Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

Greenpeace Admits Targeting Apple Grabs Headlines 394

Posted by ScuttleMonkey
from the green-but-not-so-much-for-peace dept.
An anonymous reader writes "Gizmodo published this morning allegations by the bromine industry claiming that Greenpeace's report on the iPhone was inaccurate and alarmist. They got an official rebuttal to the bromine industry by Greenpeace, but the most interesting part is their acknowledgment that their targeting of Apple, even while they have similar reports on every manufacturer, is a deliberate attempt to grab headlines. While it's logical and not surprising, I find it quite shocking to see them be so cavalier, and even hypocritical, about it."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Greenpeace Admits Targeting Apple Grabs Headlines

Comments Filter:
  • Time for (Score:5, Funny)

    by Anonymous Coward on Monday October 22, 2007 @09:28PM (#21079949)
    a good old fashioned hippie ass whoopin'
  • the media is lazy (Score:5, Insightful)

    by User 956 (568564) on Monday October 22, 2007 @09:29PM (#21079959) Homepage
    They got an official rebuttal to the bromine industry by Greenpeace, but the most interesting part is their acknowledgment that their targeting of Apple, even while they have similar reports on every manufacturers, is a deliberate attempt to grab headlines.

    Well, that's the double-edged sword of having the "hot" product in any market. I'm sure if they had done a similar report on the XBOX 360, the media would have been all over it in a similar manner.
    • by Capsaicin (412918) on Monday October 22, 2007 @09:48PM (#21080091)

      Well, that's the double-edged sword of having the "hot" product in any market

      Sure, that's the Nike woosh has become an icon for the NoBrand movement, even though all the other major sportsgoods manufacturers indulge in the same practices blamed on Nike.

      The submitters moral indignation is a bit hard to stomach. How can it be "logical" and "not surprising" while at the same time being "cavalier" and even "hypocritical." What's hypocritical about stating the obvious truth? They are only being frank and declaring the truth that they are a pro-environmental publicity company.

      • by User 956 (568564) on Monday October 22, 2007 @10:01PM (#21080197) Homepage
        Yeah, I think the key thing here is that Greenpeace has an end goal of getting attention. Once they get attention, then their goal is to say their message.

        However, they have to get attention, and so they do stuff like this, which is not necessarily targeting Apple because they have a vendetta against apple, but targeting Apple because they know the media is lazy and sensationalist, and will carry any story that will sell newspapers and commercial airtime.
        • by timeOday (582209) on Monday October 22, 2007 @10:20PM (#21080329)
          I just hate to see such a humble, unassuming company as Apple, content to attend modestly to their own private matters, dragged out into public scrutiny. This kind of thing can ruin a quiet little family company like Apple Computer.
        • by jcr (53032) <{moc.cam} {ta} {rcj}> on Tuesday October 23, 2007 @04:03AM (#21082293) Journal
          Greenpeace has an end goal of getting attention.

          No, the attention is the means to the end. The end they seek is getting money they didn't earn.

          -jcr

          • by Savage-Rabbit (308260) on Tuesday October 23, 2007 @05:02AM (#21082539)

            No, the attention is the means to the end. The end they seek is getting money they didn't earn.
            They have been doing this for decades, the only difference is that they have seem to have moved their focus from small (whale and seal hunting) nations to extorting high profile corporations with a vulnerable public image. I suppose there is no money to be made any more from pictures of cute seal pups splattered with fake blood and pictures of whales being butchered for food. I am generally sympathetic to the cause of environmentalism but I won't waste any time on listening to the likes of Greenpeace. I normally don't waste much time on fanatical fringe groups like Sea Shepherd either but they do deserve a bit of credit since they seem to share my low opinion of Greenpeace [seashepherd.org]. I don't like Sea Shepherd's methods but at least the are actually doing something and not just caching in like Greenpeace.
          • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

            by shilly (142940)
            No, the end is slowing or stopping environmental degradation. They don't want the money merely for the sake of it. If you want to be rich, you don't work for Greenpeace, you work for Exxon.
          • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

            by mcvos (645701)

            No, the attention is the means to the end. The end they seek is getting money they didn't earn.

