I always admire how you go about reporting a story, all the angles you dig into in order to triangulate aspects of the truth. I will never tire of the phrase “XX didn’t respond to our questions for this story,” which in this case turns BP’s snub around on them. As a pretty regular listener of NYT Daily, I missed that BP ad. Short of emailing my disgust, what else can I do? Thanks for covering such important stories. Happy to support with my paid subscription.
How do we fight against a quarter billion dollars in profit every week? In a culture that clearly glorifies money over every other facet of human existence, how do we resist this sort of financial muscle?
Advertising works - which is why BP spends so much on it, and why every politician out there is sending emails 5 times a day telling us if we don't send them money the world will collapse around us. Where does that money go? Political ads that no one can stand, of course.
And yet we continue to send money to politicians, and we continue to patronize companies that actively deceive us, and destroy our environment.
As someone who listens to a lot of podcasts and gets a lot of Ads about Fossil Fuel companies creating American jobs, the issue here might be that The Daily uses Megaphone (https://megaphone.spotify.com) where they don’t have control over what ads are shown. (Note: this is just a guess because Megaphone powers seemingly all personalized ads in podcasts, but I couldn’t find any information on The Daily’s RSS feed, NYT Privacy Policy, or on the Megaphone site to support that theory other than the guess that the NYT doesn’t have in-house personalized audio ad software).
Whether or not The Daily uses Megaphone, there might be a future story around Megaphone and Spotify’s policy on misleading advertising because of their extensive reach.
"The Permian Basin is a key part of BP’s strategy to produce natural gas with fewer emissions"
Contained in that sentence is a message that confuses readers. While BP (and others) refer to the reduction of emissions during the production, I've had discussions with people who think they are producing natural gas that has less emissions. And it is like arguing with a flat-earther on this - they quote statements like this and say modern natural gas produce less CO2 than the old stuff...
Ah yes, BP, Beyond Petroleum! Yes, No, Maybe, Yes, No... Maybe...ish. I remember when they bought the "solar breeder," and then closed it. Really no way it was making much of the power needed to make solar modules on their roof, but still. What if we had kept investing in solar RD&D instead of letting the Chinese take it over. Some
BP has announced that it is closing its solar-panel manufacturing plant in Frederick, Maryland. BP is moving its solar business out of the United States to facilities in China, India and other countries. Approximately 320 workers will lose their jobs. BP has been unable to sell or lease the unique building and will tear it down. BP acquired a half-interest in the Frederick plant when it bought Amoco Corporation in 1999; it bought the rest from Enron. President's Note: I first toured this plant in 1983. I was so impressed. It was called Solarex and was described as a solar breeder plant because it used photovoltaics to make more photovoltaics.
I was just relistening to a favorite old episode of the Ezra Klein Show, which is also from The New York Times. It started out with an ad for Exxon Mobile. The episode was the 10/18/2023 episode, Israel Is Giving Hamas What It Wants. I have never noticed these ads when I listen to a more current episode of the podcast. Very disappointing.
To me an ad is equal to a sponsorship. Don't understand how the NYT draws a distinction between them? Also interesting that fossil fuel companies are now apparently tailoring ads to making biogas and limiting methane leaks part of their greenwashing campaign, instead of the usual "we're spending money on renewables too!" kind of advertising. Just stood out to me.
I think what pisses me off is just how bullshit it all is and not just the greenwashing part. Advertising, to me, means trying to say why your brand of a product is better than a competitor. Like this brand of paper towels vs the competition. That's fine and companies should be able to differentiate their product to try and increase sales. But no one filling up their car is going "oh BP made an ad so I guess I will buy their gasoline vs Shell". And if fossil fuels are as necessary to life as these companies say, then why do they even need ads in the first place? It should automatically stand on its own merits in response to societies' needs shouldn't it?
So it is just blatant propaganda and disinformation to try and delay climate action and if the NYT was saying, "yeah it is bullshit but we need the revenue for our newsrooms" that would honestly be better to me than trying to pretend these are "ads" like any other. Why not try that, the NYT allows these "ads" but then puts a preceding message that this is pure propaganda?
Great reporting though! Also curious if you have been following NASA's Webb Telescope and the images it has been producing. Some incredible pictures imo.
Just when I thought BP was getting to be a better global citizen....nah. I never thought that, but I did learn a lot more from your article about just how bad they really are! And the NYT is complicit in so much shady stuff. Keep up the excellent reporting!
More evidence that the global corporations will say and do anything to keep the profits flowing upwards to the executives and major share holders. And ultimately, that is the only motivation they have for doing all that they do. Pretending to care about the planet's ecosystems is just more shade thrown at the climate activists to distract them while they continue to rape the planet for short term profits to feed their individual insane needs for self gratification. And that is what it is. An addiction to acquiring insane amounts of money, which equals power, that they can't all personally spend in their lifetimes. Much like alcoholism and a gambling addiction. How do you stop that when it is on such a global scale?
Thanks for the article - no question it qualifies as greenwashing. At least BP isn’t a member of the Pathways Alliance (directly anyway?), a partnership of 6 oil sands companies that does their greenwashing advertising together. The ads they’ve been running recently in Canada are mind bogglingly over the top greenwashing. They claim that all of our net zero targets will be met through ccs. They’re running at prime times too - during the Grammys on CityTV, during the PWHL games on CBC. Very disheartening to see our national broadcaster running these.
I always admire how you go about reporting a story, all the angles you dig into in order to triangulate aspects of the truth. I will never tire of the phrase “XX didn’t respond to our questions for this story,” which in this case turns BP’s snub around on them. As a pretty regular listener of NYT Daily, I missed that BP ad. Short of emailing my disgust, what else can I do? Thanks for covering such important stories. Happy to support with my paid subscription.
