Slog News & Arts

Line Out

Music & Nightlife

« Typo Fixers on Probation | Georgia on My Mind »

Friday, August 22, 2008

Behold the Power of “Stupid Fucking Credulous Hack of the Day!”

posted by on August 22 at 16:04 PM

This piece got the PI’s Vanessa Ho tagged “Stupid Fucking Credulous Hack of the Day” last Saturday. And now when you Google “Vanessa Ho”…


Lordy! “Stupid Fucking Credulous Hack” is the top hit for the PI’s Vanessa Ho. Her appearance in SFCH ranks higher on Google than her own archives! (I’m not sure who that other Vanessa Ho is, the one whose photo sites come in first and third on the search.)

Journalists! Don’t let this happen to you! Staying out of “Stupid Fucking Credulous Hack of the Day” is easy! Just make sure your next piece about a grow-op bust includes a quote from someone other than a DEA agent, a federal prosecutor, or a local law enforcement official. Bury at least one brief quote from a critic of the war on pot, someone who can comment on the efficacy of drug interdiction efforts—rarely is the question asked, is our grow-op busts working?—and you won’t be named “Stupid Fucking Credulous Hack of the Day” on Slog! It’s that easy!

RSS icon Comments


Behold the power of self importance in a large world!

Posted by Bellevue Ave | August 22, 2008 4:09 PM

You know, in South America, most people have never heard of the Stranger.

Posted by Will in Seattle | August 22, 2008 4:16 PM

Also, make sure your editor doesn't edit out the opposing views you choose to include.

Posted by flamingbanjo | August 22, 2008 4:16 PM

10,600 hits for the exact phrase, "Stupid fucking credulous hack." Impressive.

Posted by Cornichon | August 22, 2008 4:28 PM

why didn't my google yield the same results?

Posted by Bellevue Ave | August 22, 2008 4:29 PM

So basically you're trying to coerce other journalists to adopt your viewpoint by threatening to associate their person with undesirable attributes to their field of work?

I can't decide whether you're a bully or a child.

Posted by Bellevue Ave | August 22, 2008 4:33 PM

Wow, it's like you're somehow important. Listen up, douchebag: If people want advice about cuckholding, they'll come to you. But foreign policy, politics, not so much. The fact that Dan Savage is posting something about someone else being a hack is so ironically sweet and sad at the same time. You-are-a-joke-who-puts-out-a-shitstink-of-a-"paper".

Posted by wow | August 22, 2008 4:36 PM

Fucking Awesome. I love it.

Posted by drew | August 22, 2008 4:37 PM

Wow, you belittled someone on the Internet and said "fuck" a whole lot. Impressive!

Posted by rb | August 22, 2008 4:40 PM

yeah drew, coercing people to adopt your viewpoint like this is "awesome".

Posted by Bellevue Ave | August 22, 2008 4:41 PM

My blogger profile is #1 for me, but a Slog post is #2 if you google Michael Strangeways...


Posted by michael strangeways | August 22, 2008 4:43 PM

Well, still, no one reads your newsletter, your staff is a bunch of whatnots, and you are a big dummy.

Posted by Very Miffed Non-Slog Reader | August 22, 2008 4:44 PM

I am a bad, bad man. Please don't read my blog.

Posted by Dan Savage | August 22, 2008 4:52 PM

How is he coercing anybody to do anything, let alone adopt his point of view? He's merely asking reporters to give even the briefest mention of the other side in a controversial issue instead of just parroting the DEA version. Sounds pretty fair to me.

Posted by Fnarf | August 22, 2008 4:56 PM

I'm not saying you're a bad man. I'm just saying that you're an idiot, and that you don't add anything to the dialogue. And that you are not nearly as important and/or insightful as you think you are. In short, get over yourself. Obviously, being the editor of a mastarbatory ***FREE*** weekly doesn't require a lot of skills.

