Greenpeace goes for the panic, AGAIN


The iPhone criticism is overblown
Yes, I am still having posting issues. But I am going to try anyway.

This is the heart of the matter: that Greenpeace is using the iPhone (and Apple before, in Macworld) as an instrument to get more publicity, and Greenpeace's video (as well as the targeting of a widely known corporation and über-media-darling like Apple) is clearly designed to take advantage of the iPhone's popularity to Greenpeace's own benefit. Failing to address or ignoring facts as the actual law doesn't make Greenpeace look good either. As Greenpeace rebuttal points out, the law is the law. Apple or anyone else can't hardly be considered guilty of anything if the laws don't tell them that what they are doing is harmful for the environment (if it is, in fact, harmful. We, the media, and we, the public, want to know the straight facts.)

Like Greenpeace says, other manufacturers are at fault. Why do a video about Apple and the iPhone first instead of publishing their findings as a whole report, including the other manufacturers, with references, clear methodology and, hopefully, in a scientific journal or publication so it can be peer reviewed; then make an announcement and crush any company they want? Doesn't Greenpeace think that this will give their allegations more weight rather than making them look like publicists cashing in on the latest fad? While we take the piss here in the Giz quite often, we do believe that serious accusations require serious methodology, not showmanship.
Jesus Diaz, Gizmodo, Greenpeace Responds to Alarmist Claims, Admits Targeting Apple Grabs Headlines

— NeoWayland

Posted: Mon - October 22, 2007 at 03:28 PM  Tag


 ◊  ◊   ◊  ◊ 

Random selections from NeoWayland's library


Pagan Vigil "Because LIBERTY demands more than just black or white"
© 2005 - 2009 All Rights Reserved