|
Cannabis Campaigners' Guide News Database result:
|
|
Canada: The Street Value Of Canadian Journalism About The War
Dan Gardner Ottawa Citizen (CN ON)
Saturday 23 Sep 2000 Subj: Canada: The Street Value Of Canadian Journalism About The War Pubdate: Sat, 23 Sep 2000 Source: Ottawa Citizen (CN ON) Author: Dan Gardner THE STREET VALUE OF CANADIAN JOURNALISM ABOUT THE WAR ON DRUGS After working for five months in four countries preparing a series on illegal drugs, I think I'm entitled to a little self-indulgence. So bear with this journalist while he writes about journalism -- specifically, the media's role in the insanity of drug prohibition. It's a long and sorry record. Prohibition laws owe their very genesis to "drug scares" fomented by the media. Maclean's, for one, ran the racist screeds of Emily Murphy that led directly to legislation in the 1920s. The crack cocaine hysteria of the 1980s showed that modern journalism is not so far removed from Murphy's glory days. We exaggerated, invented facts, ignored evidence, lied and whipped up panic. The legacy of this shoddy work can be seen in such popular myths about drugs as the "instant addiction" canard, and in horrific American drug laws. There's a reason why the U.S. has more people in prison for drug offences than the European Union has for all crimes combined. The reason is the media. The recent coverage of the biker war and the shooting of reporter Michel Auger gives little reason to hope things are improving. True, the media haven't used the shooting as an excuse for an old-fashioned drug scare. But we've done something that may be just as dangerous: We've hardly mentioned drugs at all. One "analysis" of the gang war called it the result of our "affluence and complacency." Many long stories about the violence never mention drugs, as if gangs kill people for kicks. It's like writing about Al Capone's mayhem in Chicago without using the word "alcohol." Shallow reporting invites a shallow response. After all, if bikers are killing people for no reason, all society can do is make war on the gangs, and accept lost lives and liberties as the price. But if there's an underlying reason -- say, the trade in illegal drugs -- then we might consider whether there are other ways to deal with that issue. If the Charter of Rights is overridden to ban gang membership, media coverage of the biker war will be partly responsible. Or consider the announcement earlier this month that police had made two of the biggest heroin seizures in Canadian history. It was major news. Yet in none of the coverage I saw did a journalist ask the only question that matters: Will this cut drug supply enough to significantly reduce drug use? That's what the whole exercise is nominally about. Shouldn't we ask if it's accomplishing what it's supposed to? But no one did. The media are painfully credulous in dealing with the police, far more so than with any other institution. They give us numbers and we run them, no questions asked, leading to endless stories of uprooted marijuana plants that read like Vietnam War body counts -- "143 destroyed in latest operation" -- and are about as meaningful. Even worse are the "street value" reports police feed us. A seized field of marijuana, say, will have a "street value" of $200,000 because that's what you might get if you harvested, processed, shipped, and sold the marijuana in small portions. It's like saying a pond in Northern Ontario is worth $1 million because that's how much it could be worth if it were bottled, shipped and sold at Lollapalooza. It's a PR ploy to puff up the police success. And we fall for it time after time. The media seem blissfully unaware that the police -- like politicians, corporations and everybody else -- have their own interests and present things in ways favourable to those interests. That's not a knock against the police. It is the media who aren't doing their job. I could go on. The media often take popular wisdom about drugs as fact and fail to check with experts. We distort reality by delighting in the lurid. We don't dig for root causes. Many things will have to change if Canada is ever to have sane drug policies. Chief among them is journalism. Another matter. Liberal MP David Kilgour, in response to my series, wrote that legalization would make drug abuse soar. He ignored my empirical evidence that it would not, instead resting his claim on a column in the Citizen by James Q. Wilson. But Mr. Wilson also cited no evidence to support this view. So Mr. Kilgour's assertion rests only on another assertion. That is not a credible argument. It is a stack of turtles. And that is everything you need to know about the case for drug prohibition. Dan Gardner is a member of the Citizen's editorial board. E-mail: dgardner@thecitizen.southam.ca Read previous Dan Gardner columns at www.ottawacitizen.com
After you have finished reading this article you can click here to go back.
|
This page was created by the Cannabis Campaigners' Guide.
Feel free to link to this page!