            They do earn the money they get, exactly because they do their job (bringing environmental issues to attention) so well. That's why people who care about these issues give them that money in the first place. And Greenpeace is about the only NGO that can stand up to multinational corporations, so while smaller NGOs might be nicer and friendlier and more accurate and effective on a small scale, if you want to acc

      • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

        by MicktheMech (697533)
        To be fair, Nike was one of the pioneers in the Japan-South Korea-China factory moves. That said, I agree with you.
    • by saskboy (600063)
      "while they have similar reports on every manufacturers, is a deliberate attempt to grab headlines [CC]. While it's logical and not surprising, I find it quite shocking to see them be so cavalier, and even hypocritical, about it.""

      I'm not shocked. Half of the people who heard the first story are going to think it's true, and this follow up is just spin. Another quarter will miss this update entirely. And so more than half of those afflicted with this wrong information will think GREENPEACE when they see an
  • Why? (Score:4, Insightful)

    by HBI (604924) <kparadine@@@gmail...com> on Monday October 22, 2007 @09:29PM (#21079965) Homepage Journal
    Greenpeace has been pulling stunts like this for publicity since the 1980s, why should it surprise you that they are alarmist and seeking headlines by bashing one company in particular?

    Regardless if you agree with their goals or not, they left credibility behind a long time ago.
    • Riding the hype (Score:5, Interesting)

      by EmbeddedJanitor (597831) on Monday October 22, 2007 @09:56PM (#21080153)
      I don't think it correct to say that Greenpeace specifically targets Apple because they are Apple.

      What Greenpeace does is to ride the hype wave and nobody but Apple has recently released any majorly hyped, or hype-worthy, electronic products.

      Greenpeace rides the hype wave in other areas too (ie. not just electronics). This is a very effective way of operating since it relies on the fact that people are already tuned in to the subject and Greenpeace can tack on an environmental angle with far less resources.

      • Re:Riding the hype (Score:5, Insightful)

        by ucblockhead (63650) on Monday October 22, 2007 @10:25PM (#21080381) Homepage Journal
        Effective, that is, until people figure out that you are bending the truth to promote your "message", at which point your reputation as alarmists damages the very issue that you are trying to promote.
        • Re:Riding the hype (Score:5, Insightful)

          by number11 (129686) on Monday October 22, 2007 @11:51PM (#21081027)
          until people figure out that you are bending the truth to promote your "message"

          And how did Greenpeace "bend the truth"? Apparently (the OP does not contain a link to the original story) Greenpeace claims iPhones contain brominated compounds and PVC. As near as I can tell from the (industry) articles, neither Apple nor the industry disputes that. The defense is 1) everybody does it, 2) the compounds are approved by government agencies so they're ok, 3) there are no alternative materials, and 4) (which seems at odds with #1-3) Apple is in the process of stopping using those compounds. That these industry claims may (or may not) be true does not mean that Greenpeace's claim that the iPhone contains bromine compounds is "bending the truth".

          Greenpeace has clearly picked the target that they will get the most media attention from (if they'd targeted Kyocera, who would have paid any attention?) but they didn't say everybody else (except Apple) was fine.

          BTW, why are the links in the OP anonymized? I value my tinfoil hat as much as the next guy, but why in the world would even Little Dick Cheney or Mad King George care if I'm reading an article in Gizmodo? Is Gizmodo the new terrorist chic?
    • Re: (Score:2, Interesting)

      Doesn't surprise me in the least.

      Greenpeace is one of those "environmental" organizations that uses the issue of the environment as a trojan horse for other social or political causes. The positions of the political environmentalists is often regardless of or sometimes even contrary to real environmental problems or their solutions.

