Quote:
Originally Posted by wookster
Im not disputing your point but Im just wondering that if a lot of them pride themselves on their anti-hippie stance then why does Greenpeace always just show a radical side to the public? Whenever I hear of Greenpeace on the news its always because they've done something thats usually over the top to try and get a point across. The original post about the billboard is probably the Calmest thing I've ever heard of them trying to do.
I assume that being radical is the best way to get on the news but to me when its way over the top it usually paints a negative picture for Greenpeace in many people's eyes as well.
|
The news is in the business of showing good television? Something radical -- and I'm sure that definition changes person to person, and especially depending on the industry they're involved in -- makes better TV.
Personally, I don't find something like this particularly "radical." Not to say that Greenpeace Canada doesn't do some things designed to grab attention; the fake oil spill they made recently being one of them, and there
are dissenting opinions, at least when I was there, within the organization. But, obviously, you won't hear about the letter writing campaigns like the Musqueam First Nation thing in the news, either.
Personally, when I hear the term "radical" thrown around, or things like "eco-terrorists" (ha) I think of the Sea Shepherd, and that sort of group. Though, someone's definition of a radical act, especially when it comes to something like the environment, probably depends a lot on the industry they are involved in, for and against.