How do we fight against a quarter billion dollars in profit every week? In a culture that clearly glorifies money over every other facet of human existence, how do we resist this sort of financial muscle?
Advertising works - which is why BP spends so much on it, and why every politician out there is sending emails 5 times a day telling us if we don't send them money the world will collapse around us. Where does that money go? Political ads that no one can stand, of course.
And yet we continue to send money to politicians, and we continue to patronize companies that actively deceive us, and destroy our environment.
Really great article! Thank you very much for waking me up to more the truth! 🤓
As someone who listens to a lot of podcasts and gets a lot of Ads about Fossil Fuel companies creating American jobs, the issue here might be that The Daily uses Megaphone (https://megaphone.spotify.com) where they don’t have control over what ads are shown. (Note: this is just a guess because Megaphone powers seemingly all personalized ads in podcasts, but I couldn’t find any information on The Daily’s RSS feed, NYT Privacy Policy, or on the Megaphone site to support that theory other than the guess that the NYT doesn’t have in-house personalized audio ad software).
Whether or not The Daily uses Megaphone, there might be a future story around Megaphone and Spotify’s policy on misleading advertising because of their extensive reach.
"The Permian Basin is a key part of BP’s strategy to produce natural gas with fewer emissions"
Contained in that sentence is a message that confuses readers. While BP (and others) refer to the reduction of emissions during the production, I've had discussions with people who think they are producing natural gas that has less emissions. And it is like arguing with a flat-earther on this - they quote statements like this and say modern natural gas produce less CO2 than the old stuff...
Ah yes, BP, Beyond Petroleum! Yes, No, Maybe, Yes, No... Maybe...ish. I remember when they bought the "solar breeder," and then closed it. Really no way it was making much of the power needed to make solar modules on their roof, but still. What if we had kept investing in solar RD&D instead of letting the Chinese take it over. Some
From https://cenvironment.blogspot.com/2010/03/bp-solar-photovoltaic-manufacturing.html
Saturday, March 27, 2010
BP Solar Photovoltaic Manufacturing Plant Closes
BP has announced that it is closing its solar-panel manufacturing plant in Frederick, Maryland. BP is moving its solar business out of the United States to facilities in China, India and other countries. Approximately 320 workers will lose their jobs. BP has been unable to sell or lease the unique building and will tear it down. BP acquired a half-interest in the Frederick plant when it bought Amoco Corporation in 1999; it bought the rest from Enron. President's Note: I first toured this plant in 1983. I was so impressed. It was called Solarex and was described as a solar breeder plant because it used photovoltaics to make more photovoltaics.
I was just relistening to a favorite old episode of the Ezra Klein Show, which is also from The New York Times. It started out with an ad for Exxon Mobile. The episode was the 10/18/2023 episode, Israel Is Giving Hamas What It Wants. I have never noticed these ads when I listen to a more current episode of the podcast. Very disappointing.
To me an ad is equal to a sponsorship. Don't understand how the NYT draws a distinction between them? Also interesting that fossil fuel companies are now apparently tailoring ads to making biogas and limiting methane leaks part of their greenwashing campaign, instead of the usual "we're spending money on renewables too!" kind of advertising. Just stood out to me.
I think what pisses me off is just how bullshit it all is and not just the greenwashing part. Advertising, to me, means trying to say why your brand of a product is better than a competitor. Like this brand of paper towels vs the competition. That's fine and companies should be able to differentiate their product to try and increase sales. But no one filling up their car is going "oh BP made an ad so I guess I will buy their gasoline vs Shell". And if fossil fuels are as necessary to life as these companies say, then why do they even need ads in the first place? It should automatically stand on its own merits in response to societies' needs shouldn't it?
So it is just blatant propaganda and disinformation to try and delay climate action and if the NYT was saying, "yeah it is bullshit but we need the revenue for our newsrooms" that would honestly be better to me than trying to pretend these are "ads" like any other. Why not try that, the NYT allows these "ads" but then puts a preceding message that this is pure propaganda?
Great reporting though! Also curious if you have been following NASA's Webb Telescope and the images it has been producing. Some incredible pictures imo.
https://science.nasa.gov/centers-and-facilities/goddard/nasas-webb-depicts-staggering-structure-in-19-nearby-spiral-galaxies/
Could we get the NYT Daily to run a "Corporate Climate Greenwashing" segment while these ads are running? It could be very "meta".
Just when I thought BP was getting to be a better global citizen....nah. I never thought that, but I did learn a lot more from your article about just how bad they really are! And the NYT is complicit in so much shady stuff. Keep up the excellent reporting!
Thank you both for your work uncovering more grossness by both the Times and BP.
I wonder if the ad was made wholly or in part at the Times' TBrandStudio...
(And enjoy the time off Emily!)
More evidence that the global corporations will say and do anything to keep the profits flowing upwards to the executives and major share holders. And ultimately, that is the only motivation they have for doing all that they do. Pretending to care about the planet's ecosystems is just more shade thrown at the climate activists to distract them while they continue to rape the planet for short term profits to feed their individual insane needs for self gratification. And that is what it is. An addiction to acquiring insane amounts of money, which equals power, that they can't all personally spend in their lifetimes. Much like alcoholism and a gambling addiction. How do you stop that when it is on such a global scale?
Thanks for the article - no question it qualifies as greenwashing. At least BP isn’t a member of the Pathways Alliance (directly anyway?), a partnership of 6 oil sands companies that does their greenwashing advertising together. The ads they’ve been running recently in Canada are mind bogglingly over the top greenwashing. They claim that all of our net zero targets will be met through ccs. They’re running at prime times too - during the Grammys on CityTV, during the PWHL games on CBC. Very disheartening to see our national broadcaster running these.