Posted by wow | August 22, 2008 5:00 PM

Well, it is a fact that the city council is about to vote on a pit bull ban, thanks to dozens of robo-posts on this blog. No doubt the pot thing will work equally well.

Posted by elenchos | August 22, 2008 5:00 PM

The Cowardly Lion was a bully, too, Savage. Now go goose-step around your desk singing, "If I were king of the forRRRrrrRRRest!"

What a fuckwit.

Posted by My blog, mine, mine, mine! | August 22, 2008 5:02 PM

Why would anyone besides Vanessa Ho want to Google Vanessa Ho...?

Posted by um | August 22, 2008 5:10 PM


Pornstars. It's a great porn name, and you'd want to Google it before you used it.

Posted by elenchos | August 22, 2008 5:13 PM

Stupid Fucking Credulous Hack of the Day is immature Dan, and you know it. Resorting to profane name calling only makes you, and The Stranger, look childish.

There is a way to call out your peers without coming off like such a baby. Look into it.

Posted by kerri harrop | August 22, 2008 5:32 PM

fnarf, are you ignorant on what coercion is, or are you just denying it cause it suits you?

"Coercion is the practice of compelling a person or manipulating them to behave in an involuntary way (whether through action or inaction) by use of threats, intimidation or some other form of pressure or force."

Posted by Bellevue Ave | August 22, 2008 5:33 PM

Woot! I love you, Dan.

Posted by Mr. Poe | August 22, 2008 5:37 PM

Name and shame.

Posted by Tiny Dancer | August 22, 2008 5:44 PM

You have become the Rush Limbaugh of the left, nothing but a bully and a hatemonger. Sad to see how low you have gone and how much you have let your earlier successes swell your head.

Posted by mr. frank | August 22, 2008 5:58 PM

I am a bad, bad man. Please don't read my blog.

Posted by Dan Savage | August 22, 2008 6:03 PM

Calling bullshit can be upsetting.

Posted by Pleather Blanket | August 22, 2008 6:05 PM

As usual, Kerri Harrop comes correct.

Lighten up Dan. Smoke a bowl if you have to.

Posted by Jeff | August 22, 2008 6:21 PM

No, wait: I meant to say...

The war on drugs, particularly the war on marijuana—which is less harmful, and does less damage, than booze and cigarettes (non-addictive! no fatal dose!)—roars along with an invaluable assist from the kind of one-sided "reporting" we're treated to by teevee news reporters, radio reporters, and daily paper reporters every fucking time the DEA or local law enforcement finds some pot growing in a basement or a park or a vineyard.

People are in jail, their lives ruined, on pot charges and pot convictions. For cultivation, for possession. People are losing their property and their liberty. Students can't get loans because they got busted for pot once in high school. But, hey, let's feel sorry for these reporters that help make all this possible because I made fun of them, used a little profanity, and tore into them for functioning not as a check on police power, but as the DEA's willing propagandists.

Prohibition doesn't work and everyone knows it—the cops know it, the DEA knows it, prosecutors know it, and these reporters know it. These grow-op busts have NO impact on supply or prices. But the SFCH are only too happy to check their vaulted journalistic ethics whenever the DEA comes knocking. Because it's a "law-enforcement story."

We're not asking for legalization screeds. Or long, breezy pieces about the failure of prohibition. Just the balance and objectivity that the daily papers pay themselves such flowery compliments about providing us. One quote in today's 1300 word piece in the Seattle Times from someone gently pointing out that you can go on pulling pot plants out of the ground for the next hundred years and people will still be buying and smoking pot.

Sorry, but being made fun of by some fag with a blog is the steep price these douchebags will have to pay so long as they keep serving up these one-sided DEA rimjobs. It's less of a price than the 800,000 Americans busted every year for pot will have to pay. If they want to go cry to someone, cry to this guy.

Posted by Dan Savage | August 22, 2008 6:27 PM

Daaaan, ur being immaatuuurre.

