Media KUOW’s Pot Shot
posted by on January 7 at 17:00 PM
This morning I caught a “news” report on KUOW. The Marijuana Policy Review Panel (MPRP), a task force created by voters to track the impact of I-75, a law passed by Seattle voters that made marijuana the SPD’s “lowest law-enforcement priority,” submitted its final report to the city today. Josh has more about the report here. Here’s what jumped out at me about KUOW’s report: Tom Carr, the Seattle City Attorney, and one of the 11 members of the MPRP, was the only person interviewed for the story. KUOW handed Carr the mic. And guess what? Carr thinks I-75—which was passed into law by 58% of Seattle voters—is a bad, bad thing. Carr doesn’t like I-75, the MPRP, or the report the panel approved by a 9 to 2 vote. And why not?
“I’m always concerned about anything that minimalizes the impact of drug use particularly on the youth. I think one of my cautions is while most people think of marijuana as a fairly harmless drug. It’s not necessarily harmless when teenagers start using it… it leads to other drugs and that’s always the worry. And those of us in the public safety community are always concerned when people seem to want to downplay the risk of dealing with illegal drugs.”
Sigh. Marijuana is not, as Carr implies, a “gateway drug.” As for laws that might minimize the impact of drug use where the young are concerned, pot use among young people actually fell in the United Kingdom after penalties for possessing marijuana were decreased in 2004. As for danger, marijuana is the least deadly drug—there is no toxic dose—much less deadly than alcohol, a legal drug.
But, like, whatever. Drug-war-mongers like Carr never let the facts get in their way.
It was, however, telling that KUOW reporter Patricia Murphy—who works for one of those “objective” news gathering organizations—didn’t feel compelled to get the other side of the story and wasn’t, when she turned this piece in, compelled by her editors to get the other side of the story. Why didn’t Murphy interview some one that spoke for the majority of the panel? Marijuana activist and Stranger contributer Dominic Holden, a member of the MPRP, sent a letter of protest to KUOW.
Carr spoke out against the Panel’s findings, citing the harm to teenagers—despite the report’s findings that the prevalence of marijuana use among 8th, 10th and 12th grade students surveyed in Seattle Public Schools remained essentially unchanged, even declining slightly in some instances, in the years following the measure’s passage.But Carr has been the leading opponent of the measure since the initiative was filed in 2003—holding a press conferences to oppose the measure with the White House Drug Czar, writing the voters’ guide opposition statements, and campaigning against the measure. He was one of only two dissenters on the 11-member panel’s recommendations….
I think it’s only fair to present both sides of this discussion, and if any side should be given more weight it is the side representing the 58 percent majority of voters who passed the measure in 2003 and the 9-of-11 panel members who concluded the statute should remain on the books.
Holden is asking KUOW to make air time available to panel members that supported task force’s final report.
Finally, here’s why I said it’s “telling” that KUOW reporter Patricia Murphy didn’t get any comments from someone that supports I-75: When it comes to stories about pot, the MSM shuts out pro-marijuana reform/legalization voices. It’s all drug-war-talking-points, all the time, at the Seattle Times, Seattle PI, KUOW, etc., despite the fact that many—hey, gang—of their reporters and editors use marijuana safely and responsibly. That kind of hypocrisy just begs an organized outing campaign.
Full text of Holden’s letter after the jump.
Dear KUOW,I am a member of the city's Marijuana Policy Review Panel.
I called earlier today and spoke to Ruby Deluna (sp?) about KUOW's coverage of the Marijuana Policy Review Panel's final report to the City Council on the impacts of Initiative 75. The measure made marijuana possession the city's lowest law-enforcement priority.
To my surprise, Patricia Murphy, a usually excellent reporter, had interviewed only one person for the piece: Tom Carr. Carr spoke out against the Panel's findings, citing the harm to teenagers--despitethe report's findings that the prevalence of marijuana use among 8th, 10th and 12th grade students surveyed in Seattle Public Schools remained essentially unchanged, even declining slightly in some instances, in the years following the measure's passage.
But Carr has been the leading opponent of the measure since the initiative was filed in 2003--holding a press conferences to oppose the measure with the White House Drug Czar, writing the voters' guide opposition statements, and campaigning against the measure. He was one of only two dissenters on the 11-member panel's recommendations.
No other person was interviewed for your radio piece, which can be found here: http://kuow.org/DefaultProgram.asp?ID=14091
The panel's report is here: http://seattle.gov/council/mpp/
I think it's only fair to present both sides of this discussion, and if any side should be given more weight it is the side representing the 58 percent majority of voters who passed the measure in 2003 and the 9-of-11 panel members who concluded the statute should remain on the books.
I believe that KUOW's listeners deserve a diversity of ideas on this subject, rather than a single zealous voice of opposition. I have the utmost respect for Ms. Murphy and KUOW, but this was a failure to fairly report the situation.
I'd like KUOW to correct this by presenting the spectrum of ideas, perhaps by re-reporting this story, offering a correction, or--and best yet--scheduling me (a panel member and chair of the campaign to pass I-75) and other panel members on one of station's hour-long news programs later this week.