      I'm not excluding rational environmentalism from the discourse, I'm just of the opinion that Greenpeace has very little of it.
      • Re: (Score:2, Interesting)

        by Nephilium (684559)

        The problem is that rational environmentalism has seemingly fallen to the wayside to be replaced by anti-globalization activists (who use the technology they decry in order to organize) and luddites who want to get rid of all technology after period X (where X equals their idea of the human ideal).

        Nephilium

      • Um.. No.

        Greenpeace is about the environment - you can argue about the effectiveness of their actions but to say its a cover for something else is tinfoil-hat-esque.
    • Well, it must not have worked very well for Greenpeace, I never heard of it before this.
    • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

      by Reaperducer (871695)

      Regardless if you agree with their goals or not, they left credibility behind a long time ago.
      No kidding. On Michigan Avenue and State Street in Chicago Greenpeace deploys brainwashed high school kids begging for money in the streets like common vagrants. It doesn't cast their "movement" in the best light.

      How about Greenpeace gives back to average hard working Joes the money its little stock-panicing publicity stunts suck out of retirement accounts?
  • by filterban (916724) on Monday October 22, 2007 @09:30PM (#21079971) Homepage Journal
    Some might argue that Slashdot is just as guilty as Greenpeace of using Apple's success to grab headlines / make money.

    Personally, I don't really care, because we're all in it to make or raise money. PETA says and does offensive things to grab headlines, the WWE does, and 90% of the articles on CNN and even Digg are sensationalist headlines designed to get you to "click through".

    Who cares?
    • even Digg? (Score:5, Funny)

      by stoolpigeon (454276) * <bittercode@gmail> on Monday October 22, 2007 @09:39PM (#21080027) Homepage Journal
      no. the top five photographs of all time is the absolute truth about those pictures. the top five reasons to vote for Ron Paul are real, reasonable reasons. the funniest clip of colbert ever on youtube, is well, the funniest ever. that's not offensive or sensationalist - it's the honest to Dawkins truth.
    • The WWE does

      Yup. I remember Vince McMahon lampooning Miracle Whip for its high fat content.
    • by Nazlfrag (1035012)
      ...the WWE does...

      In the red corner, weighing in at 32 pounds, he's the green machine, the beatnik who wont quit, the artist of alarmist, it's the Vegan Warrior!

      And in the blue corner, weighing in at 400 pounds, it's the executive with a directive, when he's not pollutin' he's retributin', Mac the Litigator!

      LET'S GET RRREADY TO RRRRRRRUUUMBLE!!
    • by timeOday (582209) on Monday October 22, 2007 @10:28PM (#21080413)

      Some might argue that Slashdot is just as guilty as Greenpeace of using Apple's success to grab headlines / make money.
      It's this blog that's trying to grab headlines by slamming Greenpeace. I kept reading and reading the GreenPeace response looking for the outrageous part, and all I saw was them standing by their analysis of the iPhone and concern over bromine.

      Finally, in the last sentence of the article, I read "While it might not make as many headlines as the iPhone it doesn't mean that we are not focusing on all manufacturers to remove toxic chemicals from their products."

      THAT'S IT!??

      Come off it. Apple is the poster child for high-tech consumerism right now, and has invested heavily to reach that status - so they get the brunt of the criticism as well. BFD.

      • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

        by Jeff DeMaagd (2015)
        In this case, that's it with regards to this story. Gizmodo's spin on that line to get this attention is quite hypocritical.

        But when GP bitched about the MacBook, they complained about a relatively benign substance when they let other makers off for using more toxic substances. They praised Dell & HP for promising to get rid of a certain substance from new computers at a certain date while ignoring that Apple had already stopped using it.

        The type of compounds that they complain about that are sealed i
    • by sco08y (615665)
      Some might argue that Slashdot is just as guilty as Greenpeace of using Apple's success to grab headlines / make money.

