Chesapeake’s Julie Wilson on Dealing With Local Media
by Pete WannGosh, I suppose I couldn’t have put it any better myself…
From the text of the story aired on NPR’s “All Things Considered” today. (Emphasis mine.)
In the wake of Chesapeake’s infomercial comes Shale TV, a daily talk show about the Barnett Shale set to air this fall. The company has hired three award-winning Dallas broadcast journalists to produce the show.
Julie Wilson, Chesapeake vice president for corporate development, says she understands there’s skepticism about the objectivity of Shale TV, but she insists it’s no different than the rest of corporate media.
“Well, I think we pay those journalists — whether on Channel 8 or Channel 11 or the Star-Telegram — in terms of advertising support,” Wilson says. “We see this as pretty much instead of running the ads on the program, we’re just writing the check direct.”
Tags: Barnett Shale, Chesapeake Energy, fake news, Julie Wilson, media, NPR
20 Comments, Comments or Pings
VinnyV
That would have been more amusing if it wasn’t my backyard.
I especially like the part where Chesapeake attempted to put words in the Forest Hill fire chief’s mouth. I’m guessing the idiots didn’t think the reporter would actually follow up with him the next day. Probably a hint at the lame type of “reporting” we will be seeing from Shale TV.
Now if Shale TV will be “no different than the rest of corporate media”, then why bother to start it up? It’s as if they have committed themselves to condemn this great city to be one huge re-education camp. Our city buses are prostituted with their slogans, they can’t seem to buy enough billboards, the Tommy Lee Jones thing was just plain insulting, the constant barrage of that decidedly one-sided “citizens of the shale” infomercial, etc, etc. It’s to the point that even the supporters of drilling are beginning to grow suspect! What a mismanaged mess.
Maybe we as a community will have to take up arms and start white-washing all this big brother advertising crap before Shale TV starts propagating their ideas of thinkcrime and shalegood. Corporates are so out of touch with the working class that it is beginning to worry me.
Aug 6th, 2008
Greg
Putting words in the Fire Chief’s mouth was done by a PR person at a neighborhood meeting who happened to get caught, but the bigger issue is it’s indicative of the overall ethics of the company. Combine that with land men’s lies and setting up shell pipeline companies and we expect an organization’s ethical approach to show up in all aspects of the business.
The scary part is what it probably means in the technical parts of the company. Lack of ethics among those who decide on quality of materials, the qualifications of personnel, or where one might take shortcuts to improve the bottom line raises the risk for residents.
Aug 6th, 2008
Chewy
What’s sad is the journalists Chesapeake pays directly might be the most objective. I’m not saying they will but at least the relationship is transparent so they might hold themselves to a higher standard. It’ll be interesting to see how it plays out.
I still believe this is much to do about nothing as no one will really be paying attention because the Shale is just not that exciting day to day. I think this becomes something like Dan Rather on HDTV. Is he even doing that anymore?
I think the most interesting thing to see in all of this is how they handle those on City Council and Mayor Moncrief since that appears where Chesapeake’s bread is buttered. I’d love to know what kind of confidentiality agreements the journalists are under if at all. I’d also love to know what kind of objectives and directives they’ll be under.
Aug 6th, 2008
Chris
Well at least it’s not a secret anymore.
Also, was anyone else astounded to learn that McClendon was a major Swiftboat supporter? It’s kind of an auxiliary point, but I’m suddenly much less inclined to believe ANYTHING Chesapeake says anymore…
Aug 6th, 2008
Max
Chris,
No, and welcome to the bandwagon. But, if the Swiftboat thing is what finally convinced you that what they say isn’t always 100% truthful (sin of commission), or that they don’t always volunteer any information that would be material to a person’s decision-making process (sin of omission), then I have some oceanfront property in Arizona we need to talk about.
Max
Aug 6th, 2008
Don Young
VinnyV-
By “whitewashing all this big brother crap” I hope you were not referring to crimes against billboards, bus benches, seismic gizmos, etc. That is a punishable offense and I urge you to reconsider. However, I’ve also heard it’s a ton of fun and gives one a sense of empowerment while doing a good deed for humankind.