Posted by kerri harrop is a bitch | August 22, 2008 6:29 PM

Kerri @ 20) We've called out our peers politely for years. Sure, it would be polite to continue talking about the double standards without mentioning who is writing the stories and it would be polite to nicely suggest that the profession of journalism should stick to its own "get both sides of the argument and expose the underlying problem" values.

But we're sick of being fucking polite.

The drug war is gaining ground. If any other war were to continue ramping up with no end in sight--more money, more infrastructure, more soldiers, more deaths--the media would turn around and bite the government in the ass. But Americans are complacent to the drug war because they don't know what's going on. Why not? Because the reporters they trust to report other stories fairly--the reporters that they assume are reporting the drug war fairly--are delivering a line of unfiltered propaganda from the federal misgovernment. Does propaganda sound too strong a word? This shit you see from Vanessa Ho, Gary Chittim, Mike Carter about stronger, more dangerous pot, record busts, and the Mexican and Vietnamese marijuana menace... it's a press release from the ONDCP that has endured only a gentle cycle through the synonym wash.

Readers won't know from those pieces that the budget has exploded by billions, jails are filling up with the people caught in these raids, a quarter-million people are busted for pot each each year, sick and dying people are denied transplants because the DEA is leaning on doctors to take their licenses if they support medical marijuana, or that countless more are wasting away on chemo because they are too afraid of getting busted for pot, mothers and children are languishing in poverty without the family breadwinner who got busted, cops are are too busy busting pot growers to bust thieves and armed robbers, and every week some innocent person is shot dead in his home during a botched drug raid. The stakes couldn't be higher, Kerri Harrop, and you're worried about being polite? If the profession is aloof and the institution is deaf, then we need to call out the reporters who are on the front lines of the drug war. Polite has been getting us nowhere.

Posted by Dominic Holden | August 22, 2008 6:32 PM

The same could be argued about Spokane. Or not.

Posted by Lens1 | August 22, 2008 7:01 PM

You're right as far as it goes. My problem with this is that by being childish and unprofessional, you've given these reporters an easy excuse to ignore you, marginalize The Stranger and hang up on Dominic when he calls up and asks for their response. I wanted to hear what they had to say for themselves, but that won't happen now.

Posted by elenchos | August 22, 2008 7:18 PM

Dominic @30, I sure appreciate and respect your passion, and I agree with where you stand with regard to the drug war. I have neither the time, nor the inclination, to address everything you bring up, but please know that I am on your side.

And, please note that I didn't say anything about being polite. I, like a lot of other folks in this comment thread, simply stated what seems to be a pretty common opinion: name calling does not help your cause. It hurts it.

Hempfest turns folks off with its pot leaf imagery and stoner vibe. Gay Pride bums people out with its corny rainbow schtick. The Stranger alienates readers and media peers alike with its name calling and my way or the highway attitude.

You do you, man. I'm just offering what seems to be a pretty legitimate opinion. Your paper is about entertainment first, and news second, so maybe it doesn't really matter. I just think that, for serious news topics you believe in, perhaps a little professionalism is in order.

And, yo, @29: thanks for spelling my name right. It made me laugh, and I'm sure it will be even funnier after I get high.

Posted by kerri harrop | August 22, 2008 7:19 PM

Have you guys read Kerri Harrop's blog? It's crazy scary, but entertaining in a "I was a punk before you" kind of way. Sad, sad, sad...

Posted by Tiki | August 22, 2008 7:21 PM

Dominic, what do you propose we do about coke, crack, heroin, oxy and methadone, crystal meth, ecstasy, GHB, LSD, PCP? Legalize all of it for personal use?

Personally I would love E and G to be legalized. But I'm not sure if that's actually a good idea, or just because I want to get high on quality goods with no threat of arrest (and also not have to put up with sketchy dealers too high on their own supply).

Posted by rb | August 22, 2008 7:41 PM

So your answer is to try and coerce other reporters into doing a job that should presumably be able to do?