      But /. at least tries to be honest about it, and the editors seem sincerely interested in Apple and their customers. That lacks the element of rank hypocrisy that Greenpeace's actions have.
    • I think it's a bit more insidious when groups like Greenpeace and PeTA (both of whom use this as their usual MO) do it than when entertainment companies do it - maybe even worse than when news sites do it. When GP and PeTA spout nonsense and slather it all over billboards and in flyers they hand out in elementary schools, they are doing it a) under the guise of a nonprofit corporation, paying no taxes on what is essentially a giant publicity/fundraising scam and b) claiming to represent those who care about
    • by LWATCDR (28044)
      I do. When truth can be dismissed because of some greater good chances are that in the end nothing good can come of it. The simple truth is that Greenpeace is now better than Fox News.
  • links (Score:5, Informative)

    by yali (209015) on Monday October 22, 2007 @09:30PM (#21079979)
    Links without slashdotted anonymizer (really, if you think Gizmodo is tracking you maybe you shouldn't be on the Web) here [gizmodo.com] and here [gizmodo.com].
  • by Omnifarious (11933) <`eric-slash' `at' `omnifarious.org'> on Monday October 22, 2007 @09:33PM (#21079991) Homepage Journal

    Why are the URLs hidden behind anonymouse? If I want to browse anonymously, I'm going to use Tor, I don't need some stupid anonymizing site that pops up little boxes over what I'm looking at.

    The real url to the store is this: http://gizmodo.com/gadgets/apple/electronics-industry-analyst-group-dismisses-greenpeace-claims-on-iphone-313411.php [gizmodo.com]. I suspect the submitter of doing this one purpose.

  • not surprising (Score:5, Interesting)

    by squarefish (561836) * on Monday October 22, 2007 @09:40PM (#21080029)
    I used to work on factory trawlers in Alaska and although we fished species that travel in very clean schools, attacking that particular part of the industry brought them the most attention, even though most of their information was incorrect.
    I will say that I witnessed procedures and practices that bothered me and probably affected the overall industry in the end. However, the crap Green Peace used was totally fabricated and didn't have any basis in truth.
    I quit fishing in 98', started using macs in 02' and now the fuckers are attacking something I like and profit from again. I didn't know 10 years ago that I would be working in IT with macs, but I feel like the fuckers are following me.
    What's even more ironic is that all the tree-hugging hippies I have known over the years, even those from Green Peace, have been Apple users!
    • What's even more ironic is that all the tree-hugging hippies I have known over the years, even those from Green Peace, have been Apple users!

      That's what immediately struck me about this fiasco as well, but given their tactics it seems to make some degree of sense. Groups like Greenpeace often want to set themselves apart from other movements/environmentalists/leftists in general, and this is a good way in which they can do that. Of course, I think it's pretty stupid, but this seems to be how they operate.

  • hypocrisy? (Score:2, Interesting)

    *disclaimer for the countless trolls reading this thread and posting such intelligent things as "hippie ass-whoopin" etc...*
    I'm a leftist, sharing many of the ideals of groups like Greenpeace, PETA, etc.. *and* I do not agree that the tactics of groups like PETA, Greenpeace, etc.. are the most rightous or effective means of furthering their goals.
    *end disclaimer*

    but seriously... how exactly is it hypocritical? PETA, Greenpeace, etc.. all make very clear that they are motivated to attract attention to their
    • by Nephilium (684559)

      but seriously... how exactly is it hypocritical? PETA, Greenpeace, etc.. all make very clear that they are motivated to attract attention to their cause by going after high-profile targets. They've been pulling ridiculous publicity stunts for years and years. It would be hypocritical of them if they said they *did not* engage in such behavoir. It doesn't mean they have a lack of concern for their cause in general, it's just that this is their method of supporting it.

