I think you're missing the point. That fragment being present in the wikipedia article just means... wikipedia recognizes that some people also refer to the incident as the "BP oil spill". I have no problem with people wanting it to call it the "BP oil spill". It might even be the correct term. After all, in the final judgement BP was found 67% responsible. What I do have a problem with is the parent post's accusation that BP paid "media" to 'rename the "BP oil spill" to "Deepwater oil spill"' for "good publicity" reasons. That's not supported by the evidence because news coverage referred to it as "Deepwater oil spill" and not "BP oil spill" from day 1, and that it's pretty common to not mention the company name in energy related accidents (see my other comment).
Would it be "conspiring" or simply public relations? I ask because when you say "conspire" you could be alluding to it being unlikely that an oil company would have PR people on staff to "massage" their public image. I think we can all agree this sort of PR is pretty common, whether or not it happened in this case.
Oh I see. I didn’t notice that claim, and I agree with you. Imagine thinking that you “bribe” media. You just become a stakeholder or advertiser and exert pressure!
"Please don't post insinuations about astroturfing, shilling, bots, brigading, foreign agents and the like. It degrades discussion and is usually mistaken. If you're worried about abuse, email hn@ycombinator.com and we'll look at the data."
>Why does HN care so much about BPs image that they must clear it of any potential bribery claims?
You see nothing wrong with uncritically accepting any accusation of corporate wrongdoing? Is the truth not important to you?
> "Please don't post insinuations about astroturfing, shilling, bots, brigading, foreign agents and the like. It degrades discussion and is usually mistaken. If you're worried about abuse, email hn@ycombinator.com and we'll look at the data."
Hmm, this seems to support my claims, since shilling isn't allowed.
> You see nothing wrong with uncritically accepting any accusation of corporate wrongdoing? Is the truth not important to you?
Going from not caring about BP's image to not caring about the truth is a pretty far jump wouldn't you say? Most people would not care so much about a corporation's image to defend it as much as it's being defended here, unless they have some obligation to or other connection to said corporation.
I think you're missing the point. That fragment being present in the wikipedia article just means... wikipedia recognizes that some people also refer to the incident as the "BP oil spill". I have no problem with people wanting it to call it the "BP oil spill". It might even be the correct term. After all, in the final judgement BP was found 67% responsible. What I do have a problem with is the parent post's accusation that BP paid "media" to 'rename the "BP oil spill" to "Deepwater oil spill"' for "good publicity" reasons. That's not supported by the evidence because news coverage referred to it as "Deepwater oil spill" and not "BP oil spill" from day 1, and that it's pretty common to not mention the company name in energy related accidents (see my other comment).