"Why don't the dailies?"

Because they're nearly all owned by wealthy and conservative white men.

i love how so many pro-legalization folks feel compelled to point out that they've never smoked weed. as if that makes your opinion more valid because you're 'objective'?

@2 -- For the same reason reporters and commenters point out they've never been inside the Lusty Lady, but they love the marquee.

For the same reason a three year old will tell you he wasn't eating brown sugar directly from the bag before you think to ask him his opinion on cleaning the floor.

@1 Which is why they continue to shrink and fold.

Good article on the California pot situation in a recent Fortune issue. Probably also run by wealthy and conservative white men. The tide would seem to be starting to turn....

They don't want to be accused of being a part of "the liberal media."

@6: Haha. Oh dear, we certainly can't have that. It's sorta like how we have the mainstreamers running around out there and making sure to cover both sides of the climate change "debate."

Many daily editors need to get off their Walter Cronkhite high-horse and adopt an approach more suited to today's divided, spiteful, and horribly misinformed America. They need to be more "passionate advocates for reality," as one major journalist once put it.

"Bong Recreation Area"? I am moving to Wisconsin!

Just a moment of devil's advocacy here - why are journalists obligated to present two sides of this issue? It's a species of crime reporting. People writing stories about, say, illegal guns aren't expected to provide back-and-forth arguments about the Second Amendment, right?

I say this not to counter Dan's point that pro-legalization arguments should get more press - they should - but rather to ask why it's always incumbent on reporters to provide space for those arguments, which would probably be excised by the editor anyway. Let's write letters to editors and publishers, not always beat up on the reporters.

Am I missing something? I've never worked for a newspaper. Feel free to correct my ignorance, y'all.

@Lance: illegal gun running is not controversial. Even the NRA wouldn't support that.

The fact that marijuana is illegal is quite controversial in reality. But in "polite company" its not controversial, which is why we have these articles that don't even acknowledge the controversy.

@2: A common accusation made against pro-legalization advocates is that they support legalization just because they themselves want to get high, and they aren't really paying attention to the ramifications of legalization. It's a fallacious argument, but it's very easily circumvented if the person arguing for legalization happens to not partake.

@9 I think that generally we hold journalists to an objective standard. If they're only reporting one side of a story, then they're shaping a narrative, not reporting the news.

I-1068 Volunteer Meeting, Tuesday, May 25, 2010 6:00 PM

5614 22nd Avenue Northwest, Seattle, WA (Ballard Branch, Seattle Public Library)

Newcomers welcome. Petitions will be available. Free parking under the library or on the street.

Start acting - help legalize!

@9,

Because it's The Stranger's pet project, and it pisses them off to see anything other than pro-pot advocacy. Have you noticed how much Dan screams and screams when dailies quote homophobes in articles on gay rights legislation?

Just a thought - if you leave the word "fucking" out of the permalink, then we can send these "journalists" links to these SFCHOTD pieces without worrying about them being lost in spam filters.

Sensible Washington has a gathering at A Pizza Mart in the U Dist - 5026 University Way - tonight from 6-8 pm if you need new MJ Legalization initiatives.

Or ask them any questions.

Plus, the people there are nice and it's right next to one of the best bubble tea places.

Sorry, Dan, but your stupid, credulous anti-pit bull crusade has lost you all credibility on the Stupid Fucking Credulous Hack front.

Pit bulls were a media issue back when Almost Live was showing on TV - in the early 90s.

Dan can't jump the shark if it was jumped a long long long long time ago.

word up 1

thanks dan

fuck that shitt

I am completely pro-legalization and a member of NORML, and I believe in and make use of the wonderful properties of cannabis daily. However, I have to disagree with Dan. Most journalists don't cover the pro-legalization points for the same reasons most doctors don't come out and tell the truth about how safe and effective marijuana use is. Their reputation is at stake. Dan has a reputation for being outspoken about and offensive towards anything he doesn't personally agree with, so his reputation is bolstered by the viewpoints of his article. Meg Jones isn't slanting this article with an anti-pot viewpoint, but from a what-is-currently-the-law viewpoint, which is how most journalists, doctors and other professionals slant their work. I find it ironic that Mr. Savage and many others who slant their own work with liberal viewpoints complain when the conservative media does the same thing. Seems pretty hypocritical to me.

@ 40 - Dan isn't a reporter for a major news outlet. He's a commentator for an alternative weekly rag. The roles are a bit different.

Um. Make that @ 22. Not 40. Don't know where that came from. Sorry.

Every time I see any form of the word "interdict", I immediately think of these: http://starwars.wikia.com/wiki/Immobiliz…
Dammit, George Lucas...

But yeah, resources that should be better devoted elsewhere.

@18 Agreed. Pit bull articles are the exact same kind of fear-mongering. You sure as hell don't see anybody telling horror stories all on the deaths attributed to the European Honeybee every year, which account from anywhere to 40 to 90 deaths a year, far more than any dog (or bear, puma, etc.) No one suggests bee bans. The media has always loved itself some big bitey-fangy animal stories, no matter how few people are killed annually by them upside all the other myriad things people are more likely to die from.