, not just about reporting on this incident. Lighten up a bit.
Surely, another case of the incorrigible ‘environment industry’ acting like, well, industry?
Plus, I think Media Watch was referring to Sea Shepherd taking money. How did Greenpeace end up being implicated in the same scam, as implied in your final sentence?
Insinuation by implication?
l-w-m,
Greenpeace have perhaps more of a symbiotic relationship with television news/the media?
Greenpeace produces news, in the way a farmer might produce tomatoes? While the farmer gets paid directly for his tomatoes, Greenpeace gets paid by way of subscriptions and donations?
Comrades – back to barricades !
http://www.seashepherd.org/editorials/editorial_060224_1.html
I guess if you’re a leading greenie organisation you just can’t win !
I think Farmers ‘produce’ news as well as tomatoes / canola:
http://www.abc.net.au/mediawatch/transcripts/s1585120.htm
I think putting Greenpeace and Sea Shepherd on the same level is quite misleading. Greenpeace has the media attention that Sea Shepherd hasn’t, but the operations of both are completely different as you can see by comparing the official statements on their websites.
As far as the article on “On Line Opinion” is concerned, there hasn’t been a research on how things have developed. Because otherwise Young would have mentioned that while Sea Shepherd has been questioned by the South African authorities at their return from the whaling campaign, Greenpeace was left free to continue its activities.