Leave a comment

Comments 10

marrog July 21 2012, 11:15:52 UTC
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.

Reply

andrewducker July 21 2012, 11:21:48 UTC
II saw aa lot of people taking it seriously. iI think you underestimate your hoax spotting abilities.

Reply

marrog July 21 2012, 11:25:48 UTC
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.

Reply

andrewducker July 21 2012, 11:52:27 UTC
Your friends list is also smarter than average, and I'd expect them to also be good at spotting hoaxes.

Reply


alitheapipkin July 21 2012, 11:20:33 UTC
Am I the only person who read the Claudia Christian article and was disappointed it was about real life and not Ivanova?

Reply


andrewducker July 22 2012, 14:39:29 UTC
Wow, those are gorgeous!

(And the elephant one made me sad)

Reply


Leave a comment

Up