Quote:
Originally Posted by kipperfan
I see your point but frankly, I don't think the comparison's you're drawing are totally valid. First of all, in this case there was legitimate chance for innocent people to be hurt (either in the accessing of the roof or simply due to the fact that a large number of inner citys first responders were wasting their time on this stunt) and I will not support any cause that resorts to dangerous protest. Second of all, in this day in age of modern technology, the internet, twitter, facebook etc etc there is no need to resort to shock tactics in order to get the populations attention. Back in the 50's and 60's (and 70's and 80's and really most of the 90's) an independent cause or movement almost had to resort to these sort of tactics in order to make the paper/local news and have people take notice. But, I am sorry, in 2010 there is no reason for a group as well known (locally and globally) as this to have to resort to illegal and dangerous protests to get a point across.
|
I would think in an increased media market it is exactly why they would do this even more. You need to stand out and that was their goal. This isn't just for the Calgary market it is to get attention worldwide and they went into the lions den to do it. I wouldnt be suprised to see this on the BBC.
Don't mistake my discussion for support for their actions just a discussion of do their actions justify their attempt for coverage (in Greenpeace's opinion).
The cost of coverage versus $ and opportunity cost is not a is a clear cut answer.