Implication Post

            As state in my earlier analysis post, there are two central arguments surrounding this topic; these include the extreme advocating for environmental reforms and research by environmentalists and activists on the effects of the oil on the Gulf of Mexico area versus the belief that the detriment caused by the oil spill has been overstated and exaggerated, chiefly due to the media’s influence and amplification of the results and factual data presented.  Furthermore, I theorized in a more recent theory post that I believe that the polarized views and attitudes concerning the damage done to the environment by the oil could find common ground if factual evidence and supported research conducted by the environmentalists and scientists were accurately calculated and then stated to the public, especially via media.

I believe that if these types of extreme actions persist, the actual facts and details of the effects of the oil on the environment may never be communicated to people.  I feel as though the information surrounding the topic has continuously been exaggerated to both extremes and therefore has created untruthful realities and biased opinions of the effects of the Gulf oil spill.  Without valid knowledge of the events and results of what is deemed to be the “worst environmental disaster in United States history”, the public will never discover the real facts and evidence of the effects of the oil on our environment.  On a larger scale, if this type of reaction and response to an incident such as what occurred with the Gulf oil spill is tolerated, I believe that the same results will yield when similar events occur; this means that the public will forever be imparted with false and bias facts when these situation arise.