On April 25, DEA agents and police held a press conference
detailing a string of pot raids and arrests around Seattle. If
this were any other policy issue, you would expect the news reporters
on the story to begin with certain basic questions. For example: Why is
the government doing this? What is the goal? Is the strategy effective?
Those were the sorts of questions the Seattle Times asked
about a proposal to charge for disposable grocery bags the previous
week, despite the obvious benefit of reducing waste. A few days later,
the Seattle Post-Intelligencer gave the same pro-versus-con
coverage to the hubbub around a teacher suspended for refusing to give
students the WASL test. Could the papers, for a change, also examine
both sides of the pot issue?
The Times and P-I sent reporters Mike Carter and
Paul Shukovsky—two solid journalists on other subjects. In an
April article about a pedophilia case, for example, Carter followed a
quote from an attorney for the prosecution (he called the defendant a
“typical grooming child molester”) with a response from the defense
attorney, who accused the prosecution of “outrageous conduct.”
Similarly, in a March article on a whaling case, Shukovsky reported the
charges against members of the Makah tribe and then discussed the
“culture and spirituality” of whaling in the tribe.
Carter and Shukovsky’s pot-bust stories, in contrast, stuck to the
standard rah-rah narrative: Valiant, hardworking DEA agents announce
arrests; the busts target a network of dangerous drug dealers; about a
dozen people are probably headed for jail. Curtain. Shukovsky’s only
quotes were from three different prosecution sources (one of whom
referred to pot-growing operations as a “plague”); Carter, likewise,
relied exclusively on prosecution sources. The stories’ one-sided POV
prompted Stranger editorial director Dan Savage to dub the
pair the “Stupid Fucking Credulous Hacks of the Day” on Slog, The
Stranger‘s blog.
Reporters for daily newspapers make a moral virtue of getting “both
sides of the story” in the service of objectivity. So where was the
other side of the pot-bust story? Where were the answers to the obvious
questions: How much did the raids cost? Do the defendants (or the
organizations that speak for them) have anything to say about them? Are
armed raids on private residences the best way to apprehend
lawbreakers? Do busts like this one actually reduce the availability of
pot?
Thinking there must have been some reasons the reporters omitted the
other half of the story, I called Carter and Shukovsky to find out.
Carter said, “I think we can let it go that Dan Savage thinks I’m a
fucking credulous hack. In fact, we’re going to.” Then he hung up.
Shukovsky responded in a similar fashion: “If the Slog is going to
award me the super hack of the day, I want a plaque or something. I’m
not going to comment to you.”
It’s not that Savage thinks these two are fucking credulous hacks,
it’s that everyone now knows these two are fucking credulous
hacks—at least on the issue of pot.
If reporters for the daily papers can present both sides of a story
about screwing children—and remain objective—surely they
can do the same for someone facing years in prison for growing pot
plants in his basement. 