Best regards,
Dominic Holden
Citizen Member, Marijuana Policy Review Panel
Chair, Sensible Seattle Coalition (Sponsors of I-75)
Maybe you could understand where Carr is coming from if you thought of pit bulls every time you read a pot scare story.
It's funny: you seem to comprehend that MSM editors favor anti-pot stories and slant their reporting against them, but apparently that's just because you like pot. Whereas, if it is something you don't like, such as this one breed of dog, then you are as free to ignore objective research as Tom Carr does. You ignore the fact that MSM editors like to publicize pit pull attacks over attacks by other dog breeds.
Same thing with your news clippings against straight parents and youth pastors.
My point is not that you're wrong in your overall goal. It's that your tactics suck. If you sink to Rush Limbaugh's level to attack your enemies, you become Rush Limbaugh.
@1 -- Tactics? At bottom, doesn't the post seem to point to issues of journalistic objectivity and equal time? That's not exactly a Limbaugh-esque tactic, if you ask me.
Pot is the devil's plant.
"It’s all drug-war-talking-points, all the time, at the Seattle Times, Seattle PI, KUOW, etc., despite the fact that many—hey, gang—of their reporters and editors use marijuana safely and responsibly. That kind of hypocrisy just begs an organized outing campaign."
Present evidence that "many" reporters for these organizations use marijuana "safely and responsibly." Otherwise, out-of-the-blue accusations like this merely take us away from your core points: that Ms. Murphy failed to obtain any coverage of Mr. Carr's opposing viewpoint, and that marijuana is far from the "gateway drug" Mr. Carr implied it to be. I fear that going the extra step to label "many" of those reporters as pot users (responsible or otherwise) takes away from your clout in defending Dominic Holden's viewpoint. Ms. Murphy had a largely one-sided story, and marijuana isn't a gateway drug. Period. Enough said. Anyone with half a brain can see that.
Plus, we all know (but never acknowledge) the truth that Seattle's really an impossible city in which to find and buy pot. I imagine it's easier to buy pot in the White House, for God's sake.
Pot? Naw, I'm high on life.
I'm so fucking sick of the phrase "MSM". If KUOW is MSM, then the Stranger is MSM too. MSM is any media outlet that says anything you don't like, I guess.
Oh, by the way- elenchos is totally right. In this particular and narrowly defined context. Nice blog, e.
Could someone please run against Tom Carr, already?
With "Democrats" like him, who needs Republicans?
Yes as @4 says do a story on all the reporters and editors who do or have done pot. Make them fess up.
Stop the total hypocrisy. They know a bit of pot is no big deal, then they write all this garbage.
If they refuse to answer, report that.
Make it fun, do a survey of stranger writers, too,
__ pot
__ hash
__blow, non crack, in the nose
__crack
__ acid
__shrooms
__ speed
___ horse
___MDM
__ x
___ a.n.
__ alcohol
____ drunk > 2 a week.
Carr, too.
Is he speaking from ignorance or knowledge of pot?
I've never heard a "pot scare story" -- I mean, an *actual* news story where some guy using pot actually did something scary. You know, like getting the munchies so bad that he chewed on a toddler's face. Or something.
Carr was over the top (as usual) at today's meeting. Citing easily refuted data on marijuana's harm and engaging in general fear-mongering.
One amusing point, however, came when he was pontificating on the "extremely small" number of people arrested for pot in Seattle. Councilman McIver, displaying a great wit and even better timing, responded "it's not so small if you're the one being arrested." This drew a laugh from virtually all members of the council.
My sense was they were tolerating Carr like a crazy uncle at xmas.
And, yeah, I've about had it with current and ex-druggies who shill for the drug war...including some in both the City and County prosecutor's office.
@2 -- "journalistic objectivity and equal time"
The Stranger wants everyone else to practice journalistic objectivity -- as long as it doesn't have to. How hypocritical can you get, Dan?
Yes, yes, Tomcat. We're not saying we do it. But they never shut up about their devotion to it. So... only holding them to their own high standards. If they catch us being fair, they can ding us for it. Deal?
what the hell is carr talking about youth for, anyway? his office doesn't have jurisdiction over "youths."
Hey, don't be so quick to quote stats!
I will agree that in the US the chronic doesn't appear to be a "gateway drug" but in Germany it clearly is with somewhere in the 70% range admitting to using other drugs (next step on their ladder seems to be Meth) and with over 90% of meth users admitting to starting with pot and graduating to meth.
Now, I've tried mary jane but she really didn't do much for me. The only drug that has worked for me, in fact, is good old alcohol BUT..... most of my friends are hard-core pot heads. At the same time, however, they all do other stuff if its availability arises.
While I am rambling my point is that pot IS a gateway drug at least in some areas. And given that most regular pot users in the US (that I know) also use other drugs I'm not sure we can rule it out as a gateway.
