Greenpeace Admits Targeting Apple Grabs Headlines

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."

Comments

Yup

[alexborges]

Greenpeace has a very long story for even TAKING MONEY to attack someone. Id go as far as to say that, for example, they promoted the idea of dolphin killing tuna fishers everywhere else but the US. They were paid off by american tuna fishers who dont kill dolphins NEAR THE STATES, but they happily do so with dolphin from the philipines.

They also promoted the idea that a harbor project for the large (largest in the world, actually) salt mine down under in Baja was a risk to the gray whales, so that the harbor project was stopped. The pier was projected so big, that a damned whale coud pass under it from ANY possition.... SIDEWAYS. That time they were paid by competing Australian salt miners.

I, for one, have never ever believed anything coming out of greanpeace. They are nothing but a rent-a-hoolingan shop.

Re:Hypocritical of Slashdot?

[timeOday]

Some might argue that Slashdot is just as guilty as Greenpeace of using Apple's success to grab headlines / make money.

It's this blog that's trying to grab headlines by slamming Greenpeace. I kept reading and reading the GreenPeace response looking for the outrageous part, and all I saw was them standing by their analysis of the iPhone and concern over bromine.

Finally, in the last sentence of the article, I read "While it might not make as many headlines as the iPhone it doesn't mean that we are not focusing on all manufacturers to remove toxic chemicals from their products."

THAT'S IT!??

Come off it. Apple is the poster child for high-tech consumerism right now, and has invested heavily to reach that status - so they get the brunt of the criticism as well. BFD.

Summary Incorrect

[Bob9113]

First off, I'm not a fan of Greenpeace, and I do think that they targetted the iPhone because of the increased publicity it would bring.

However, Greenpeace did not admit that is what they are doing. The summary is incorrect.

If you think we just protest against Apple then look out for soon a report covering a wide range of manufacturers as we have done in 2006. While it might not make as many headlines as the iPhone it doesn't mean that we are not focusing on all manufacturers to remove toxic chemicals from their products.

What Greenpeace said is the opposite of what the summary claims they said. Greenpeace said that they recognize that their report on the iPhone did capture more headlines, but that they do, and have done, the same thing with other phones. Greenpeace is claiming that they did not focus on the iPhone in order to capture headlines, that it happened because the media is more interested in news relating to the iPhone. Which also makes perfect sense, because that is what their readers want to read about (not whether it's right or wrong for them to report what the people want to hear, but that is the way it is).

So again, I agree that Greenpeace almost certainly did focus on the issue in order to attract attention to the issue, and that that is their standard operating procedure, it is clearly false that they admitted to it.