[lolinder]

I'm referring to this claim by the GP:

> Like paying media to rename the "BP oil spill" to "Deepwater oil spill".

That would fall beyond the purview of PR and squarely into bribery, and there's no evidence that it happened.

[rapind]

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!

[tekknik]

It seems like BPs PR is at it here in this thread. Why does HN care so much about BPs image that they must clear it of any potential bribery claims?

[gruez]

HN guidelines:

"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 [e-mail] 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?

[tekknik]

> "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 [e-mail] 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.