Theory Post

With both sides holding such strong opinions and attitudes concerning the BP oil spill and its detriment on our environment, it is difficult to find a middle ground between the polarized arguments.  I believe that the unexpected devastation and rapidity of the spread of oil caused immediate tensions for the environmentalists and activists and those who felt, and still feel, that the incident was exaggerated; I think that this altogether created the opposing sides of the argument.  In my opinion, I feel as though it is reasonable, to a certain extent in which the actions are beneficial and realistic, for the environmentalists and activists groups to be so active and persistent in their research and dedication to cleaning up and analyzing the long and short term effects of the oil spill.  Even so, I do not believe that the media should have gone to such great lengths in amplifying the detriment and causing the incident to be blown out of proportions; this led to more serious issues concerning workers, companies, and the economy as a result.

Therefore, I believe that in order to effectively and accurately assess the truth of the effects on our environment, both the environmentalists and activist along with those who believe the occurrence was overemphasized largely due to the media must provide honest information with factual evidence.  I also think that this support and data should be unbiased to provide the readers with the most truthful reports and facts.  I think that by doing this, people will be more knowledgeably informed and able to take a stance on the issue without being persuaded with false and incorrect materials.