Why can't The Stranger push this message without tearing down the peons in other media companies? You don't think that an article that had a less pro-DEA and anti-drug war slant would be sent back from the news directors and editors who have specific reporting agendas in mind when they assign stories?

Why doesn't The Stranger have the credibility or the clout to be taken seriously in this message? Is it because you have a long standing credibility problem which something like this contributes to.

Dominic, if you're sick and tired of major media not covering this drug war in the way you like maybe you need to get into a position in major media and drop the alt weekly that you work for. Seriously, you've been "polite" for years writing for The Stranger, then maybe the problem isn't the tone but where you're delivering the message from. Why doesn't the general voting public listen to your reasoned position?

Speaking of which, why haven't you pursued a stronger place to work for than The Stranger ,Dom?

I don't get how you think this childish antic is going to influence the major media to report more skeptically on the drug war if you're openly antagonizing them. How seriously are you to consider the position of someone who insults you like this? How much control do you think the individual reporter has over the content and tone of their story?

As for Dan,

Yeah, lives are ruined, people are in jail, and we're spending billions, but how is name calling towards Vanessa Ho, especially to everyone pretty much agrees with your position effective in the public discourse on this issue? You really think Vanessa Ho gives a fuck what Dan Savage thinks about her article? The reason I think this is something that should be discouraged is because it will only push people who agree with you away from your influence, and wont net you any influence over people you haven't reached yet because they disapprove of this kind of bullying tactic.

I also don't know how you formed the idea that Vanessa Ho's article will change people's opinion of how the DEA and Federal Government pursue enforcing the laws. I don't even get the rationale behind this kind of tactic;

Supposedly the local media has the ability to form and shape opinions of the voters on this issue. And you have enough sway over reporters at another paper to shape how they report things. Yet you don't have enough power to reach the voters in the same way. And you're doing this all to a cheering crowd of people who agree with you and already vote the way you do.

I realize that you think that pro legalization dialog might be too ambitious but by the same token attacking reporters employed by the dailies for doing a job you could be doing is totally unambitious. Why aren't you putting The Stranger in a position to be the paper that does serious news reports? Why aren't you making The Stranger a strong and reasoned voice in the region for politics.

And how can you complain about the way that news is reported in the major media when you look at the actual news that is reported. So much of major news is complete fluff. And I don't see The Stranger picking up the slack in the serious news business. In fact from what I can tell from Slog and your news section most of your reporters, besides Dom, actively avoid hard news and when some of them dabble in it, they throw their B.S political slant into it.

And reporters are a dime a dozen, so if Vanessa Ho goes on her merry way to other things, she will just be replaced with another person who doesn't report to your liking. When will you decide that this tactic is ineffective? How well have your other repetitive schemes worked.

Every child needs a mother and father has moved gay parenthood how far since it started?
Youth Pastor Watch has stopped how many molestations or dropped church attendance by how much?
He must of provoked the dog somehow has resulted in how many less attacks by pitbulls?

Dan, to put it bluntly, repeating an ineffective message over and over again and to believe that your actions will be vindicated by some greater action by other people is pure conceit on your part. It's like attributing the weather patterns to the news weather report.

In the instance of the drug war, the DEA isn't more aggressive because of one sided reporting, it's because the administration is pushing the drug war in the face of losing their grip at the state level.

Overall, your heart is in the right place but your method is childish, immature, and ineffective in driving the change you seek. It also alienates people who enjoy reading The Stranger from taking your political POV seriously because of the manner in which you pursue to promote them and spread them.

Posted by Bellevue Ave | August 22, 2008 9:03 PM

Savage just writes himself. This is perfect.

I'm guessing an intervention is coming soon.

Posted by Bob | August 22, 2008 9:24 PM

@35: Not sure what Dom's answer to your question is, but, yeah, legalize them all.

The majority of harm caused by the substances you list is associated with their legal status.

If you legalize these substances you may see an increase in the number of individuals who use the substance (although the evidence on this is not clear), but you will see a dramatic decline in the amount of harm caused per dose.