      Hypocritical would be high ranking mem

      • besides the point that your post is rather off topic (the question was not whether or not they were, in general, hypocritical)... I'm curious: when has PETA protested euthanasia at shelters? I've heard of some no-kill shelters doing this (which is a load of horse-shit. No-kill shelters *reject* animals, which means we have to euthanise all the animals that they don't want to), but I hadn't heard of PETA protesting the practice as a whole (as you've noted, they've sponsored it). As a shelter volunteer, I
    • Ok, first things first: you don't seem to know the meaning of the word hypocrisy. They are hypocrites because they do something that they condemn in others, not because they do something they claim they don't or won't (that would make them liars, but not necessarily hypocrites).

      In this case Greenpeace are hypocrites because they are profiting at the expense of the environment. (By attacking companies based on how much publicity (and therefore donation money) they can gain, rather than how much pollution sa
      • Ok, first things first: you don't seem to know the meaning of the word hypocrisy. They are hypocrites because they do something that they condemn in others, not because they do something they claim they don't or won't (that would make them liars, but not necessarily hypocrites).

        Hypocrite: a person who pretends to have virtues, moral or religious beliefs, principles, etc., that he or she does not actually possess, esp. a person whose actions belie stated beliefs.

        That is, were Greenpeace to espouse that they

    • by sco08y (615665)
      but seriously... how exactly is it hypocritical?

      Alright, most people use hypocritical when they mean "holding a double standard." The standard example is of Sen Craig who attacked gays while secretly soliciting sex from men in bathrooms.

      But the simple meaning of it is when you say something without believing it, which is pretty clear in this case. They're bringing these charges without caring in the slightest whether or not they're true.

      And this isn't just hypocrisy. It's also short-sightedness: they're sac
    • Well yeah. I mean if you want to point at them for being hypocritical you would really be wanting to make waves about how they were killing all those animals, and dumping them in the garbage a while back.

      Captcha = Abortive
      I swear those things are context sensitive.
  • >> quite shocking to see them be so cavalier, and even hypocritical

    With media outlets like Drudgereport looking for punch headlines.

    With news being read on Google and Digg (more links = top stories).

    "Bloggers" turning into the fourth estate...

    With the leader of the free world going "You're either with us or against us".

    All that matters is .. get the headlines, get your 300 mentions in the viral media and move on.

    Mission accomplished I'd say.
  • Yup (Score:5, Informative)

    by alexborges (313924) on Monday October 22, 2007 @09:55PM (#21080143)
    Greenpeace has a very long story for even TAKING MONEY to attack someone. Id go as far as to say that, for example, they promoted the idea of dolphin killing tuna fishers everywhere else but the US. They were paid off by american tuna fishers who dont kill dolphins NEAR THE STATES, but they happily do so with dolphin from the philipines.

    They also promoted the idea that a harbor project for the large (largest in the world, actually) salt mine down under in Baja was a risk to the gray whales, so that the harbor project was stopped. The pier was projected so big, that a damned whale coud pass under it from ANY possition.... SIDEWAYS. That time they were paid by competing Australian salt miners.

    I, for one, have never ever believed anything coming out of greanpeace. They are nothing but a rent-a-hoolingan shop.
  • Well DUH! (Score:2, Insightful)

    by Stumbles (602007)
    I find it quite shocking to see them be so cavalier, and even hypocritical, about it.

    Why do you think the original founder of Greenpeace QUIT?

  • No surprise here (Score:5, Insightful)

    by davmoo (63521) on Monday October 22, 2007 @09:57PM (#21080165)
    Greenpeace is to the environment and public safety as Pat Robertson is to Christianity.

    I love animals and believe we need to clean up the earth and all that, but every time I hear about Greenpeace and one of their stunts, I want to go kill a baby seal and wear its fur. Just like every time PETA does some of their bullshit I go eat lunch at KFC.
    • by couchslug (175151)
      "Greenpeace is to the environment and public safety as Pat Robertson is to Christianity."

