Recode senior editor Kevin Roose has defended comments he made in response to an article in the Wall Street Journal questioning why the government is not putting in place measures to protect whales from a potential “lethal” industrial spill.
Roose was responding to the question of why there is not a “no-kill” policy in place for industrial ships, but the Wall Journal article, which was headlined: “Why we need a no-kill rule for industrial vessels”, sparked an outpouring of criticism on Twitter and on Recode from whale advocates.
While Roose’s tweet suggested that the answer to the government’s no-kills policy for industrial shipping was to allow whales to die, the response to the article on his Recode blog has been more pointed.
In a series of tweets, Roose said that the federal government should stop using the phrase “no kill” for industrial ship construction.
“If it were a movie I’d go ahead and kill them,” Roose wrote.
He then went on to say that the government should “stop saying the words ‘no kill’ and start saying ‘a no-go zone’.”
Roose went on: “If a marine ship can be built in a way that it will be able to operate safely in an ocean with toxic chemicals, why can’t we have the same for commercial ships?
Why not make them a no kill zone for the same reason we can’t allow boats to be constructed in the ocean?”
He went on, saying that “a no kill” policy would be “disastrous”.
“It will put all our lives in jeopardy and would create an environment in which dangerous things are allowed to happen,” Roose added.
“I don’t know what they’re going to say when they come to Congress.
We’ll see what they do.”
The Wall StreetJournal article prompted a heated exchange between Roose and the US National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, which responded to the WSJ article by saying it was not appropriate for the paper to “criticise or attack” the government.
“The US government’s response to this article is to take a position that is not appropriate and to make statements that are not supported by the facts,” NOAA’s James O’Keefe said in a statement to Recode.
“We urge the WSJD not to take issue with NOAA’s assessment of the facts and the fact that the administration’s actions are not consistent with NOAA guidelines.”NOAA will continue to investigate this situation.
“Recode senior tech editor Ryan Lefevre tweeted: “I can understand why this would cause a lot of consternation but the WSJB needs to be careful not to get their head out of joint.
“Roose’s defence of the WSJM article comes after he also defended his previous comments on the issue.
In March, Roose, who also served as the CEO of Recode and is the author of a new book called “The Code: The Power of Productive Code”, wrote an open letter to President Donald Trump that said he was not going to support the proposed Keystone XL pipeline and that the project “will inevitably lead to the extinction of the sea otter”.
In response to a similar open letter by the president to members of Congress, Roose tweeted: “@realDonaldTrump, you need to understand that this is a problem not a political strategy.
If you were to put a pipeline through the middle of a protected area, then it’s the sea and all of us are dead.
“That’s a bad strategy for our country.
That’s a very bad strategy.”
Roese’s open letter was later picked up by other media outlets including The Guardian and the Huffington Post.
Roose has since taken to Twitter to defend his remarks.
He wrote on Twitter that he “can understand why the WSJS would question why we have a no kills policy for our industrial ships.”
He then said: “A no kill policy is bad, but it will not make it impossible for us to build them.”
It is good to see that our industry is making a stand.
I think we can be better than this.