Ever since I was a kid and saw the late, great Jack Lemmon defacing corporate billboards in the 60’s comedy film, Good Neighbor Sam, I’ve admired and respected those who committed such crimes against property. An innocent form of anarchy. No one gets hurt, everyone gets a good laugh. The corporate bottom line barely moves. Still, it is a punishable offense and I would never endorse such behavior.
For an entertaining read on the subject, I HIGHLY recommend you grab a copy of The Monkey Wrench Gang, by the godfather of the environmental movement, Ed Abbey. His tales of monkeying with the gears of corporate greed are hilarious and priceless, AND educational. Remember, before you think about imitating any of these thrilling exploits that would clean up the neighborhood, this is fiction. The men and women depicted in the book were professionals and drank a lot of beer.
BTW: I’ll bet my Just Say NO yard sign that Chesapeake has already bought every billboard, bus wrap and bus bench for the next stock show/rodeo and every other major public event for the next year. As tempting as it may seem to monkey with the lies printed on those clean, corporate surfaces, remember that defacing them is a punishable offense. It may be fun as hell, something to brag about to your grandkids and serve the greater good, but it is illegal.
Not to be confused with the legal activities that Chesapeake is doing like drilling gas wells and running pipelines in our neighborhoods and parks; polluting our air and water; cutting down old growth trees; endangering public safety and permanently altering our standard of living. Those would be crimes against humanity.
Aug 6th, 2008
TXsharon
I LOVE the “lipstick on a pig” comment. I found a picture. Does it look like anyone we know?
Aug 6th, 2008
charlie
It’s not Shale TV - it’s SHAM TV .
We need to get folks to realize that there is no way that the residents of city are going to end up with one thin dime when all is said and done – insurance rates are going to go up for some immediately and, then, for the whole city - due to the realization of the problems – accidents, health, etc – Fort Worth will be designated as a ‘high risk area’ – and then property values will start to plummet – the net effect will be very dire – your biggest asset, your home, could be become your biggest liability. It’s just plain and simple insanity.
Gas Drilling means MONEY PROBLEMS - NOT - MONEY OPPORTUNITIES !
Aug 6th, 2008
Gary Hogan
“Well, I think we pay those journalists — whether on Channel 8 or Channel 11 or the Star-Telegram — in terms of advertising support,” Wilson says. “We see this as pretty much instead of running the ads on the program, we’re just writing the check direct.”
Ghee a PR person that finally admits that Chesapeake is buying out our news media. In terms of advertising support. Sure we influence the media SO WHAT ? There are many non check contributions also that are made many people would think also ?
Aug 8th, 2008
Ben
“There are many non check contributions also that are made many people would think also?” ??? You mean to schools, police & fire departments in the form of increased tax collections. That’s the most positive thing you’ve ever said about gas drilling.
I think the hours in the sun protesting have taken the bite out of your message!
Aug 9th, 2008
sirius_girl
Ben would like you to think that Chesapeake has come to town to save poor ol’ FW, but he dilutes the truth.
Truth is - Chesapeake has made contributions to organizations and charities. But lest you think it comes from the goodness of their booming hearts, remember that folks that donate kindly don’t generally go around patting themselves on the back at every opportunity.
Contributions from Chesapeake (or XTO or Devon or Qucksilver) are appreciated - i’ve no doubt. But those who choose to write a check and them scream about it from the highest mountaintop - city hall in this case - smacks of PR.
It’s a telling look. Mr. McClendon wears it well.
but this post is all about comments made by Ms. Wilson. She appears to be the one suffering from message control.
Aug 9th, 2008
Ben
Sirius/Suzette,
I guess you missed the part about “in the form of increased tax collections”? These are not contributions and have nothing to do with Julie Wilson. And that’s the truth! PFFT!
Aug 9th, 2008
sirius_girl
ask all of those entities if they have confidence that they’ll see the benefit of those added dollars.
ask the fire department about their added risks and whether they think that it’s worth it.
ask them if any of the companies have shared emergency plans with them.
and - i’m not suzette. but nice try. I suspect that we’re equally humane.
Aug 9th, 2008
Ben
I don’t have to ask them! I can see the results in many of the small towns to the north of FW. Why is it that NW ISD pays the highest starting salaries of any school district in the area? Check the tax rolls and see who the largest taxpayer in Denton & Wise county. See who employs the most people. All of those things are quantifiable, where yours are all about feelings.
