No, it's pretty accurate. Someone whose job it is to cover the drug war should be doing a better job examining the well known failure of these operations to effect the overall supply of drugs. Every single article about things like this should be very clear that they are an extreme waste of our taxpayer money.
"Hack" is a good title. Carter regurgitated the police's talking points almost word for word, without question. He did little or no research, other than attempting to contact a mortgage company, and offered no other viewpoints or data aside from the info handed to him at the press conference.
He should be a secretary or stenographer, not a reporter.
Posted by
Reverse Polarity |
April 24, 2008 10:03 AM
I'm not sure I follow. Since when is it a journalist's job to be an advocate for the legalization of drugs?
It's not. But one does not need to be an outright advocate for drug legalization to recognize that despite 30 years of trying to arrest people in order to eliminate the supply of marijuana that it has never worked. It is an obvious and clear fact that putting public funds towards trying to eliminate the supply of marijuana has been an abject failure and a huge waste of taxpayer money.
OK, but seriously, if you are selling the supplies to grow marijuana maybe it isn't the best idea in the world to ADVERTISE it using, oh um I don't know a marijuana leaf.
I'm not getting the feeling from anything I've read about this that it was a matter of taking down a few people growing stuff in their basement. I think it was about taking out a large, well organized operation.
While I support the legalization of drugs because I think a lot of crime would be reduced, and while I do think that police raids can go horribly wrong, I'm not really that outraged that the police worked hard to connect all of this together and arrest these people. Because right or wrong drugs are still are illegal.
OTOH God bless a free economy, from the mortgage broker who helped them get houses, to the garden supply center who sold the supplies, to the growers, and finally the customers.
I don't understand your point. It seems like you're ok with your taxpayer money being wasted as long as there's an appearance that what was done was somewhat efficient and that the criminals that were arrested were both organized and dumb.
Again, it's not a jouranlist's job to advocate. That's what editorial writers do.
We're not asking them to advocate. We're asking them to provide both sides and to weigh the evidence. One side says that spending taxes on this is effective. That's the only side that is ever seen in these articles. The other side says that spending taxes on this is ineffective. The evidence is overwhelmingly in support of the latter side. Yet it is consistently absent from articles like this.
But it is a journalist's job to get *both* sides of the story. Isn't that the superpower that objective journalists at daily papers are always autofelating themselves about? There are two sides to this story—there are folks out there who will go on the record about how futile all these grow-op busts are (some are ex-cops, some are ex-GOP governors). Like Dominic said, if the story was about taxing plastic bags the Times and PI would've made sure to get an opposing view. But pot? A relatively benign drug that scores of people at the Times/PI use/have used?
The cops can't fart in this town without their motives and their effectiveness being picked apart by the Times/PI—except when it comes to pot. Then it's all drug-war glorification, all DEA press releases, all the time.
And that's bullshit. We're not saying that the Times/PI shouldn't report on this, or that a story about a pot bust should be a pro-legalization screed. But it shouldn't be without any of that magic objectivity and balance we're constantly hearing so much about.
That's why Carter and/or his editors is/are credulous hack/hacks—pardon me, stupid fucking credulous hack/hacks.
These shops were selling "marijuana growing supplies". Marijuana is a plant; these "supplies" are things like compost, fertilizer, watering rigs, lights, and so on. How are these things illegal?
Fnarf,
The Feds have been very active in expanding the definition of what constitutes drug paraphernalia, to the point where even things like soil and lights are within that category.
Uh, This is a story about the recent busts, not about the success or failure of the war on drugs. It is not an advocacy piece or an investigative piece that attempts to analyze data. You seem fairly intelligent Dan. How do you continue to not see the difference between those two kinds of articles?
Posted by
Just the facts |
April 24, 2008 10:57 AM
By refusing to question the premise of these drug raids—in story after story after story—these pieces in the Times and PI are default advocacy pieces, JTF. Again, like Dom said, if we were talking plastic fucking bags, the Times and PI would be all over both sides of that boiling issues—even if they had to invent one of the sides. But these never ending pot busts that eat up public resources and put no crimp whatsoever in the supply of pot don't get the same treatment.
Go back and read this comments thread, JTF, and stop being so willfully obtuse.
@16 Uh, This is a story about the recent busts, not about the success or failure of the war on drugs.
