How does one get ones face on TV? To those of you out there with good and worthy causes who have asked yourself this question, I am happy to now finally be able to reveal the answer: All you need is eight activists, a truck, and a phone call. I sat down outside Stortinget this morning to read a newspaper, (I have more vacation than I know what to do with, so I'm working short days). A handful of Greenpeace activists were handing out flyers. One of them wanted to convince me why a new law that would reduce taxes on electricity for industrial use was bad for the environment, but I think too slowly to debate with factoid-kalashnikovs on the street, so I ignored them and they went away.

I noticed a camera crew hanging out by their stand, waiting for something. The next thing I knew, a truck had driven up in front of Stortinget and dropped of a load of old electricity-driven ovens. Banner up, ("don't use electricity for warming" or something like that), cameras on, and a nice segment on the evening news for you.

Eight activists, a truck, and a phone call. Watching it happen underlined how artificial it was, like watching the shooting of a movie scene. Can this form of protest be called anything but a staged event, a press conference with acting in it? The activists were professionals, the truck driver was a professional, and so were the reporters. Perhaps if the first take had gone wrong, they would have loaded the ovens back up on the truck and done it all over again, like true professionals. When you organize a demonstration, there are non-professional activists involved, you have to actually convince other people to show up, explain to them why this issue is important. Greenpeace only needs to make a phonecall to the media.

The police showed up rather quickly and made the obligatory arrest (for littering) while the press was still there. The arrest part is essential - you can't have a real environmental protest without it. It's all part of the show. Journalists get their story, which between the photographs, the arrest, and the soundbite-friendly activists practically writes itself, and Greenpeace gets its message out. Never mind that the whole thing was about as spontaneous and grassroot-based as a TV commercial.

(Update: Undermining my point, this didn't actually make it to the evening TV news, though it went all over the press.)

(Update 23/6: Carl Johansen at Greenpeace Norway points out a few errors: There were nine activists, six of them were volunteers, not professionals, and this did get on TV, though not the NRK and TV2 evening news.)

Now imagine if the journalists (so-called) took the angle on it all that you, Bjorn, just gave. That would be REAL journalism.

So what is the problem? Media supports these left-wing acts and causes and dishonesties.

At least if there were competition in the media there could have been a competing news organisation filming the other news organisation, and the story would have been how the other news organisation was in ideological conspiracy with Greenpeace.

That would make an interesting segment on the evening news...

This kind of stuff happens in the West Bank all the time.

Every once in a while, though, we get photos (by mistake, perhaps?) from there of some sort of violence, but with tons of cameras trained on that particular event. In other words, the violence is inspired by the presence of the lenses. We're not supposed to see the lenses, though.

If not for journalists, the West Bank would probably be more peaceful.

It demonstrates the success of a market-driven economy. The journalists aren't there for facts or critical analysis, they are hunting for a good story to sell more newspapers. They have deadlines to meet and pages to fill.

That said, Norwegians aren't generally too friendly to Greenpeace.

What do they want us to do instead of using electricity (from 100% hydropower!)? Fossil fuel? Freezing our asses off? Burning whale oil?

PS: Is there a good English term corresponding to the Norwegian "agurktid"?

Jan: Not originally, but "cucumber season" and "cucumber news" have been used in English, according to Google. (It also exists in other European countries, but I don't know if we were first.)

Anyway, how did the Success Or Failure Of Market Economies enter this? This is a failure of journalism, and of environmentalism. Unless anyone brings up making a law against bad reporting, that's all that matters.

And for anyone who wonders what cucumber news is, here's a prime example:

http://www.naplesnews.com/03/06/naples/d947013a.htm

So what does greenpeace want you to do instead of using electricity for warming?

Wood, gas fires? I'm really sure that such things are "good" for the environment, perhaps they are suggesting that you should all freeze. A decrease in the world's population, would help the environment! :-)

Jan wrote:
"It demonstrates the success of a market-driven economy. The journalists aren't there for facts or critical analysis, they are hunting for a good story to sell more newspapers. They have deadlines to meet and pages to fill."

No, the story is the fake scenario itself along with the tacit conspiracy between the left-wing ideologue 'journalists' and the rancidly dishonest and disingenuous GreenPeace jackasses.

Real competition in a free market would have had a competing news organisation there to film the 'production' from a further back perspective. Then let the audience have a choice and different perspectives.

You can't blame the dishonesty and the stupidity and the lack of imagination of left-wing journalists who have no competition on a free market ecomony.

(You can, though, put blame on the Bjorn Staerk's of Norway for not having made the effort to set up their own media empires...)

So what does greenpeace want you to do instead of using electricity for warming?

Trackback URL: /cgi-bin/mt/mt-tb.cgi/304