BP “To The Couch” Walk: New Day Stupid?

Polluting America’s Gulf: Polluting CNN’s airwaves? Lampooning themselves unintentionally a la a Saturday Night Live spoof, CNN New Day co-hosts Chris Cuomo, Kate Bolduan, and Michaela Pereira made a mockery of themselves and their show today anew with their diurnal “To The Couch!” walk sponsored by BP in the penultimate block of ND. After Kate announced that they would be making their odd amble to ND‘s version of F&F‘s “curvy couch” for John Berman‘s “Award of the Day” segment, an actual ad sponsored by BP began to air in a split screen alongside with Chris, Kate, and Michaela strolling to the sofa.

It was embarrassing and absurd. When the author saw this inanity of a crass commercial during ND itself for the first time a while back, he thought it was a lame joke or, perhaps, a jejune jab at F&F‘s famed “curvy couch.” But, it was not to be: It was actually a legitimate commercial. Yikes! It was especially jarring since CNN’s American Morning (an earlier ED iteration) co-hosts Kiran Chetry and John Roberts had covered the 2010 BP oil disaster in the Gulf of Mexico with exceptional reportage and sincere sensitivity.

Whenever this viewer watches Chris, Kate, and Michaela stroll to ND‘s “curvy couch” as the ad voice-over proclaims the merits of BP, he remembers the pollution from that oil company spill that savaged the Gulf of Mexico, its marine life, and the economic livelihoods of so many Gulf states natives. And, those images now spill over onto a seemingly much too cavalier New Day itself.

Scrub well with Dawn, ED, and start a whole new dawn!

“Certainly, it’s not [BP’s] Fault”

Who said it? No, not BP CEO Tony Hayward but Fox & Friends contributor and FBN reporter Ashely Webster! During an F&F segment concerning the danger of BP going bankrupt, co-anchor Brian Kilmeade asked, “Ashley, do we have to be careful now politically and out in public with our statements at the highest level in ripping BP? Should we moderate some of our criticism in order to sustain the company?”*

Beginning quite reasonably, Webster answered, “No, I don’t think so. I mean, obviously, BP didn’t want this to happen. It’s the last thing in the world they wanted to happen but they certainly haven’t helped themselves with the way they responded initially. And, CEO Tony Heyward, of course, saying, ‘This is the worst day of my life’ and, so on, certainly did not come across very well at all.” Unfortunately for Webster, he did not stop there.

Sounding almost like a BP shill, he continued, “You know, BP is one of many of the major oil companies that do this type of exploration around the world to satisfy our thirst for oil.” Then, he incredibly concluded, “And, certainly, it’s not their fault but the way they’ve handled it hasn’t been great at all.” Shockingly, as the segment ended, F&F’s co-hosts (Brian, Steve Doocy, and Alisyn Camerota) uttered not a word of disagreement.

Perhaps, that Fox & Friends’ segment should have been entitled “Hayward’s Wet Dream.”

*Fox & Friends – 06/10/10 (@7:02 a.m. ET)

A.M. & Costello: Funny Business?

CNN’s Carol Costello: Journo joker? (Cf. “Who’s Your Expert, Carol?,” infra.) If the BP oil spill ecological disaster were not so tragic, perhaps, Carol’s Orwellianly named report, “Emotion vs. Science: Are sand berms a smart defense?” would have been comedic. As President Barack Obama, under fire for being unemotional and for his reticence to approve of the sand berms to protect the Louisiana wetlands, traveled to Louisiana today, Carol seemed to be on a personal mission to give him cover from his detractors, both liberal and conservative.