When it all is said and done I do not oppose legalization of marijuana but I do think that most regular users are in denial.
Let's see, bf said I should dumb it down....
If you smoke MJ regularly and want to see it legalized, convince me first that you don't regularly frequent the Sno Cha or the Snobox!
Oh, and by the way, MJ is illegal FEDERALLY! If you want to change that don't put your energy into state legislation, put the same effort into electing FEDERAL officials who will change the law.
One more item... I have a lot of former Straight Edge friends who have gone on to "have their fun" but I don't have a single pot smoker friend who went on to be clean and sober.
It is a drug. That doesn't mean it is bad, but that doesn't mean it is harmless either!
Don't forget that Carr's a lawyer. Lawyers working for a government aren't really allowed to have a personal opinion. Their job is to read the letter of the law and try and follow as best as they can - some look at the intent as well. Tom's in a tough spot here. He's arguing that the law makes his job of enforcement tougher - which is true. He's citing government-supplied statistics because that's who he works for.
Alas, I think he may have done better to send a deputy on this one since he was going to get burned one way or the other. If he hadn't said this law interferes, he'd run upside the Feds - no city attorney who wants to do a good job for his/her city would ever want to be seen as a "bad" guy from the perspective of the Feds.
We clearly need a national "change the drug laws" debate and a new government in Washington.
Perhaps no I-75 supporters showed up due to marijuana-induced short-term memory loss?
I love Dan's insistence that EVERYONE IN THE WORLD (or at least the vast majority) is doing it.
Lots of pot smokers went on to be US Senator, president, doctors, lawyers, business owners, movie producers, city council members, prosecuting attorneys, even federal officials and armed services types.
And many still occasionally toke or snort.
It's total bullshit hypocrisy for all of them to get away with maintaining a system in which thousands of other people, mainly African Americans, rot in jail and see their life destroyed because they had the bad luck to get caught. In other words, they couldn't do blow in a nice big house in Kennebunkport or on a cigarette boat but were doing drugs in the street.
They loxe voting rights (hurting more Democrats, naturally), it's a jobs program for jail guards and cops and courts, it costs $$$$, it destroys neighborhoods with resultant violence.
Until the media makes them all come out, we can't have an honest drug law discussion. We can't have change.
Jesus, Dan, you can't go talk about objectivity or fairness in journalism and then just make an off-the-hand remark about journalists from other publications toking up.
If you're going to do it, please present us with some facts and have some attribution.
Otherwise, you're doing exactly what you're arguing against, and that's disappointing to me.
And also - you're MSM whether you choose to believe so or not.
children's tylenol is a gateway drug, because all other drugs follow it.
and when anyone says "marijuana never did anything for me", i just tune out.
Pot use is a gateway to being a law breaker which makes it easier to break other laws particularly other drug laws. Legalizing pot could very well reduce the use of other drugs.
Absitnence only education works, right? Just say no and don't have sex!
Oh, except for rebellious youth who will do the opposite of what they're told. Save the children! Do your part! Have sex, smoke pot, or even be an uptight republican and let your kids rebel as they will.
Doesn't anyone else know someone who grew up with promiscous or drug using parents whose kids are super straight laced? The most conservative woman I've ever met is named Maryjane.
Hmmm...What about the time Rick Steves was on "Weekday" with Steve Scherr after Hempfest this year, advoctaing legalized marijuana? NPR in general is actually pretty progressive on this subject, Dan. I think you're being a bit overzealous in your criticism.
My guess is KUOW was already planning on doing a follow-up piece.
The Enemies of Slog are on the run everywhere. We are winning the fight against the Enemies of Slog.
Are you feeling like the last one picked for the kickball team, Dan? I think someone has KUOW-envy. Maybe they'll let you on Weekday next Friday instead of Eli so you can slip Steve Scherr the tongue.
@17: there were six members of the Marijuana panel (all of whom support I-75) at the city council meeting yesterday. Also present was the person who wrote the damn initiative. This is why the decision to speak only to Carr seems one-sided.
To those who have been arguing that pot is a gateway drug: Have you ever actually looked at the behavioral survey data? Overwhelmingly people try alcohol before marijuana. And a huge percentage of them try tobacco prior to alcohol. And these days, many kids use prescription drugs stolen from the medicine chest before trying pot. So as someone else noted, pot may be a precursor to other illicit drugs, but it is hardly the gateway drug.
I'm so sick of the "gateway" drug argument. Nearly every person who tries pot tried alcohol and/or nicotine before it. But somehow when alcohol > pot > harder drugs, it is POT that is the gateway. It's so bleedingly selective it boggles the mind.
@15 -
Have you considered my previous point that alcohol or nicotine are the gateway drugs to pot and other drugs?
Or that, since pot is so stigmatized and harshly punished that, once someone tries it and sees it is relatively harmless, they think that the dangers of all the other drugs must be lies too? Or that, hell, I've already broken the law, might as well try the next thing?
Comments Closed
In order to combat spam, we are no longer accepting comments on this post (or any post more than 14 days old).