As The Guardian and the New York Times pick up the pieces on the latest developments on Splattergate, it is now evident that Sony does not see the funny side of 10:10's "snuff movie". In an e-mail statement, it says:
... we strongly condemn the "No Pressure" video which was conceived, produced and released by 10:10 entirely without the knowledge or involvement of Sony. The company considers the video to be ill-conceived and in extremely bad taste. We also believe the video risks undermining the work of the many thousands of members of the public, schools and universities, local authorities and many businesses, of which Sony is one, who support the long-term aims of the 10:10 movement and who are actively working towards the reduction of carbon emissions.This was hinted at in the American Spectator earlier yesterday, with the suggestion that corporate sponsors and supporters were bailing out. The other biggy, of course, is O2 and we have yet to hear its intentions. That could well be the acid test.
As a result we have taken the decision to disassociate ourselves from 10:10 at this time.
Nevertheless, it is clear that, as the enormity of what they had done (or, at least the consequences) started to trickle into the 10:10 offices, they have been having a serious re-examination of their stance.
Thus we see a new message on the blog – very different in style and tone from the earlier, truculent "sorry" from Franny and Co. This one, from Eugenie Harvey, calling herself formally, "UK Director" (illustrated above), comes right out into the open:
As you may have heard, last week, 10:10 made a mistake by releasing a short film about cutting carbon which was supposed to be humourous (sic) but in the event upset a lot of people. We quickly realised that we had made a serious mistake and took it down from our website within hours."We are going to investigate what happened," adds Eugenie, "review our processes and procedures, and share the results with our partners. Responsibility for this process is being taken by the 10:10 board of directors."
We also issued a statement apologising but there has subsequently been quite a lot of negative comment, particularly on blogs, and understandable concern from others working hard to build support for action on climate change.
We are also sorry to our corporate sponsors, delivery partners and board members, who have been implicated in this situation despite having no involvement in the film’s production or release. I am very sorry for our mistake and want to reassure you that we will do everything in our power to ensure it does not happen again.
This is serious stuff, and could not be further removed from the earlier 10:10 stance. Had this tone been adopted right from the very start, there might have been a different, less damaging response. But, it seems, these people always have to learn the hard way. The lady director complains, incidentally, that although she has been followed developments closely, she has "been working from home with a four-week-old baby." Well, Eugenie, there's always that red button that you thought was so funny.
What this whole affair does, though, is demonstrate that those of us who did respond sharply are closer in touch with public (and corporate) sentiment than the so-called communication professionals, and the snot Guardian commentators who are still soooo superior, even if they are having to re-write history to stop themselves looking like the prats that they truly are.
But, of course, the paper is at one with the rest of the MSM, which hasn't even begun to understand what is going on - and the game is nearly over. Once again, the blogosphere has made the running.
COMMENT THREAD
