Not buying what they're selling
[rebelmouse-image 24749435 original_size="432x287" expand=1]There's something deeply unsettling about the pressure on the news media to find upbeat angles when covering the disaster in the Gulf of Mexico. Since when do grown-ups refuse to believe that it's possible that there's no good news? We're all quite aware that shitstorms of the worst sort are possible, and yet here you have journalists straining all credibility with reassurances that things can't possibly be as bad as they actually are. For instance, the reality-based angle of this story about the edibility of seafood from the Gulf of Mexico is closer to Atrios's take than what the AP reporter actually put in the story. The AP reporter passes on assurances that Gulf seafood is safe because they have people sniffing it. Atrios points out that it's reasonable to be skeptical that sniffing for oil will really cut it, since there's also dispersants in the water that might not pass the "sniffing for oil" test . I'll also point out that it's not just what's sitting on the seafood that's an issue. Even though shrimp come to the table with their heads missing, I assure you they once had them, and they used them to take in nutrients that are in the water, and that means there's a strong chance they've been eating both oil and dispersants.