Introducing her straw-man segment, Carol stated, “When President Obama comes here today, some people want him to show more emotion. They want him to take emphatic charge of the situation. There are plenty of local politicians, showing a lot of emotion. You know, they want to build those sand berms. But, scientists say, ‘Hold off on the emotion for just a minute and think about what these sand berms really do to the environment.’ So, is emotion or science better? A gut check this morning.”*

As footage of the disaster site ran, including that of Louisiana Governor Jindal, local Louisiana officials, and an oil-soaked pelican in the wetlands of Louisiana, Carol opined, “Louisiana’s governor is usually low-key but not these days. He’s fired up, emotional like so many other Louisiana politicians…There is a sense of doom here and some say politicians in their eagerness to do something are calling for solutions that may not work like giant six-foot walls of sand or sand berms. It’s a concept that politicians say has been in their area contingency plan with the Corps of Engineers. President Obama finally agreed under pressure, approving six berm sites.” [Italics added for emphasis.]

After portraying the Louisiana “politicians” as being uber emotional, Carol turned to a young unidentified bearded man with sunglasses and a BTNEP baseball cap, asking, “Would these giant sand walls really work?” He answered, “There are instances where they would be of benefit.” With no mention of his credentials, Carol continued, “Mel Landry studies the barrier islands and marshlands Louisiana politicians are so desperate to protect.” Subsequently, she solicited his view on the berms which he said “could have adverse impacts” citing a bulldozer’s incidental leveling of nests in the berm-building process. (Seemingly not satisfied with her sound bite, Carol superimposed, “He adds the berms could be blown away in a hurricane and could also disrupt natural tidal flows if they’re use to block gaps between barrier islands. But local politicians aren’t hearing that. The berms will go up and BP will pay the price, $360,000,000!”)

As the footage ended, Carol remarked, “John, six berms have been approved. One berm is under construction. Um, experts tell me [that] it could take a couple of weeks for these things to be put up but they’re raring to go.” Then strangely BP sensitive, Carol facetiously snarked, “And, hey, BP’s footing the bill, $360,000,000. So a lot of people here are saying, ‘If it is a waste of money, who cares? BP is paying!”

Seemingly, less than impressed with Carol’s reasoning, John sensibly stated, “Alright. Well, some good news for those folks there.” Similarly sympathetic to the plight of Louisianans on the Gulf coast, Kiran (who herself had reported from Grand Isle and other devastated areas in Louisiana) cogently countered, “The front page of all the papers this morning has some heart-breaking pictures–and we have the video as well–of these birds covered in oil. And, a couple of the datelines at East Grand Terre Isle, which is where one of those berms is being built currently, and they said [that] if they could have just gotten that done earlier, maybe, that marshland would not have become oiled. So, there are very strong opinions on both sides about that.”

Unfortunately, after Carol nonchalantly said, “Absolutely,” and asked for viewer input to her AM blog, she got back on message. Shaking her head, Carol icily commented, “I mean, should politicians just step back just for a minute and really study this and bring scientists in and, and really get a group together to see if these berms are really effective because sometimes the solution could be worse than the initial problem–because if these sand berms are gonna kill the wildlife anyway, why erect them?”

As an, apparently, incredulous John sat tight-lipped, wide-eyed, and stone-faced, Kiran reasonably remarked, “Yeah, a lot of questions this morning about that situation. And, another guy (vis-a-vis Landry?) locally said, ‘Hey, if a hurricane does knock the berm over, it’s done its job. At least, it’s protected it from getting on shore. So, again, a lot of differing opinions about it. Carol Costello this morning, thank you.”

Carol smugly smiled and shrugged her shoulders.

“Who’s Your Expert, Carol?” Even though John and Kiran seemed to sanely reject Carol’s premise that the sand berms were a case of “Emotion vs. Science” (or, in Carol’s case, local Louisiana “politicians” versus her mysterious scientific expert Mel Landry), they did not tell you the “rest of the story.” Just who is Mel Landry, Carol’s source for science or font of wisdom? According to his Facebook page, the twenty-nine year old Mel Landry is a 2004 college graduate from LSU who majored in fisheries and aquaculture. Furthermore, he states that he is the “Public Involvement Coordinator for the Barataria-Terrebonne National Estuary Program.” In his role, Landry explains, “I work with local communities, businesses, governments and volunteers across the state to save Louisiana’s vanishing coast and culture. I’m neck deep in science and politics and anyone who’s been around long enough knows that there’s nowhere else I’d rather be.”

