Watching Yes Men member Andy Bichlbaum perform this interview, I am first struck by the sheer bravado of the prank. Here he is, on international television, posing as a spokesman for Dow taking “full responsibility” for the Bhopal disaster. His nervousness is palpable and what he says is certainly shocking from a number of perspectives. But ultimately I wonder about the degree to which such a tactic advances social critique. The subsequent coverage of this prank made transparent how the news media can work to contain criticism: In one example (view it here), while Bichlbaum tries to keep the spotlight on Dow, the interviewer works to focus on the unwittingly fooled people in Bhopal. Elsewhere, much of the coverage addressed journalistic practices – a relevant critique the prank certainly suggests, although it was not intended. What becomes clear is that revealing the prank is a crucial aspect of the prank because without it, how could audiences be sure if it was a prank or not? In this case, not knowing Finisterra was an imposter, or not hearing Dow’s retraction, could leave audiences with the impression of a company doing what’s right which is quite the opposite of the intended message. So I find myself wondering if the kind of coverage seen in the revealing of this prank works with or against the criticism being offered by the activists involved. This seems a rather risky approach for activists trying to raise awareness of issues as it ultimately relies on a media system outside of their control and more politically, economically and/or ideologically aligned with a vast array of potential targets. Is it best for activists to stick to media where they are in complete control of the message, even if it means a smaller audience? Beyond motivating and encouraging activists or others who may already hold the critical perspective a prank promotes (an important task in its own right), is the fulfillment of any broader objective likely?