Comments on Shit's in the PI

I think you're reaching a bit on this one Dan.

I don't think so. I think he's dead on this time and apparently has had a nap.

Well, the PI is a Hearst paper. And wasn't William Randolph Hearst credited with pioneering yellow journalism? They're all a little ditzy down at the PI.

Idiots.

Ex-addicts can't handle responsibility like operating a crane. Best they should get an easy job like raising a child.

(Yeah, raindrop, and the GOP was founded by Abraham Lincoln, and you can so tell.)

Least he doesn't have to smile at the camera between stories, right?

Dan actually explains a lot here.

The thesis makes total sense-- look at the results from the US Govt. administration, when it's run by an ex-substance-abuser.

You know, I'm not such a big fan of the special-interest story. I'm such a damn pessimist that I am constantly thinking "yeah, but you'll go back to your shit-eating, gas-guzzling, non-exercising ways, only maybe in some different, equally destructive way." Lose the meth, gain religion. I dunno.

This is one time I agree with him. The press has a predictable schedule of topics to run around each "holiday," Mother's Day falling into the "let's pull on the heartstrings, folks" category. And it's obvious this reporter thought readers had short memories - or were just plain stupid. We have this to look forward to/ Father's Day: "My courageous dad" / Memorial Day: "feisty old vets" / Fourth of July: "a new citizen's dream" and so on, you know the score by now..

http://slog.thestranger.com/2008/01/volunteer_made_sierra_club_staff_uncomfo

@3 - Exactly.

Hearst is one of the Founding Fathers of the Drug War, so it's not surprising that the media continues the charade today.

Great post. Except this sentence (and similar sentences which you often put in these sorts of posts) are never needed:

"The man had abused drugs—unlike, you know, all the writers and editors at the PI, none of whom has ever so much as touched an illegal substance—so the paper convicted him with a headline and a lead."

We get it. On top of all the other good points you're making, you're trying to say that some/all PI writers and editors are also hypocrites because they've used drugs before. So... where's your proof? Got none? Or none you're willing to share? That's fine. Then leave these baseless accusations out. They take away from your central argument.

Unless, of course, you're willing to provide proof that you really did see Goody Proctor with the devil. :-)

. . . .after a little searching, okay, Iwasaki DID write both of those stories with opposite tones to them.

(Sigh.)

You do have some good points, Dan. And so do 3, 5, 9, 10, and 12.

Doubt this one's getting nominated for any journalism awards. Had to take off my tinfoil bandanna for a second just to try to make the connections, thankfully Zoldar IV my robot explained it all to me.

You'd do well to take #12's comment to heart Dan. This was an excellent post, but you really took it down a notch or two with that little dig at the PI writers and editors.

Have many of them probably used a drug in the past? Sure. But you don't know that. You can't prove that. You backed up all your other assertions quite well, but you can't back that one up (and if you CAN, then DO IT).

Guess what? I'm a journalist. I write stories for a mainstream daily newspaper. I'm almost 35 years old. And I've never used drugs, or even TOUCHED an illegal substance that I know of. Heck, I've never had a drink of alcohol.

If you commented on one of my stories and wrote that shit about me, YOU'D BE WRONG.

It's a bad habit you're in, Dan, taking shots at people like that. It distracts from the good points you make.

I've done drugs with people that work at the PI.

Thank you for playing Slog.

Theirs. Shitty. Am I talking out of my ass?

I am so glad that we still have self serving bigots in the world....it only goes to show that to some people there is no such thing as hope,forgiveness and a new start.....I know this lady and she has worked hard to get where she is now and I hope that she and her daughter are giving the chance at the new life she has worked so hard to reclaim....I hope this person never makes a mistske and has to live in the world he wants for others

he should sue for libel. if the accident was no fault of his own, then bringing up his drug history is clearly misleading and defamatory.

Well, Dan's done drugs, and some PI people have done drugs; I guess that means everyone has. Or all the cool people, anyway.