Every story about drug busts is inherently part of the success or failure of the war on drugs because public money is being used. Dan's point is important because public decisions like this are only scrutinized in certain cases, but never when we're dealing with the drug war.
It is not an advocacy piece or an investigative piece that attempts to analyze data. You seem fairly intelligent Dan. How do you continue to not see the difference between those two kinds of articles?
I don't see the problem with a reporter asking the following questions: Will this drug bust result in any real reduction in the supply of marijuana in this area? And this question should be asked of both police and also drug policy experts in order to provide the public with a balanced view of what's happening. That's not advocacy. That's journalism.
And this is what the decades of the Republican dumbing-down of the populace has come to:
People who adamantly insist that journalism is not about reporting the facts.
People who believe that stories about the use of taxpayer dollars should not include any analysis of how those taxpayer dollars were used.
People who have spent their entire lives unaware that journalists once investigated instead of taking dictation and that they once told the truth instead of presenting only the official side or, maybe worse, "both" sides without saying which one is lying.
And people who aren't even aware that they've been successfully neutered as a threat to corporate rule by a plan that was hatched probably before they were even born.
Posted by
whatevernevermind |
April 24, 2008 11:17 AM
The real story here is the wasted time, the wasted effort, and the police welfare that taxpayers are enduring. The reporter simply missed the big story and focussed on something that doesn't really matter.
It's like reporting "FEMA Rescuers Brave Blustery Winds and Dampness" in the aftermath of Katrina.
TheHim, we can expect your freelance piece asking all these important questions in the coming uissue of the Stranger, when?
I've been blogging about this stuff for no money in my spare time for the past 4 years because I've begun to realize how important it is for this country to get over its irrational fear of drugs.
Do you have a point, or are you just someone who tries to be as big a buffoon on the internet as possible?
Credulous hack? That's a little mean, Dan.
Um, because he did his job? Did what he is paid to do? I don't follow.
No, it's pretty accurate. Someone whose job it is to cover the drug war should be doing a better job examining the well known failure of these operations to effect the overall supply of drugs. Every single article about things like this should be very clear that they are an extreme waste of our taxpayer money.
Because, you know, the moral fiber of our civilization would collapse ie we, God forbid, allowed people to grow weeds in their basement.
That's much better, Dan. I love you.
I'm not sure I follow. Since when is it a journalist's job to be an advocate for the legalization of drugs?
"Hack" is a good title. Carter regurgitated the police's talking points almost word for word, without question. He did little or no research, other than attempting to contact a mortgage company, and offered no other viewpoints or data aside from the info handed to him at the press conference.
He should be a secretary or stenographer, not a reporter.
I'm not sure I follow. Since when is it a journalist's job to be an advocate for the legalization of drugs?
It's not. But one does not need to be an outright advocate for drug legalization to recognize that despite 30 years of trying to arrest people in order to eliminate the supply of marijuana that it has never worked. It is an obvious and clear fact that putting public funds towards trying to eliminate the supply of marijuana has been an abject failure and a huge waste of taxpayer money.
OK, but seriously, if you are selling the supplies to grow marijuana maybe it isn't the best idea in the world to ADVERTISE it using, oh um I don't know a marijuana leaf.
I'm not getting the feeling from anything I've read about this that it was a matter of taking down a few people growing stuff in their basement. I think it was about taking out a large, well organized operation.
While I support the legalization of drugs because I think a lot of crime would be reduced, and while I do think that police raids can go horribly wrong, I'm not really that outraged that the police worked hard to connect all of this together and arrest these people. Because right or wrong drugs are still are illegal.
OTOH God bless a free economy, from the mortgage broker who helped them get houses, to the garden supply center who sold the supplies, to the growers, and finally the customers.
Again, it's not a jouranlist's job to advocate. That's what editorial writers do.
Sorry.
I don't understand your point. It seems like you're ok with your taxpayer money being wasted as long as there's an appearance that what was done was somewhat efficient and that the criminals that were arrested were both organized and dumb.
Again, it's not a jouranlist's job to advocate. That's what editorial writers do.
We're not asking them to advocate. We're asking them to provide both sides and to weigh the evidence. One side says that spending taxes on this is effective. That's the only side that is ever seen in these articles. The other side says that spending taxes on this is ineffective. The evidence is overwhelmingly in support of the latter side. Yet it is consistently absent from articles like this.