I guarantee you most have emergency plans! If they don’t that is the fault of the entities themselves, not the companies involved. American Airlines doesn’t make the plans with the cities for a jet falling out of the sky, the cities do. If a fire department doesn’t feel that is something they need to train for, they don’t.
My question is who gets to decide what is an acceptable risk? Some people may not want trains to come through through their neighborhoods. Some people don’t want new highways or increased plane traffic. How do you balance the needs of a few with the benefits to society as a whole?
Aug 9th, 2008
Greg
Ben: “… who gets to decide what is an acceptable risk?” Good question, and we need to answer it in Fort Worth.
Current Answer: The gas companies are deciding what is an acceptable risk. And that is because, in order to evaluate risk, you need information. And, in general, gas companies have the most information. They hold that information and release it when convenient for their interests. And their interests, by law, focus on shareholder value, as in maximizing it. And in turn, shareholder value figures in the concept of “acceptable.”
But notice, their risk is in financial terms. As an example, looking ahead, gas companies realize pipelines are their most high risk component. So they create wholly owned subsidiaries to install and operate their pipelines. Why? Because in five or ten years, when they are leaking, they can be spun off or sold to an independent operator. That will satisfy the need to isolate shareholders from the financial risk of an accident.
Of course the pipelines are often sold to low cost operators who may not be as responsible with operations and maintenance. Pray tell, how would Fort Worth’s risk level change as pipelines move “down the food chain”? And how many in the community understand the gas and oil business sufficiently to evaluate their risks in scenario I’ve described.
At the end of the day, I want to decide what is an acceptable risk for myself, of course. And I want community risk to be decided by the community. But to do that we need information and it needs to be the result of full disclosure.
As the unit of government responsible for citizen safety, I expect my City to acquire the safety information we need to evaluate risk. And I do not expect the City to permit an activity until we understand its near and long term impacts and approve of how it will be done.
Aug 9th, 2008
Ben
And you think the contract landman that gets you to sign the lease has this information?
I also disagree on your theory about the sale of the pipelines. The last thing the gas companies want is an independent 3rd party in control of how much it costs them to get the gas to market. Maybe this happens because a smaller company gets absorbed by a bigger company like Chesapeake, but Chesapeake selling out is highly unlikely.
Lets put it to a vote, but to be fair we have to do this for every public project, including all roads, electric lines, transit stops & pipelines. You understand that sewer lines are considered flammable & it is really not my problem that new subdivision doesn’t have them.
Aug 9th, 2008
Greg
You can disagree about the sale of pipelines, but it’s what goes on all the time as flow rates from wells drop off. And shale flows drop very rapidly… in five years they are running at 10-20% of initial flow. That reduction in gas flow is also a reduction in cash flow, hence the incentive to sell off to low-overhead operators. And when they sell a pipeline it’s not to difficult to include language setting out terms and conditions. Same situation as when using third party pipelines anyhow, which they tend to do before the gas gets to the consumer.
Aug 10th, 2008
Suzette
My x-hubby worked for Mobil Pipeline Company. The last time I spoke with him (about 3 years ago), he was concerned about losing his job because the pipelines were getting old; Mobil was dropping the asset of the pipelines, selling out to smaller companies so that they wouldn’t have to do the maintenance on the aging pipelines or be liable for any accidents. Hence, our elected officials have a lot of work to do before allowing any pipeline in this great City of Ft. Worth!
Aug 10th, 2008
Fort Worth Business Press
Chesapeake Energy cancels Shale.TV online news program to cut costs
http://www.fwbusinesspress.com/display.php?id=8644
Oct 13th, 2008
John C.
Wow … sorry to hear that for the folks involved, but I just couldn’t, for the LIFE of me, figure out how Shale.TV was going to keep its head above water. Questions of bias aside, the attention span of today’s news consumer is so short, a one-topic news station with very limited appeal just wasn’t going to carry an audience for very long regardless of the economy. Hopefully those who were displaced will be able to find work quickly …
Oct 13th, 2008
Reply to “Chesapeake’s Julie Wilson on Dealing With Local Media”
By posting your comment, you agree to abide by the terms of the West and Clear comment policy.