August 18th, 2004
|10:31 am - Yeah, *that's* intelligent. . .|
Yes, ladies and gentlemen, there are very specific reasons that I disagree with groups like Greenpeace.
This is one of them.
Killing 11,000 fish to protest overfishing? wtf were they smoking?
Be very careful which groups you send your money to. The word "enviornmental" doesn't make it all happy.
Current Mood: angry
Current Music: "Trouble on the Horizon", -JB
Then why would they say
:"We caught the fish in the North Sea on board the Greenpeace ship Esperanza using a standard 10 meter commercial fishing net," said Jettka. "The net has a huge pipe attached that sucks up fish indiscriminately like a giant vacuum cleaner."
The blog and the spokespeople seem to disagree, but I'm not convinced that they made up 11,000 fish simply from what they were given.
Further info can be found here: http://www.greenpeace.org/deutschland/
It appears from the article there (English version
) that they did, but I can't read German, and the main English site doesn't have a story about this.
Well, we can't figure it out, I don't think, unless we get more information (or figure out how to read German to see what they say on the Greenpeace site).
I'm still more likely to believe the news article than the blogs, but I'm naturally suspicious of blogs anyway, and especially of Greenpeace.
|Date:||August 18th, 2004 08:48 am (UTC)|| |
news vs blogs and Devil's Advocate
I am just as suspicious of news as blogs. The accuracy of print media is frequently in question because the time span and editorial staff to check out stories is severely lacking. I have a hard time believing anything published on the internet has a higher level of scrutiny before it goes out.
I do agree with the notion of being careful to trust the word environment, in any form, in any context, the denotations and connotations are different enough. As for protesting, you need to get attention sometimes. If the 11,000 fish save millions is it a fair trade off?