But it is a journalist's job to get *both* sides of the story. Isn't that the superpower that objective journalists at daily papers are always autofelating themselves about? There are two sides to this story—there are folks out there who will go on the record about how futile all these grow-op busts are (some are ex-cops, some are ex-GOP governors). Like Dominic said, if the story was about taxing plastic bags the Times and PI would've made sure to get an opposing view. But pot? A relatively benign drug that scores of people at the Times/PI use/have used?
The cops can't fart in this town without their motives and their effectiveness being picked apart by the Times/PI—except when it comes to pot. Then it's all drug-war glorification, all DEA press releases, all the time.
And that's bullshit. We're not saying that the Times/PI shouldn't report on this, or that a story about a pot bust should be a pro-legalization screed. But it shouldn't be without any of that magic objectivity and balance we're constantly hearing so much about.
That's why Carter and/or his editors is/are credulous hack/hacks—pardon me, stupid fucking credulous hack/hacks.
These shops were selling "marijuana growing supplies". Marijuana is a plant; these "supplies" are things like compost, fertilizer, watering rigs, lights, and so on. How are these things illegal?
Fnarf,
The Feds have been very active in expanding the definition of what constitutes drug paraphernalia, to the point where even things like soil and lights are within that category.
Uh, This is a story about the recent busts, not about the success or failure of the war on drugs. It is not an advocacy piece or an investigative piece that attempts to analyze data. You seem fairly intelligent Dan. How do you continue to not see the difference between those two kinds of articles?
By refusing to question the premise of these drug raids—in story after story after story—these pieces in the Times and PI are default advocacy pieces, JTF. Again, like Dom said, if we were talking plastic fucking bags, the Times and PI would be all over both sides of that boiling issues—even if they had to invent one of the sides. But these never ending pot busts that eat up public resources and put no crimp whatsoever in the supply of pot don't get the same treatment.
Go back and read this comments thread, JTF, and stop being so willfully obtuse.
@16
Uh, This is a story about the recent busts, not about the success or failure of the war on drugs.
Every story about drug busts is inherently part of the success or failure of the war on drugs because public money is being used. Dan's point is important because public decisions like this are only scrutinized in certain cases, but never when we're dealing with the drug war.
It is not an advocacy piece or an investigative piece that attempts to analyze data. You seem fairly intelligent Dan. How do you continue to not see the difference between those two kinds of articles?
I don't see the problem with a reporter asking the following questions: Will this drug bust result in any real reduction in the supply of marijuana in this area? And this question should be asked of both police and also drug policy experts in order to provide the public with a balanced view of what's happening. That's not advocacy. That's journalism.
TheHim, we can expect your freelance piece asking all these important questions in the coming uissue of the Stranger, when?
And this is what the decades of the Republican dumbing-down of the populace has come to:
People who adamantly insist that journalism is not about reporting the facts.
People who believe that stories about the use of taxpayer dollars should not include any analysis of how those taxpayer dollars were used.
People who have spent their entire lives unaware that journalists once investigated instead of taking dictation and that they once told the truth instead of presenting only the official side or, maybe worse, "both" sides without saying which one is lying.
And people who aren't even aware that they've been successfully neutered as a threat to corporate rule by a plan that was hatched probably before they were even born.
The real story here is the wasted time, the wasted effort, and the police welfare that taxpayers are enduring. The reporter simply missed the big story and focussed on something that doesn't really matter.
It's like reporting "FEMA Rescuers Brave Blustery Winds and Dampness" in the aftermath of Katrina.
TheHim, we can expect your freelance piece asking all these important questions in the coming uissue of the Stranger, when?
I've been blogging about this stuff for no money in my spare time for the past 4 years because I've begun to realize how important it is for this country to get over its irrational fear of drugs.
Do you have a point, or are you just someone who tries to be as big a buffoon on the internet as possible?
@6 Since when is it a journalist's job to be an advocate for the criminalization of drugs?
Isn't Hearst a Times competitor? Why do their dirty work for them?
http://qu.to/42r
(link to Google search results for "Hearst marijuana)
Did we not vote to deprioritize this shit? I don't get what that even means, if a vote like that is followed by an enormous crackdown.
@24
1. It was outside the city of Seattle
2. It involved far more than personal possession
But yes, it was enormously stupid and wasteful.
Comments Closed
In order to combat spam, we are no longer accepting comments on this post (or any post more than 14 days old).