The stigma lives one, people who do drugs are bad and are more judged for the mistakes or bad choices they make. It's sad that in todays day and age people still are hung up on the stigma and drug addicts. Having worked with them for the last 14 years, there are some who make it, get their kids back, their lives back and never use again. But there are still people out there who are afraid to give them a break. I say to them -- "Must be nice to have never made a bad choice in your life!"

"I've done drugs with people that work at the PI."

Again, it's a useless accusation to all of us. You provide no proof, no names, etc. Hell, here you just say "people that work at the PI." Not "writers and editors," as you point out in your original post. Even though PI employees include more than just writers and editors. So, it's just this baseless accusation, and again detracts from all those excellent points you made.

And I don't think you should actually provide proof, or name names. Unless it's the man who wrote the article, this'd just explode in a witch hunt where it's your word ("I saw Goody Proctor with the devil!") against theirs ("Did not!"). I'd like to think you're better than that, especially as far as drug policy is concerned. It's too important an argument to lose your audience with unnecessary distractions.

Good post, Dan Savage.

Writers and editors, James. And I can't name 'em because they would be victimized by the very drug-war-witch-huntery that the PI's writes and editors cheerlead for on its pages with such depressing regularity.

Exactly my point, Mr. Savage. You can't out them; it'd be cruel. So, next time, don't even bring it up unless you're willing to go all the way with this.

You're missing the point, Dan. We understand (now) that you know that writers and editors at the PI do drugs.

And you want to point out the hypocrisy of those writers and editors.

But you can't name those writers and editors. You can't tell us who the hypocrites are.

So don't bother. It just distracts from your otherwise good points.

It's a chippy foul, as the sports commentators would say, whereas the rest of your post is a good, hard foul.

I'm surprised, but I'm agreeing with James is right @26.

Will in Seattle @27: why so surprised?

i thought it was the footing of the crane that collapsed, not operator error.

if i may acknowledge the obvious, drug-addict mom was horribly, horribly morbidly obese. i couldn't feel good about her feel-good story.

max, you can't feel good about hurdles she overcame because she still has other hurdles to overcome? huh? she might never slim down much, but that doesn't get in the way of her mothering her child the way drug addiction and being in jail does. and maybe she will slim down at some point. what's your logic?

Max is just being an asshole, ellarosa.

I've done drugs and had sex with someone at the NY Times. And no, it wasn't pot.

this is SLOG. i left my logic at the door.

i hope she stays off the crack. i really do.

meth, max.

@32 Braggart.

And I was only 20.

It's really all about dueling insurance companies.

Youth Pastor Watch exists because journalists reveal that detail in their reporting. A large portion of YPW posts are about events occurring outside of a youth group setting (such as Karate Class, for example). To complain about anti-drug sensationalism is to ignore your own anti-youth pastor sensationalism.

This is ironic, as the point of your piece is, "Oh, look how hypocritical they are in their presentation of former drug-abusers." You frequently post about a "former youth pastor" caught abusing a child intimating that (paraphrasing) if children were molested at Denny's as often as at church, we would shut them all down. What can we infer from what John wrote?

He "has a long criminal record, including at least six drug convictions." And the crane he was operating collapsed. And he had a history of drug abuse. Are those connected to the collapse? Maybe that's implied, but it's also reasonable to include that information anytime someone of note dies. He happened to have died and more than six drug convictions seems like relevant background.

My rambling discursive point is that you rely on that random background to put blatantly put forth your suppositions about youth pastors. Don't critique others when they DON'T make that connection yet you COULD make that connection.

Why not be honest about people when they die? If he'd had a history of drug convictions, should they pretend he didn't?

In the words of Death Cab:
You're a disgrace to the concept of family
The priest won't divulge that fact in his homily
And I'll stand up and scream if the mourning remain quiet
You can deck out a lie in a suit but I won't buy it.
I won't join in the procession that's speaking their piece
Using five dollar words while praising his integrity
And just 'cause he's gone it doesn't change the fact
He was a bastard in life thus a bastard in death.