First of all, I would say that Chevron’s case is really known view of today’s world. Especially for me, writing from Mongolia that said “minegolia” now days, it’s the similar situation coming up in my environment during last years. I saw similar picture of great corporations and local citizens technological and cultural contrast, fight of media scenario. In Mongolia mining gigantic Rio Tinto which exploring gold and copper, French company Areva group which exploring uranium have been having long fight with the local citizens because of environment issue. Local citizens blaming them for destroying nature and due to the mining there is a many different kind of illnesses developing, they say. So it’s the conflict between multinational company and local citizens.
Chevron’s advocacy is more credential, but more aggressive
1. Most multinational corporations have agreement with the government of that certain company to own together their resources. This brings great opportunity to the parties both in Ecuador and in Mongolia to make populism and opposition parties always deliver messages that foreign companies are taking our resources and they take everything from us by making agreement with the current government. In this case Chevron is right. The role played by communications professionals for Chevron, it can be seen unethical that they tried to show that Ecuadorian government wanted to have more profit from them and they wanted them to seen guilty for the situation. However it might be able to be true.
2. The common mistakes of the type of corporations like Chevron are that they think everything will be fine since they agreed and work with the government. But this is the disadvantage that they don’t account local citizens right and interest is protected by other authorities as well. Due to this mistake they really don’t do good PR for those local citizens in order to make them understand their work or give them opportunity to participate in there. I think Chevron also did this mistake while I watching the video they made. They made advocacy or the video of Gene Randall for the western audiences in order to bring back their dignity rather try to get understand victims of Ecuadorians. Gene Randall didn’t give an opportunity to the citizens to involve in this video or include one representative from the local citizens and he tried to persuade that before Chevron purchases it the environment was destroyed; so now they are trying to make it better and they invest for the rehabilitation. Lastly he used tactic to use experts. Western society is the society where people believe in experts and they make decisions on experts’ words. So by involving experts in its video Chevron made its advocacy more credential and scientific and research based. But in some ways this type of videos can give the victims very different ideas, which they think that Chevron used technologies, media and experts in order to protect itself. So this will make victims to hate Americans.
Other thing is that they used Mr.Randall, public figure’s face in order to show their perspectives and it was non-transparent PR method that Chevron tried to hide that they sponsored this video. This what the big corporations still has been doing now because they know that third party’s voice can influence better for the public.
Plaintiffs' negative advocacy
1. First of all palintiffs’ negative advocacy was way to bad than Chevron’s. It focused on imagination rather than evidence and they used computer graphics rather than real face-to-face comments. Most importantly their message was that ecosystem of amazon has polluted and destroyed a lot, but they didn’t give any proof or evidence that Chevron destroyed. So it’s bad that they couldn’t show thet Chevron is responsible for that.
2. This type of fight of local citizens usually hard because of their ability to fight with the big corporations on legal and communication skill or power. Therefore it’s common that most times they contacted with the populist politicians, party or any third individual and that makes result even worse. In contrast to that it’s good that they showed pictures of local citizens’ about how women and children suffered and injured and how amazon was polluted etc., this is the good tactic.
As a result this two advocacies are seems that race of who is saying what and who is telling the truth to the public rather than giving any good evidence. I think this starts from that different cultures couldn’t understand each other and can’t work together and can assist each other to have the same participation.
When Chevron Hires Ex-Reporter to Investigate Pollution, Chevron Looks Good retried from http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/11/business/media/11cbs.html?_r=0
TELL CHEVRON'S BOARD OF DIRECTORS TO FIRE CEO JOHN WATSON! retried from http://truecostofchevron.com/
The true story Chevron’s Ecuador disaster retried from
Extorting Big Oil American Thinker. retried from
Don’t drill the amazon-defend it. http://amazonwatch.org
Amazon Crude on 60 Minutes.