The second, larger problem, is that Greenpeace lied to us. This wasn’t a nod-and-a-wink parody; this was a dedicated effort to deceive. They played the public for patsies and herded them like sheep. That kind of contempt for the people whose support (financial and otherwise) they need is inexcusable.
This assumes that everyone went "OMG how incompetent are Shell?"
To me, it was obvious as soon as you read any of the copy on the hoax site that it was a nod-and-wink parody, and I don't think I'm particularly sharper than the average joe about these things. There's an assumption being made on the part of this writer that I think is unfair. If Greenpeace were guilty of anything in this regard, it was only of giving the visitors too much credit - and I'm not even sure about that.
I feel like in most cases it was down to laziness - I initially went "Woops, Shell are being trolled" - then I read some of the copy, and it was immediately apparent that it was a hoax. I find it very hard to believe anyone on my flist would've taken it seriously if they'd actually read the copy, and not just looked at the phototrolls. It was plausible that Shell could've made the mistake of doing crowdsourced ads. It isn't remotely plausible that they'd write such obviously parodic copy.
Comments 10
This assumes that everyone went "OMG how incompetent are Shell?"
To me, it was obvious as soon as you read any of the copy on the hoax site that it was a nod-and-wink parody, and I don't think I'm particularly sharper than the average joe about these things. There's an assumption being made on the part of this writer that I think is unfair. If Greenpeace were guilty of anything in this regard, it was only of giving the visitors too much credit - and I'm not even sure about that.
Reply
Reply
Reply
Reply
Reply
Reply
(And the elephant one made me sad)
Reply
Leave a comment