      An accurate representation of maintstream leadership appealing to the simple majority...
    • by phidipides (59938) on Monday October 22, 2007 @11:29PM (#21080819) Homepage

      Greenpeace is to the environment and public safety as Pat Robertson is to Christianity.

      This is a hugely important insight. Groups that are on the extreme in the environmental movement such as Greenpeace have unfortunately come to be the image that the general public thinks of when they think of environmentalism, despite the fact that many environmental groups are much more moderate; just one example (among many) is the Nature Conservancy [nature.org], which makes a point of partnering with hunters, fisherman, loggers, ranchers and other groups that are typically viewed as "enemies" by the more extreme elements in the environmental movement.

      Unfortunately the habit of stereotyping a group by its most extreme elements is common today. When people think of Republicans they think of Dick Cheney and John Boehner, not the Governator [ca.gov] or John Warner; when they think of Democrats they think of Ted Kennedy or Nancy Pelosi, not Jim Webb or Joe Biden.

      Extremist make it much easier to discredit an entire movement, but just because a group like Greenpeace is making a huge racket about Apple as a publicity stunt (and that's what this is) doesn't mean that groups arguing for clean air, clean water, and open space are all fringe whackos. The same applies to politics, business, etc - despite the occasional extremist, on the whole the world contains much more of a nuanced mix than most people acknowledge, and taking the time to look past the fringe and towards the center can go a long way towards helping us all find some common ground.

  • by Spasmodeus (940657) on Monday October 22, 2007 @10:00PM (#21080187)
    Like any political organization that has been in place for too long, its purpose is no longer to accomplish the goals it was founded for, but to simply perpetuate its own existence and increase its power base.

    "Environmental extremism arose in the mid-1980s. It arose because the majority of people accepted all of the reasonable points in the environmental agenda, and the only way to remain adversarial and confrontational and anti-everything was to adopt even more extreme positions - eventually abandoning all science and logic altogether."

    ~ Dr. Patrick Moore, co-founder of Greenpeace.
    • by jamesh (87723)
      I was approached by a Greenpeace rep at a shopping center a few months ago, and they failed to convince me that their cause was a worthy one. I think the particular angle they were going on about was to try and prevent the building of any nuclear power plants in Australia (I may be misremembering though). Whatever the issue was, it was something I knew enough about to know that they were putting one hell of a lot of spin on it to try and further their cause.

      The other thing that annoys me about them is when
  • by Anonymous Coward on Monday October 22, 2007 @10:03PM (#21080211)
    All of you with an ideological bone to pick are frothing at the mouth out of pure ignorance. Not only is it *not* hypocritical to go after high-profile targets, thus extending the reach and efficacy of your message - but it's downright good strategy to go after a target that's more likely to fold and thereby become an industry leader in the values and policies you advocate. In fact, this approach is *standard*. Groups across the ideological spectrum follow this playbook, and there's absolutely nothing wrong with it.

    You can certainly criticize Greenpeace for the particulars of this campaign, but criticizing them as "hypocritical" for going after the highest-profile target most likely to achieve success for their campaign? Cry me a river.
  • The alarmist headline grabbing fear mongering publicity stunts are just to make money. On a credibility scale they are right up there with Rent A Mob and Rent A Crowd.
  • When will Greenpeace STFU? They pull this shit in attempt to make themselves look legitimate, but just makes them look more crazy, and less something people want to have anything to do with. I'm all for saving the whales, and whatever other tree hugger crap they are for, but seriously. Be civili, or GO AWAY!!!
  • This wouldn't be the first time someone who ostensibly was out to "do the right thing" resorted to blatantly unethical tactics. The fact is that most people can't understand the difference between some learned set of rules they call "morality" from the more general concept of right and wrong called "ethics." This is why fundies have no problems killing abortion doctors or terrorists killing thousands of innocents. Their moral high-ground is the only definition of right and wrong to them, and that gives t
  • Green Peace alarmist!!!!!

    no, it just can't be!!

    they are like anyone else, they spin shit for their own agenda.
  • by Infonaut (96956) <infonaut@gmail.com> on Monday October 22, 2007 @10:18PM (#21080303) Homepage Journal

    Greenpeace is an advocacy group. It uses the same marketing techniques as politicians, for-profit companies, and everyone else. They go for the big target. I think they're being honest in admitting it.

