The problem with the media

Here are two ads that I noticed recently:

From the Oakland Tribune 9-21-11 (The ad was too big for my scanner so I took a photo of it.)

From Scientific American October, 2011.  The same ad ran in the New Yorker in the September 5, 2011 issue.  Scientific American also had a full page ad from BP and a half page from Shell.

What is this all about?  I think there are two reasons Chevron's (and other oil companies) ad campaign:

1.  Following Abraham Lincoln's adage that "You can fool some of the people all of the time", these ads hope to convince the gullible that oil companies are their friend.  The first ad--"Oil Companies should put their profits to good use.  We Agree"-- points to "thousands of jobs" and "boosting small business" as if Chevron were some sort of charity.  Compared to the many more thousands of jobs that could be provided by renewable energy, without the environmental destruction, Chevron's claim is a sad ploy to cover up their bloated profits.  The second ad--"The World needs more than oil.  We agree"--refers to Chevron's natural gas project in Australia as an alternative to oil.  It doesn't mention that the project has serious environmental impacts (as reported by The True Cost of Chevron) and that natural gas, like oil, is a greenhouse gas. 

2.  Even more important than the public relations is the bribe factor.  When oil companies take out full page ads in a magazine or newspaper, that periodical is thoroughly compromised.  That is particularly discouraging in the case of Scientific American, which ran a very good article in Novermber 2009 on renewable energy, but has been rather quiet on the subject since then in spite of the worsening global warming crisis and the advances being made in renewables.

The situation brings to mind the Gil Scott Heron song, "The Revolution Will Not Be Televised".  We just have to work and build this movement without depending on the sold out media.  It's not impossible.  When I first went to the gay pride marches in San Francisco in the early 1970s, there were many tens of thousands of people at these parades.  They were rollicking, riotous, hilarious, and full of fun.  But you never heard a whisper about the event in the papers or on TV before it happened.  Yes, there was coverage afterwards, but never anything that could be construed as supporting the events.  But the LGBT community, led by Harvey Milk, made itself a political powerhouse that could not be ignored.  Similarly, I never heard of an anti-Vietnam war march being publicized in the media--even when there were 200,000 people in San Francisco at a march in 1972, no one expected the media to cover it in a supporting way, or publicize it in advance.

So the reality is that we need to win this the old fashioned way--by convincing people to believe their eyes (and all of their other senses and their brains) that tell them that the planet is in danger, and that we have to stop using fossil fuels.  The answers are here--solar/wind power, conservation, and electric cars.  We have to elect people who get it, and make sure people do not vote for anyone in the pay of the oil companies. 

We're small now, but as Victor Hugo said, there is nothing as powerful as an idea whose time has come.