Slashdot Mirror
Media Dustup Pits Bloggers and Wired Against NYTimes
destinyland writes "Wired magazine ran a table listing the scientific effects of prescription drugs (and one illegal drug) — leading to an accusation from the NYTimes that they were 'promoting' drug use. But this routine controversy led to a fierce pushback online from bloggers and from Wired's reporter, who discussed his past drug use on his own blog and called for an honest discussion of scientific evidence and straight talk about medical effects."
I flip on the TV and I see people promoting drug use all the time /shrug. And some of the side affects of those make me sick just to hear it.
I know I certainly don't. On that note I'm tired of all the main stream media in the US. It's all lies and talking points. Watch the news some night and flip back and forth between the channels, or better yet catch a few with the DVR at 7 and 11. Get different samples from the two time slots and tell me what's different. Nothing, other than the filler material. They even use the same verbage most of the time. So I figure this is all coming from a very small group of sources (probably AP wire considering how lazy the media is). Which means that you can't really trust it. Hell I don't know how many times recently we've seen articles about the media being duped by someone or something. So that means to me that they don't vet their stories or sources properly anymore. Fuck it, at least the ratings and the revenues are up, god forbid the profit margin shrinks.
.......That William Randolph Hearst and his Yellow-journalism fueled the war on drugs in the first place, the Media are the LAST people I trust to provide me with reliable information in regards to drugs.
As a matter of fact, I don't trust anyone to provide me with information regarding drugs anymore. Guv'ment included. The DEA website is so full of blatant propaganda, I find it hard to believe anyone can take it seriously
And besides, I seriously doubt anyone has my best interests in mind more then myself.
It's a sad commentary on the stupidity of our drug laws that heroin and marijuana get lumped into the same category.
It is almost impossible to have a large discussion about drugs and medical effects in the public sphere. There is a massive, taxpayer funded multi-media campaign from the U.S. federal government that has for many years taught a large fraction of the public a series of messages about drugs that are just plain false. Almost anyone with significant experience with using these same drugs knows this to be the case, but their voices are typically marginalized or not taken seriously.
Ever since it failed to address its support for the Bush administration with respect to the invasion of Iraq, the New York Times has become steadily less relevant. I don't know whether they believe only old, right-wing fossils still read newspapers or whether they're having trouble recruiting quality staff on the wages they're willing to pay. Whatever the problem, they should either fix it, or just turn out the lights and go home.
Wired has always published its share of articles written with a smart-ass or tongue-in-cheek tone, and its audience both likes them and understands that they're not intended to be taken as gospel. The Times reviewer is clearly from the "full body armour to ride a bicycle" school of saving us all from ourselves.
I've calculated my velocity with such exquisite precision that I have no idea where I am.
Some people make good choices in life, some make poor ones. If a kid gets hooked on meth because of a mention in Wired, there's a certainly a problem; it's definitely not with Wired.
Even people that believe in pre-destiny look both ways before crossing the street.
I think the previous poster's point, which you missed, is that if a person is so gullible that they'll do something just because they read about it somewhere, then we might as well give up and wait to die. The point is that people have to be smart enough to do a bit of research and think a little bit for themselves.
I can tell you with absolute certainty that my view on free will is not going to be changed by my child making a poor decision in the future.
If we have to temper everything we say in the public sphere based on the reaction of the lowest common denominator of society, we're going nowhere fast.
The world is full of pitfalls and dangerous stuff. There's no end to the stuff that could hurt or kill you. But pretending that stuff doesn't exist isn't going to keep people safe from it.
Even people that believe in pre-destiny look both ways before crossing the street.
Honestly, if a magazine article does a better job at getting your kids hooked on drugs than you are at keeping them off, I'm placing the blame solely on YOU, the parent. Stop passing the buck.
Maybe if we taught them that they'd choose medication or coping-skills over addiction.
When you start to view balanced information as promotion you've clearly lost your way.
Quack, quack.