Splendid news highlight in Google news today gave me a laugh Go Tony!
While I normally have every respect for Greenpeace, this tactic was never going to work ... hopefully they'll grow up a bit now and think about how to make a difference effectively instead of sensationally.
If it wasn't for the Times blatant OBN worthy Blair worshipping write up it shows a picture of a Prime Minister who made jokes about his acrimonious relationship with his own chancellor and couldn't even deliver a speech because of the speaker problems. Let alone ensure the security of his own venue.
"proceedings having gone better than he could have ever imagined."
How so?
I note that it also suggests that this somehow improved Blairs reputation with Britains Business intrests yet does not explain why, nor does the article explain a single point of Mr Blairs so called 'lucid' speech.
It gained media attention. The Times is not a publication Greenpeace gives much of a toss about.
Why precisely do they consider this action to have backfired?
Looks like it worked to me it interrupted the meeting delivered a message and gained press attention. They also madew the PM look like an idiot in front of other countries premiers.
I don't think you can say sensationalism is an invalid technique for raising issues. Nor is it the only technique employed by Greenpeace who also go through the normal channels with regularity. What it does show, however, is that the press are only willing to report this type of protest to the public and will ignore other less 'sensational' objections and protests.
Actually I think it made Greenpeace look like monkeys in front of the assembled audience. Of course if it weren't for the blatant Socialist Worker slant you gave, it might have appeared that the Prime Minister dealt well with the situation.
It's all in the point of view ... ours differ ... considerably.
I have to say, I agree with you on this one Bin. First of all, I do actually nuclear is (at least temporarily) the best solution for energy for this country, with no realistic alternatives having been offered. I also think that Tony seemed to have done a good job in simply dealing with the situation and showing that the views of 2 protestors won't stop him saying what he wants to say to those who want to listen. After all, surely greenpeace believe in freedom of speech, doesn't even Tony have that right at a venue presumably organised by him to people who wanted to hear what he had to say. What right have they to stop him.
By all means placard outside, or organise your own and have your own say. Imagine what greenpeace would say if they tried to speak out and had their venue ruined.. Bet they wouldn't be pleased.
I'm just not sure what they hoped to achieve apart from saying, "We're greenpeace, we don't believe in nucllear energy or freedom of speech" *shrug*
Whilst I am undoubtedly a "skankpuss" (a name that has spread far beyond the places it should have done thus proving the power of the meme in your hands) I object deeply to you association of myself with the "Socialist worker" folk who are undoubtedly all scum and whom I despise after I had an incident with them at university.
I suggest an Old English underpant duel to settle this. Hie us to Strawberry hill tomorrow morn then 40,000 paces each, the first to die of exposure loses.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
timeasmymeasure
no subject
Date: 2005-11-29 03:18 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2005-11-29 04:58 pm (UTC)If it wasn't for the Times blatant OBN worthy Blair worshipping write up it shows a picture of a Prime Minister who made jokes about his acrimonious relationship with his own chancellor and couldn't even deliver a speech because of the speaker problems. Let alone ensure the security of his own venue.
"proceedings having gone better than he could have ever imagined."
How so?
I note that it also suggests that this somehow improved Blairs reputation with Britains Business intrests yet does not explain why, nor does the article explain a single point of Mr Blairs so called 'lucid' speech.
It gained media attention. The Times is not a publication Greenpeace gives much of a toss about.
Why precisely do they consider this action to have backfired?
Looks like it worked to me it interrupted the meeting delivered a message and gained press attention. They also madew the PM look like an idiot in front of other countries premiers.
I don't think you can say sensationalism is an invalid technique for raising issues. Nor is it the only technique employed by Greenpeace who also go through the normal channels with regularity. What it does show, however, is that the press are only willing to report this type of protest to the public and will ignore other less 'sensational' objections and protests.
no subject
Date: 2005-11-29 05:30 pm (UTC)It's all in the point of view ... ours differ ... considerably.
no subject
Date: 2005-11-29 09:11 pm (UTC)By all means placard outside, or organise your own and have your own say. Imagine what greenpeace would say if they tried to speak out and had their venue ruined.. Bet they wouldn't be pleased.
I'm just not sure what they hoped to achieve apart from saying, "We're greenpeace, we don't believe in nucllear energy or freedom of speech" *shrug*
*OUTRAGE*
Date: 2005-11-30 03:13 pm (UTC)Mr Bin...
fie sir...
Whilst I am undoubtedly a "skankpuss" (a name that has spread far beyond the places it should have done thus proving the power of the meme in your hands) I object deeply to you association of myself with the "Socialist worker" folk who are undoubtedly all scum and whom I despise after I had an incident with them at university.
I suggest an Old English underpant duel to settle this. Hie us to Strawberry hill tomorrow morn then 40,000 paces each, the first to die of exposure loses.
Re: *OUTRAGE*
Date: 2005-11-30 05:38 pm (UTC)