  • As we citizens have chosen to ignore what our responsibility to the planet is, it has come to groups like GreenPeace to push us and remember. We have chosen to grasp the philosophy of if I am the only one to do it, it won't hurt anyone. That obviously is a foolish logic.

    I am quite happy that they take angles like this. And I am quite happy that people react. And I am quite happy that they attack the high profile targets. Thats their job.

    Good work GreenPeace. Keep it up.
  • I find it quite shocking to see them be so cavalier, and even hypocritical, about it.
    Glad you could wake up. The coffee pot is over there. If you take the last cup, start another batch.
  • by saikou (211301) on Monday October 22, 2007 @10:22PM (#21080349) Homepage
    Admitting targeting Apple to grab headlines grabs headlines too :)

    Now, how long until this recursion dies with out of memory error...
  • It amazes me that anyone takes these alarmist groups seriously. It's clear that they outright lie to raise publicity; at least they're admitting it now.

    How then, I must ask, do they feel this sort of practice helps their cause?? Does credibility and trust mean nothing to them? Aren't they the least bit concerned that their lying will cause people to start doubting the worthiness of their efforts?

    I realize that a lot of people value rhetoric and good intentions over accuracy and truth. But with such tact
  • I consider myself an environmentalist, and this is one of the reasons I have a serious problem with a number of organisations similar to greenpeace. A number of technologies that can do a lot to help the environment, have been irrationally opposed, or hung out, not because of any rational considerations, but for these organisations to make themselves look important. The most notable example is Nuclear power, but there are plenty of others. Over in Sweden the environmentalists are heavily opposing carbon cap
  • Every time you troll the nations newspapers in a dickish attempt to gain publicity at the expense of others, Jesus kills a whale.

    Now to even out the environmental Karma on a global scale, I'm going to have to travel to Japan and eat a whale. Nice going, Greenpeace!

  • While it's logical and not surprising, I find it quite shocking to see them be so cavalier, and even hypocritical, about it.

    Greenpeace needs media attention. Since they're not exactly best of friends with big business, it's really no surprise at all that they try to leverage whatever they can to thrust themselves into the spotlight. If they didn't take this approach, they wouldn't reach as many people. Reaching as many people as possible is the name of the game. There are bad ways of doing this ( email sp

  • hile it's logical and not surprising, I find it quite shocking to see them be so cavalier, and even hypocritical, about it."

    Isn't it only really hypocritical if they don't admit it?
  • by Kyle (4392)
    Greenpeace admits that it's easy to troll the lazy, sensationalist, fact-immune, hypocritical, navel gazing, self righteous, egotistical, ignorant, self serving, ... media.

    News at 11.
  • by metrometro (1092237) on Monday October 22, 2007 @11:32PM (#21080847)
    Problem: People worldwide are concerned about the environment, human rights, and peace/security. Many feel that multinational corporations are making things worse. But multinational companies are really good at avoiding regulation by 'traditional' democratic institutions, namely governments.

    Solution: Brands are already signifiers of complex emotional meanings. Marketers would love to define these meanings for us, but the meaning of a brand is a contested space. Holding high-value brands accountable for the sustainability of their actions becomes a powerful tool, but ONLY when those brands defy the values of their customers. Turns out many customers don't like toxics leaking out their landfills and so on. They never did. But now that marketeering has taught us that brands have deep things to say about who we as customers are, well gosh, suddenly brands that represent poisoned water tables are in deep shit. Because branding is about feeling, and poison-water feels bad.

