IS JUSTICE JUST A MATTER OF PERSPECTIVE?

Editing this newsletter each week offers an opportunity not only to
see how the drug war works, but to see how news works.

Despite claims of objectivity, the news media is informed (sometimes
dictated) by particular perspectives, just as judgements about drug
prohibition are impacted by personal observations of the drug war in action.

In recent weeks, two different reporters at two different newspapers
in two different states wrote essentially the same story in an almost
completely contradictory way.

Both stories were about police generating revenue by seizing the
assets of alleged drug suspects. But one story started like this:
"Even if you're a law-abiding citizen who's never been convicted of a
crime, local police are allowed to confiscate your property and money
and keep up to 80 percent of it for themselves, with the legal
stipulation that this windfall be spent only on programs likely to
result in additional confiscations where the police can keep up to 80
percent of the booty for themselves."

This is the opening of the second story: " If a criminal conviction,
the potential loss of freedom and a ruined reputation aren't enough
to get drug dealers to say no to the lucrative trade, how about homelessness?"

The first story was written by Jennifer Abel and published in
Connecticut's Hartford Advocate ( see
http://www.mapinc.org/drugnews/v07/n1134/a01.html ). This thoughtful
piece contains direct quotes from a variety of experts on the
subject, and like most great reporting, asks uncomfortable questions
about the status quo.

The second story, by Mary Schenk, was published in the News-Gazette
out of Champaign, IL ( see
http://www.mapinc.org/drugnews/v07/n1159/a01.html ). Every source
quoted in the piece works for an agency which benefits from forfeiture.

To describe the anecdotes in Schenk's story as self-serving is an
astonishing understatement. Calling the piece a press release
instead of a news story doesn't convey the sycophantism at work; it's
actually more of a love letter (or at least a crush note).

The author would likely protest that she was just conveying the
opinions and statements of the subjects. Which is not completely
untrue, but journalists are taught that there are at least two sides
to every story. For too long the drug war has been a one-sided story
in which only the prohibitionists had a voice - those individuals
subject to the laws were more like mute props merely tossed in to add
realism to certain scenes.

Now, there are more reporters who are willing to interview sources
who challenge the drug war, as Abel's excellent piece shows.

Articles that allow uncritical cheerleading for the drug war simply
aren't telling the whole story - which is why MAP exists. The Media
Awareness Project of DrugSense has likely helped to accelerate this
process of getting more perspectives out in the open - so why not
show your support and offer a donation today at
http://www.drugsense.org/donate.htm

You may help others understand how one side of the story just isn't enough.