Slashdot Mirror
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."
Some might argue that Slashdot is just as guilty as Greenpeace of using Apple's success to grab headlines / make money.
Personally, I don't really care, because we're all in it to make or raise money. PETA says and does offensive things to grab headlines, the WWE does, and 90% of the articles on CNN and even Digg are sensationalist headlines designed to get you to "click through".
Who cares?
rm -rf
Well, that's the double-edged sword of having the "hot" product in any market
Sure, that's the Nike woosh has become an icon for the NoBrand movement, even though all the other major sportsgoods manufacturers indulge in the same practices blamed on Nike.
The submitters moral indignation is a bit hard to stomach. How can it be "logical" and "not surprising" while at the same time being "cavalier" and even "hypocritical." What's hypocritical about stating the obvious truth? They are only being frank and declaring the truth that they are a pro-environmental publicity company.
Better to be despised for too anxious apprehensions, than ruined by too confident a security. --Edmund Burke
until people figure out that you are bending the truth to promote your "message"
And how did Greenpeace "bend the truth"? Apparently (the OP does not contain a link to the original story) Greenpeace claims iPhones contain brominated compounds and PVC. As near as I can tell from the (industry) articles, neither Apple nor the industry disputes that. The defense is 1) everybody does it, 2) the compounds are approved by government agencies so they're ok, 3) there are no alternative materials, and 4) (which seems at odds with #1-3) Apple is in the process of stopping using those compounds. That these industry claims may (or may not) be true does not mean that Greenpeace's claim that the iPhone contains bromine compounds is "bending the truth".
Greenpeace has clearly picked the target that they will get the most media attention from (if they'd targeted Kyocera, who would have paid any attention?) but they didn't say everybody else (except Apple) was fine.
BTW, why are the links in the OP anonymized? I value my tinfoil hat as much as the next guy, but why in the world would even Little Dick Cheney or Mad King George care if I'm reading an article in Gizmodo? Is Gizmodo the new terrorist chic?
Actually, I think Greenpeace learned this behavior from John Dvorak. Whenever his page hits for the month are too low, he just posts an 'Apple sucks' article to get them back up. And yes, he actually admitted to doing this as well.
Sleep your way to a whiter smile...date a dentist!
Greenpeace has an end goal of getting attention.
No, the attention is the means to the end. The end they seek is getting money they didn't earn.
-jcr
The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."