So, for her scientific authority, Carol depended on a mere college graduate who is “neck deep in science and politics” and who works as the “public involvement coordinator” of a non-profit organization, Barataria-Terrebonne National Estuary Program. Perhaps, she could not find a non-political, post-graduate Louisiana scientist to do her bidding. After getting this senior sage who taxied her around Grand Isle and a berm or two, Carol (in her AmFix blog) vapidly and vacuously pontificated, “So, chalk up one for emotion: the berms will go up, BP will dole out $360 million for the project, and maybe science will be the better for it. Or not.”

“Chalk up another one for emotion”? Indeed. In fact, Carol’s seeming selection of her own “expert” to make her case is remarkably similar to the time (about six months ago) that she apparently chose a panel of four “very sharp” women to pan, er, critique Sarah Palin’s book, Going Rogue. Now, as then, she appears to have readily obtained the conclusion that she wanted from her self-selected “experts” that had few if any bona fides. Playing politics with Sarah Palin is one thing but playing politics with Louisiana, its wetlands, and its way of life is another thing altogether.

Carol, as a CNN reporter, you should be ashamed of yourself for producing another biased, specious piece: strike two. Jamie, as AM executive producer, you should be embarrassed for letting it air once, much less a second time. And, Jon, as CNN news chief, if you really meant that you wanted CNN “to position itself as an opinion-free, middle-of-the-road alternative to its cable news rivals — conservative Fox News and liberal MSNBC,” you need to make it happen.

*American Morning – 06/04/10 (@6:32 a.m. ET)

AM’s “Missing Leak”

What happened to that third leak from BP’s off-shore oil well polluting the Gulf of Mexico? American Morning co-host Kiran Chetry did not seem to realize that it existed, and her co-anchor John Roberts initially appeared to have thought that it had been plugged. However, BP (or British Petroleum) has acknowledged its existence and has not yet announced its closure.

On May 5, BP stated that it had sealed one of the three oil leaks from its off-shore well. Further, the New York Times reported that BP had stopped one of these leaks and would try to shut up the worse of the remaining two with a “containment dome” and, if successful, then would tackle the third one with a second dome. However, according to the author’s understanding of  BP’s releases, it has been unsuccessful with the containment dome(s) (including its second “top hat” model) thus far on the second leak and has mitigated it’s flow with an RITT (riser insertion tube tool) which carries a portion, at least, of the oil leakage to a surface ship. Apparently, now BP is trying to shut off this second leak and the third yet un-dealt-with leak with a “top kill” approach (intended to clog up the oil wellhead with industry “mud” and cement it, and thus cut off the oil leakage).

Yes, AM, the third BP leak exists. Brickbats to Kiran for blithely ignoring the reality (after being apprised by the author citing a CNN transcipt of her interview with a Purdue professor). Bouquets to John for readily acknowledging it (when he received Tweets from the author about the NYT article and the link thereto, supra). Nevertheless, kudos to Kiran, for her great in-the-field coverage of the BP ecological nightmare in Louisiana.

Kiran: Still Off Her Game?

BP: “Beach P” or “Beach Pee”? American Morning co-host Kiran Chetry appears all wet when it comes to BP and its oil spill of late. Last Thursday and Friday, Kiran seemed deaf to the estimates of the BP oil well leakage per day in the Gulf of Mexico. Today, she did one better: she got the company’s name wrong.

In a preview of her upcoming interview with BP COO Doug Suttles this morning, Kiran misspoke, declaring, “Coming up next on the Most News in the Morning. More than a month later, thirty-five days the oil still pouring into the Gulf of Mexico. We’re gonna be speaking with Beach P‘s chief operating officer, Doug Suttles.”* Not quite, Kiran. Of course, BP is an acronym for British Petroleum.