    Think about it: Greenpeace's only action was to release information. Not exactly threatening, unless that information drives customers. If Greenpeace doesn't share the values/ethics of the people who shop at Apple, there's absolutely no effect. But they do. Greenpeace picks targets that have value-added brands, brands with emotional resonance. It's hardball tactics and it's completely fair because what they said about Apple is true. Generic companies are also bad, but those companies don't have fanboys and big brand-name markups. Apple makes all kinds of promises to its customers wrapped into "Think Different". Turns out the customers want that to means something.

    The interesting thing about this is that far from destroying brands, it actually makes them more powerful. Suddenly brands go beyond marketing language to become signifiers of real corporate ethics, where a value-added brand is even more desireable, because we customers know that a company that claims to "Think Different" but isn't will get crucified. Outing liars increases trust. Good for everyone: markets are more efficient with more information.
  • ...Any more than Larry Craig is concerned about gays. The so-called environmental movement is a religious institution, a profit center designed to exploit people's legitimate concerns in order to enrich itself. It's just a racket, that's all it is.

    Just do this exercize. Watch some Sunday TV and look at what the preachers are doing... yamming up about some horrific topic and threatening the wrath of God, if you don't give them money. Then, turn on the likes of PBS or the Discovery or Science channel, and, if you happen to find a good environmental documentary, you'll find some jackass yamming up about some horrific topic and threatening the wrath of mother nature, if you don't give them money. While I doubt it it would be politically possible, but I bet if you could have switched Jerry Falwell and the head of Greenpeace and made them do each other's jobs for a year, they wouldn't have missed a beat, because they are all doing the same thing.

    Please don't get all hot and bothered about some nonsense that says: "yeah, but they do such good work." These people are con artists, 99% of the time, and what they sell is entertainment. It's entertainment, that's all it is. Just like in Christianity, if you want to save someone, so it is in the environment. If you want to save the world, start with your own life first.
  • Summary Incorrect (Score:5, Informative)

    by Bob9113 (14996) on Tuesday October 23, 2007 @01:46AM (#21081721) Homepage
    First off, I'm not a fan of Greenpeace, and I do think that they targetted the iPhone because of the increased publicity it would bring.

    However, Greenpeace did not admit that is what they are doing. The summary is incorrect.

    If you think we just protest against Apple then look out for soon a report covering a wide range of manufacturers as we have done in 2006. While it might not make as many headlines as the iPhone it doesn't mean that we are not focusing on all manufacturers to remove toxic chemicals from their products.

    What Greenpeace said is the opposite of what the summary claims they said. Greenpeace said that they recognize that their report on the iPhone did capture more headlines, but that they do, and have done, the same thing with other phones. Greenpeace is claiming that they did not focus on the iPhone in order to capture headlines, that it happened because the media is more interested in news relating to the iPhone. Which also makes perfect sense, because that is what their readers want to read about (not whether it's right or wrong for them to report what the people want to hear, but that is the way it is).

    So again, I agree that Greenpeace almost certainly did focus on the issue in order to attract attention to the issue, and that that is their standard operating procedure, it is clearly false that they admitted to it.
  • Why? (Score:4, Insightful)

    by Luscious868 (679143) on Tuesday October 23, 2007 @07:59AM (#21083207)

    While it's logical and not surprising, I find it quite shocking to see them be so cavalier, and even hypocritical, about it.

    Why? Show a me a group or individual publicly campaigning for a cause that isn't cavalier and, in some cases, downright hypocritical. Both conservative and liberal groups and individuals do this all the time and I'm tired of it. Right wing "pro life" advocates who seem to have no problem supporting a war in which innocent people are dieing every day spring to mind. As does Al Gore and the host of other leftist celebrities who try and bring attention to global warming by traveling the world in private energy wasting jets and then get from event to event via SUV once they've landed.

    I'm sick and tired of the "do as I say, not as I do crowd". Shut the hell up you shameless self promoters.

Overdrawn? But I still have checks left!

Working...