This Week in the Mercury

I Love Television™
Hall Monitor

News

Hall Monitor

A Muddle over Divestment



Wednesday, September 30, 2009

Stupid Fucking Credulous Hack of the Day: An Illuminating Email Exchange

Posted by Dan Savage on Wed, Sep 30, 2009 at 3:35 PM

Dear Dan,

It's always a pleasure to be named Hack of the Day by a publication I've never heard of [Referring to our sister paper, The Stranger—eds.]. Many thanks for the honor. I realize you are just trying to entertain readers, so I won't quibble with the fantastic number of inaccuracies in your editorial. But it was especially dishonest of you to suggest that the story was about the war on drugs, no? The piece was about law enforcement's inability to find much more than big pot plantations and a few growers and harvesters—how they couldn't get to the money guys back in Mexico.

Warmly,

Bryan Denson
Reporter, The Oregonian


Yeah, yeah—it's always a "law enforcement" piece when someone complains about a biased, unbalanced report about pot. But the particular kind of law enforcement you were reporting on is a part—a huge part—of the War On Drugs. Hello? Helicopters? Your report takes us to the front line of the War On Drugs.

And "this is what the government/law enforcement is doing" pieces typically get around to this question: "is what the government is doing working? is it effective?" Not yours. You're not alone, though: there are lots of dumb fucking drug war stenographers at daily papers all over the country who neglect/refuse to ask that question. You're all part of the problem and seemingly proud of it. And, hey, I'd never heard of the Oregonian before i moved to the Pacific Northwest. So we're even.

Anxious to hear about the other "inaccuracies."

Warmly,

Dan Savage


You should stick to sex advice.


Those inaccuracies, Bryan?


Our exchange goes on—and on and on and on—after the jump.

Dan, I'm busy here and I don't have time to run them all down and open a dialog over your opinions about marijuana prohibition. But your whole editorial was predicated on a false representation of the story, and you know it.


Yeah, yeah: you're a busy guy. But not too busy to make a bullshit accusation—"fantastic number of inaccuracies"—before dashing off to hide behind your crushing workload.
My blog post did not falsely represent your piece. Nice try. There are two sides to a drug war story and you told one, and were either too lazy or too biased to get a single quote from anyone qualified to question the massive expenditure of government resources those raids represent. Nor did you back up and ask the really important question: Why are people growing pot in secret on public lands anyway? For the same reason they grow pot in suburban basements: because it's illegal to cultivate marijuana safely and responsibly.

A law enforcement story as long as the one you filed that doesn't stop to ask, "Is the law effective? Is it just?", amounts to a press release, Bryan, not a piece of journalism, and you know it. Hence your little fit, your false accusations of inaccuracies, your stupid attempt at a slight (you've never heard of my paper but you know what I do for a living?).

xo
Dan


Didn't mean to hurt your feelings, Danno. A reader alerting me to your post gave me your bio.


Hey—you found the time to clear that how-you-know-me-thing up, thanks! Now about those inaccuracies? There's a fantastic number of 'em? Care to itemize, Bryano?


Bryan doesn't want to tell me what was inaccurate about my post. Maybe he'll tell you.

Comments (14)

Showing 1-14 of 14

 
Subscribe to this thread:
Showing 1-14 of 14

Comments are closed.

All contents © Index Newspapers, LLC

115 SW Ash St. Suite 600
Portland, OR 97204

Contact Info | Privacy Policy | Production Guidelines | Terms of Use | Takedown Policy