In this article - journalist gets annoyed because someone else apart from a journalist is now lying to the public.

All forms of media have been lying to the public for years, by writing only what sells advertising. This mostly results in an endless torrent of negative news and sensationalist pap, and the majority of requests I receive as a PR can be summed up thus: "I have written this story, do you have an expert spokesperson who will put their name to my ill-informed article designed purely to sell advertising to a stupid public?"

Most journalists I encounter are just ignorant, self-aggrandising know-it-alls who know very little about what they write and will only quote 'experts' who agree with whatever angle they happen to be peddling. That's reporting! Never mind ask your expert then write your story. No, review what got most clicks, write derivative story, ask PR for validation through 'expert' quotes. That is modern media in most cases, sadly.

So don't get your knickers in a twist when the media landscape has changed and people and organisations can self publish, and they are pulling the same damn tricks media and politicians have been doing for decades. Your industry perfected the art of lying to the public to serve your own ends, and now you want to champion against it? Ludicrous. Risible. Pathetic.

"Since when were Greenpeace the bad guys?"

Newfoundlanders have known Greenpeace doesn't care about local people or livelihoods for decades.

"Ah, an article irrelevantly slagging off Greenpeace - and obnoxious, unignorable BP adverts down both sides of my screen."

The article also slags of Shell and the oil industry generally, but feel free to ignore that. (Though I agree the BP ad placement is ironic.)

Greenpeace's style is not for everyone. But If many people can't tell a hoax from real news, and if news sites and bloggers reproduce anything without question, that's a problem in itself, and not for Greenpeace to blame.
Greenpeace has always been great at drawing attention to major environmental issues. To claim that the exploitation of the Arctic for oil, compounding climate change in the area, is a "fake scandal", shows that either you are missing the point - reproducing nonsense - or you are just one of the many people who dislike NGOs and like industry. Nothing to be ashamed about if stated clearly.
The campaign itself, to the extent that it was able to mislead people about its authenticity, is all the more important: it shows how vulnerable we are to the corporate b/s that is reproduced by the media under different guises. It calls us to question our own undertanding of issues and whether we accept too many things uncritically. I am confident that NS reader will apply their heightened critical powers to your article.

Spot on. The main problem is that good Yes Men-style hoaxes work best when they're revealed to be hoaxes; the fact of the hoax itself sheds light on the issues behind it. But this doesn't do that. Because it's made of whole cloth - entirely built, layer by layer, on the premise of actions that Shell never actually took - once people discover it's a hoax, their main reaction is a disappointed "oh", or annoyance at being fooled, rather than a closer examination of Shell's behaviour.

It's a hoax that only works when people think it's real - which means keeping the lie going far beyond its justifiable lifespan. And that's a pretty bad position for a campaign group (which elsewhere does excellent, evidence-based research and analysis) to put itself into.