Posted by gnossos | August 22, 2008 9:34 PM
The majority of harm caused by the substances you list is associated with their legal status

What's interesting is that I think the drug war is total bullshit. I think it penalizes the wrong people and gives rise to criminal structures that control the drug trade. However, there are drugs that are just bad news. I have yet to meet anyone who can use coke, crack, crystal, heroin or oxy on a purely recreational basis (and I know *a lot* of people who use drugs). So where do you draw the line? Part of me says that people are going to use opiates/speed/crack whether you like it or not, and better to offer a clean product, safe rigs and safe environment in which to use them. But then what do you do with the addicts?

About 7-8 years ago crystal meth really swept through the gay club scene. It had been around longer, but almost everyone I know in the gay party scene starting doing it. Most of them completely fucked up their lives. If crystal had been legal, the same would have happened - it's just a very powerfully addictive substance. There are drugs out there that will cause problems, regardless of legal status, so my question is, where do you draw the line on legalization?

I am interested in Dom/Dan's opinions, as they advocate (I think, from their posts) the legalization of pot. Should there be limits to legalization? It seems the same things apply to heroin, oxy, speed and crack (people are going to do it anyway, so why criminalize it?) Just curious on their opinion.

BTW I think pot is completely disgusting. It reeks when smoked, and for some reason many of its users insist on wearing tie-dye and not bathing. Gross.

Posted by rb | August 22, 2008 11:12 PM

@39: "I have yet to meet anyone who can use coke, crack, crystal, heroin or oxy on a purely recreational basis"

Any survey of national drug use will show you that the overwhelming majority of folks who have tried these drugs have used them on a recreational basis. The number of people who try a drug and then go on to problematic substance use is quite small. Usually less then 10% . Sometimes as low as 1%.

Methamphetamine (crystal, crank, speed, etc.) is actually a great example of the harms caused by the war on drugs.

What is sold today as meth bears only minor resemblance to pharmaceutical meth. Beginning in the late 1980s there was a stampede at the federal and state level to enact laws around meth. The result of this was that pharmaceutical meth basically disappeared from the illicit market and was replaced by bathtub meth.

Much the same as Prohibition drove out real gin and replaced it with homemade concotions.

Posted by gnossos | August 23, 2008 3:10 AM

*concoctions* Damn.

Posted by gnossos | August 23, 2008 3:13 AM

The drug war actually pushed meth production south of the border, because it's too difficult to obtain large enough quantities of the raw materials in the U.S. The speed on the street now is high quality and comes from Mexico, and is quite plentiful. Thanks, drug war!

Posted by Better than ever! | August 23, 2008 7:22 AM

Is Dan Savage a preening, self-important Ass Hole?

Agree with me or I'll call you names? Geez.

Grow up.

Posted by Is Dan Savage a preening, self-promoting Ass Hole? | August 23, 2008 10:03 AM

Did Dan Savage strike a nerve? Sure looks like it. Did Dominic hit one too? Yes he did.

Agree with me or I'll ask the Stranger to block comments from the Seattle Times and PI.

Ha ha. You tools don't like it that Savage and Holden are pointing out that you're not doing your jobs and making you look like the fools & tools you are. Go right on sucking DEA dick, you stupid crybabies, since its clear now that like the taste so much. But I hope Dan and Dominic go right on calling you out and calling you names.

Posted by Suspicious of All These Brand New Folks Turning Up in Comment | August 23, 2008 11:04 AM

#44, I didn't know this was a closed playground. Is it only open to ass-kissing fans of Dan?

If that's the case then you will need more chapstick.

Posted by Jeff | August 23, 2008 11:19 AM

"Guido Nazzo is nazzo guido."

Posted by Amelia | August 23, 2008 12:10 PM

Well I read about fifteen comments and stopped.

Hey uptight whiny people, cry all you want. This is great.

Posted by Nick | August 24, 2008 12:15 AM

Comments Closed

Comments are closed on this post.