Greenpeace Admits Targeting Apple Grabs Headlines 394
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."
the media is lazy (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Comment removed (Score:4, Insightful)
Hypocritical of Slashdot? (Score:5, Insightful)
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?
Re:the media is lazy (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Well DUH! (Score:2, Insightful)
Why do you think the original founder of Greenpeace QUIT?
No surprise here (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re:the media is lazy (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Not just about headlines (Score:4, Insightful)
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.
Re:the media is lazy (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Seriously man, are you a pussy? (Score:4, Insightful)
BTW, when calling another a pussy, it helps not to have the name "coward".
News flash: Advocacy groups use marketing! (Score:4, Insightful)
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.
I Have No Issue With Their Process (Score:2, Insightful)
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.
Re:Greenpeace is despicable these days. (Score:4, Insightful)
That happens to other organizations as well... look at MADD.
Nephilium
Re:Riding the hype (Score:5, Insightful)
Greenpeace trolls the media. (Score:2, Insightful)
News at 11.
Re:Why surprised? (Score:3, Insightful)
When I used to work for a solar module manufacturing firm in Italy, I would have to represent the firm with others at trade conferences and talk about the benefits -- and costs -- of the product. Most people were great.
However, with Greenpeace, I would get accosted outside of their booths simply because I would be wearing a suit. I was selling out the environmental movement. And I'd have to listen to this shit from a coddled undergraduate who'd never done a damn thing in his life aside from marching around in a piazza every once in a while.
And that's not even talking about the other criticisms of Greenpeace [wikipedia.org]...
Re:No surprise here (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Welcome to the new demoracy. (Score:4, Insightful)
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.
Re:the media is lazy (Score:2, Insightful)
Sarcasm aside, it can indeed hurt their stock price, causing problems for its millions of owners (through mutual funds in 401Ks, etc). And just because they're not a small ma-and-pop store, why do they deserve to be libeled by those cretins? Apple isn't being punished for wrongdoing. Apple's being punished for being well-liked. That's not fair or justifiable in any society I'd care to be a part of.
Re:Riding the hype (Score:5, Insightful)
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:the media is lazy (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:the media is lazy (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:the media is lazy (Score:4, Insightful)
having nothing in common with either anything green, other than the color of money, nor peace
Re:The strategy works (Score:2, Insightful)
Saddam Hussein had nothing to do with Iraq
Well, that's a surprise for many folks, I imagine.
No one ever said that Iraq had anything to do with 9-11.
Quite right. Except for Bush, on 5/1/03:
"The liberation of Iraq is a crucial advance in the campaign against terror...We have not forgotten the victims of September the 11th -- the last phone calls, the cold murder of children, the searches in the rubble. With those attacks, the terrorists and their supporters declared war on the United States. And war is what they got."
...and Cheney, on 9/14/03:
"If we're successful in Iraq...we will have struck a major blow right at the heart of the base, if you will, the geographic base of the terrorists who have had us under assault now for many years, but most especially on 9/11."
Tell me, with your head so far up the Administration's ass, how do you get the Kool Aid into your mouth?
Re:the media is lazy (Score:1, Insightful)
Err.... I've seen Greenpeace members. Try again.
Gizmodo has lost all respect from me.
Greenpeace won't get any respect from me until they start advocating for nuclear power. Until then, I'll still think of them as dirty hippies playing guitars.
Re:the media is lazy (Score:2, Insightful)
Then they have an end goal of saying their message. Or maybe of saying their message to a large enough, attentive group of people.
I'm not even sure that's their end goal, that's just what I can derive from your claim. If I were forming such a group, I'd have an end goal of actually making the world change, of protecting the environment and helping it to flourish... Not merely of "raising awareness" or some other bullshit that has a declaration of defeat right there in the goal.
After all, if I could solve pollution, say, why would I want to raise awareness about it? And if my goal is only to raise awareness, doesn't that mean that if a few hundred million people tell me to fuck off and die in a fire, I've attained my goal?
But maybe that's the fundamental flaw here -- maybe Greenpeace has really forgotten what their goal is, and has settled merely for raising awareness. Or maybe they've added "by any means necessary" -- or both.
I know that conventional wisdom is "no news is bad news". But I don't think that applies here -- stories like this might be better than no one knowing what the word "environmentalist" means, but in the long run, far worse than taking some extra time and money and doing it right.
Comment removed (Score:2, Insightful)
Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Hypocritical of Slashdot? (Score:3, Insightful)
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 inside the iPhone are still legal to use in baby bottles, chew toys and new car interiors.
Comment removed (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Why? (Score:3, Insightful)
(1) the mishandling of lead, solvents, beryllium, and other substances used in the manufacture of electronic devices is not a serious environmental problem which has led to death, disease, and birth defects in this country and others,
(2) genetically modifying crops so that they can survive massive doses of herbicides (such as Roundup) which eventually run off into our waterways cannot possibly cause serious environmental problems in downstream ecosystems, and
(3) Thousands of tons of high-level nuclear waste from reactors which will be deadly for longer than our lifetimes do not in fact exist.
Either way, I'm impressed by the extremity of your statements.
Re:the media is lazy (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Life Meets Art (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Life Meets Art (Score:3, Insightful)
Ban hydrogen and hydrogen compounds forever!!!
People never seem to have a clue about how the things in their everyday life are produced. Generally they seem to expect that the only byproduct of production should be butterflys and rose water. Unfortunately these people are also allowed to vote.
Why? (Score:4, Insightful)
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.
Re:how brave of you! (Score:4, Insightful)
the French underground was instrumental in defeating Hitler.
Wrong. While there were some very brave resistance fighters in France, even after the Normandy invasion in 1944 it was little more than a token operation. The SOE (British intelligence agency tasked with things like operations in occupied Europe) only supported the resistance for its morale boosting and propaganda value - most actions in occupied France were carried out by British operatives. De Gaulle acknowledged how unimportant the resistance was, and quipped that if all the people who claimed to have been resitance fighters had been then the Germans would never have been able to occupy France in the first place. The high profile of the resistance in post war France was an attempt to disguise the level of collabaration with the German occupiers by most of the French populace - a classic case of the victors writing the history to favour themselves.
Poland bravely met the Nazis in open battle, and got wiped out.
As did the French in 1940. Had the French and British used similar tactics to the Germans (concentrated armoured attacks, units authorised to operate in a semi-autonomous manner rather than requesting orders from above at critical moments) then it is debatable whether German victory could be assured. It was the piece meal use of French armour (technically on a par with the Panzers of the Low Countries campaign) rather than in massed defensive actions and counter attacks, along with ineffective leadership from the high command that enabled the Germans to win such a stunning victory. It is clear that the Western Allies had learnt nothing from the Polish experience of Blitzkreig at this point.
Re:the media is lazy (Score:3, Insightful)
Yep. There are plenty of reasons to dislike any given large company, but Greenpeace hasn't raised any legitimate ones.
I'm typing this from a Dell running Gutsy Gibbon. I don't even own an iPod. Sorry, but it's probably a bit harder to write me off as a Mac fanboy than you seem to wish.
Relevant, perhaps, but still a lie. In this one specific case, Apple's already ahead of almost all of their competitors and they're still improving. It's like Greenpeace decided to pick on Prius drivers for less-than-perfect fuel economy while ignoring SUVs.