In Kiran’s defense, maybe, she simply had a Freudian slip a la such notables as the erstwhile House Majority Leader, Dick Armey, and former President Jimmy Carter. As to Armey, the conservative Texas Republican once referred to the proudly gay Democratic liberal Rep. Barney Frank (D-MA) as “Barney Fag.” Re Carter, he flubbed his 1980 Democratic presidential nomination acceptance speech by dubbing the loquacious late Dem great Hubert Humphey as “Hubert Horatio Hornblower.”

Perhaps, Kiran merely said on air what she, too, may say in private, at least, in front of her children, i.e., “Beach Pee” (a rather mild invective against BP, the polluter of Louisiana’s wetlands now and most probably its beaches soon). Reader, remember, she does say “h-e-double hockey sticks” in the hearing of her kids, Maya and little Chris.

Nevertheless, Jamie, you may want to give Kiran a bit bigger BP briefing book tomorrow.

*  American Morning – 05/24/10 (@6:39 a.m. ET)

Kiran: Size Doesn’t Matter

Or, at least, when it comes to the BP oil spill (polluting the sensitive wetlands of Louisiana and threatening other Gulf states). Yesterday, American Morning co-host Kiran Chetry interviewed Steven Werely, a Purdue mechanical engineer prof who questioned BP’s 5000 barrel/day estimate of the oil leak. When she asked him his own estimate (based in part on a BP video), Werely answered,  “[T]his video is what B.P. is classifying as the smaller of the two leaks. And this one in particular, I just calculated yesterday, the rate on that one is 25,000 barrels a day. And the original leak that I — not just me, but several other well-respected researchers around the country — calculated numbers considerably higher than B.P.’s — something in the order of between 20,000 and 100,000 barrels per day for that main leak.” Kiran responded, “That’s a huge differential, 20,000 to 100,000.”

Apparently, Kiran was not listening closely because she later referenced the Professor Werely’s estimates of the BP oil well leakage at 20,000-100,000 twice in the program. [As can be seen from the professor’s aforementioned quote (from transcripts.cnn.com), he also estimated an additional 25,000 barrels/day for the smaller one.] Subsequently, the author sent Kiran a Tweet and left her a comment on the AMfix blog (as James H. of LA) pointing out her mistake. Thereafter, Kiran did not cite Werely’s estimate nor did she correct her error.

Apparently, Kiran was not listening to the author either. Today, Kiran did accurately report, “We heard for the first time from BP: they were talking a little bit about the fact that they may have underestimated the oil spill. Since the disaster began more than a month ago, BP has insisted it’s 5000 barrels a day coming out of that well.”* However, she subsequently mistakenly again asserted, “We spoke to an engineer yesterday who said that the estimations are widely off [and] it’s probably about 20,000 to as much as 100,000 barrels of oil a day leaking out of there.”

Consequently, the author anew gave Kiran three Tweets (including a link to the CNN transcipt of AM yesterday) and posted an AMfix blog comment noting her error. Happily, once more Kiran did not repeat her mistake. Unhappily, she did not correct it either for her AM audience even in a subsequent BP oil spill segment, named, “How Much Oil is Gushing?” Ironically, AM co-anchor John Roberts introduced that very story, saying, “When it comes to the oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico, size, apparently, does matter to the White House now.”

Unfortunately, size does not seem to matter to Kiran now. It should. If Professor Werely is correct, Kiran is overlooking a leak (that “small” 25,000 barrels/day oil leak) that is FIVE TIMES the size of what BP had estimated that the entire well is leaking.  Those of us in the affected states and/or who care about this ecological disaster assuredly do. Hopefully, tomorrow and thereafter, Kiran will, too.

[N.B. The BP well had three oil leaks, one of which has been closed.]

*American Morning – 05/21/10 (@7:29 a.m. ET)