So where is news of Gulf disaster in your newspaper today?

[Bragi]

My newspaper (The Toronto Globe and Mail) has its report about the unfolding catastrophe in the Gulf in the Business section, page 5.

I'm curious where this story shows up in other papers, if it shows up at all?

[revolution breeze]

1. Page 1

I live in Louisiana.

[lonestarnot]

2. Maybe coming off the back pages there in Florida today.

[AngryAmish]

3. newspaper?

really?

[dixiegrrrrl]

4. first page, top of fold. Mobile Ala newspaper.

Also on Al.com website/

[doc03]

5. Well yesterday it was front page news "Feds Dropped

Ball on Oil Rig Inspections", it's the govment's (Obama's) fault, case closed. One of my Repug a--hole neighbors is constantly bitching about EPA regulations killing industry but in this case he blames the govment's (Obama's) lack of oversight for the mess in the gulf.

[Chipper Chat]

6. Not one word in our local rag (16-page paper)

But the paper is controlled by local teabaggers.

[brendan120678]

7. Back page of the first section today...

right underneath the weather.
In the (Waterbury, CT) Republican-American - it's an AP story titled, "BP hopes to siphon half of leaking oil."

[Bragi]

8. So...

It appears the story is still front page in the most at-risk areas, but not especially prominent elsewhere.

Not surprising I guess, though I did not expect the story to be downplayed so much so quickly outside the most-affected areas.

[Iggo]

9. What is this thing you call "nooz-pay-per"?

[robdogbucky]

10. Er, you mean the on line version?

which is all most people read now, here in the Bay Area it is still the lead story in the Nation/World News section today, but like ohters above have mentioned, even after the dog/pony show hearing yesterday, it is now focused on the Obama administration's shortcomings regarding it.

Headline w/story #1:

"BP capturing more oil
Company says a tube is siphoning 2,000 barrels a day from the leaking pipe for collection in a tanker."

and Story #2:

"Scrutiny turns to Obama administration"

The above is an AP story which most rags probably ran. Salazar actually is appearing today to testify, after he was castigated by LieBerMan for not appearing yesterday. I think maybe even the Senator from Tel Aviv mentioned that MMS did not have to appear at any other hearing before they answered to the committee they are coming before today, in the form of Salazar. That comment served to highlight that BP and Napolitano and the admiral appeared yesterday voluntarily. That AP story quotes:

"...Salazar on Tuesday was making his first appearance before Congress since the April 20 oil spill. He says in prepared testimony that oil companies have opposed efforts to change "the culture of doing business" at the agency.

But Salazar tells the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee, "We have not and we will not back down on our reform agenda."


Read more: http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/n/a/2010/05/17/national/a125730D71.DTL#ixzz0oIPAbsj9



After watching yesterday's theater it was sickening to reflect on what passes for testimony in these charades. Could Landrieu be more clueless? Joe may have well worn his knee pads when thanking BP USA's CEO McKay for appearing, especially when Salazar didn't.




Just my disgusted dos centavos



robdogbucky