Slog - Comments on Good Shit's In the P-I, Too

Comment by Paul Constant

Paul Constant — Thu, 27 Mar 2008 09:52:00 -0800

Eli, I'm really glad you pointed this out; it is, in fact, fantastic. However, I'd also like to mention that you really shouldn't bother to read the comments. It continually amazes me how everything can be wrongly boiled down to a liberal/conservative fight in ten comments or less.

Comment by Mr. Poe

Mr. Poe — Thu, 27 Mar 2008 09:59:00 -0800

Oh, Paul.

Comment by left coast

left coast — Thu, 27 Mar 2008 10:08:33 -0800

"This is the proper direction in which to focus one�s fear; channeled this way fear can be transformed into productive action."

I could not agree more. I think that is the media's purpose, and really the difference between exploitation and reporting.

Paul, nice counterpoint - we're supposed to complain about the state of reporting but ignore the underlying causes? This isn't going on in a vacuum. There is a political agenda at work in fear mongering. It's obviously cheaper to do on the sight / no background reporting, but the corporations that own the news are really tightening the purse strings in order to control and water down the news. This country has really turned into a pineapple democracy.

Comment by infrequent

infrequent — Thu, 27 Mar 2008 10:12:34 -0800

i didn't even thing of reading the comments section until paul pointed it out...

that said, if you are thinking about reading them too, consider this: i found them to be more boring then combative.

to not read them isn't taking the high road; to not read them is to waste your time.

Comment by Explorer

Explorer — Thu, 27 Mar 2008 10:17:54 -0800

I feel like the P-I's bad rep is somewhat unfair. Their investigations on Mic Dinsmore and shady Port dealings were big news to me, and it took other local media outlets a long time to even attempt catching up. They also do a lot of good reporting on environmental issues.

Comment by amanda

amanda — Thu, 27 Mar 2008 10:20:25 -0800

a fantastic article, sure. but i will say that when i saw the cover on the break room table yesterday, i was immediately riled. "DANGEROUS AND MENTALLY ILL." christ. seeing as most people skim headlines and fail to actually read content, such a combative catch phrase is actually the dangerous component as it does nothing to help fight the stigma so prevalent in our culture when it comes to mental illness. i'm more convinced now than ever that the PI has indeed become the salacious and less thoughtful daily i've feared it was.

Comment by Andrew

Andrew — Thu, 27 Mar 2008 10:22:41 -0800

Impressive reporting by the PI; too bad we will all forget about it by Saturday afternoon.

Comment by fluteprof

fluteprof — Thu, 27 Mar 2008 10:23:05 -0800

Thanks Eli! I don't usually read the PI unless so ordered, so I appreciate it. Oh, and I promise I won't tell Paul you used the word "gritty" to describe a piece of writing. He'll totally have a hissy!

Comment by keshmeshi

keshmeshi — Thu, 27 Mar 2008 10:31:57 -0800

@6,

Oh brother.

Comment by Gomez

Gomez — Thu, 27 Mar 2008 10:34:26 -0800

So, great, we've firmly established there's a problem. Can somebody provide a solution to the problem of 'crazy people who can/will kill other people are on the streets'?

I think, at some point, it's going to take some sort of moral, fiscal and constitutional compromise to solve the problem, if we don't want the mentally ill continuing to do their part to control the size of the human population.

Comment by poppy

poppy — Thu, 27 Mar 2008 10:35:32 -0800

I agree with amanda #6. We need better sentencing of violent criminals and better treatment for the mentally ill, but these two things usually aren't related. Mentally ill people are still no more likely to be violent than people who aren't mentally ill. Unlike, say, white men or pit bull owners who are more likely to be violent.

Comment by w7ngman

w7ngman — Thu, 27 Mar 2008 10:51:44 -0800

Why isn't this article in the RSS feed? I've noticed this happen before, too.

Comment by Li'l Chico

Li'l Chico — Thu, 27 Mar 2008 11:42:24 -0800

More tabloid-y, less thoughtful?

Don't worry, douchebag, The Stranger's cornered the market on less thoughtful.

Comment by Trevor

Trevor — Thu, 27 Mar 2008 11:45:11 -0800

Eli you choose which media to read based on its reputation?

Comment by lauren

lauren — Thu, 27 Mar 2008 15:37:18 -0800

@10 Umm...How about enough funding for community mental health organizations? Is that a good start?

Comment by keshmeshi

keshmeshi — Thu, 27 Mar 2008 15:53:02 -0800

@15,

Sure, good luck getting the James Williamses of the world to take their medication.

Comment by Gomez

Gomez — Thu, 27 Mar 2008 16:53:59 -0800

15. That belies the fact that medication itself often creates a whole slew of other problems with their side effects, let alone the costs and the fact you practically have to get addicted to them to prevent a psychological relapse. For example, read up on Thorazine, the subject drug in the linked piece above, and about what it does to you when you take it. I'm not sure whether being on it is a worse experience than not being on it. I really can't blame Williams for refusing the drug.

Also, one common fallacy is to consider ongoing medication of a problem a solution, rather than what it is: a treatment of symptoms.

Comment by keshmeshi

keshmeshi — Thu, 27 Mar 2008 20:05:55 -0800

@17,

Well, we unfortunately don't have a way to cure mental illness. So, we either medicate the dangerously mentally ill or institutionalize them. I'd prefer the latter, but we apparently have neither the funding nor the authority to do so.