• Members of the previous forum can retrieve their temporary password here, (login and check your PM).

Another Mainstream Article: A Trend?

Migrated topic.
If there's a "trend" to be seen in these "mainstream" articles, it's that they're essentially running in place. First off, they all deal with the same information or studies, many of which are years old and only getting older; granted that doesn't serve to diminish their relevance, it just highlights the fact that no original research is being done by these "journalists", they're in perpetual rehash mode. Second, with the exception of the CNN piece and NY times article, these are not mainstream pieces. Many are op-ed pieces that appear buried deep in the papers or available only by searching online or informational pieces written by people who already had an interest in the subject matter at hand (yet for some reason still fail to do more than barely scratch the surface).

This AP article is essentially a template available to journalists who wish to write on this subject in the societally constructed "acceptable" manner (which I would posit should have no bearing on true journalism). It offers nice, safe, and pre-screened information on a relatively taboo subject and allows people to insulate themselves while writing on a risqué topic. I say if you don't have the gumption to stand behind more "radical" (or at least thought provoking/deeper) articles of this nature, I'd rather have you not write anything at all and make way for legitimate journalists who will put their names on the line to disclose a more full-picture of what's going on here and what these substances can do.

I dunno, I search the online news networks daily for all of the major entheogens just to keep tabs on what's going on in the world around me with relationship to these substances. Every couple of weeks there are more articles like this. They never go anywhere, they never lead to anything. It's just the same tired observations over and over again. Maybe occasionally someone will step their pinky toe across the line that has been drawn and comment on how these things don't fit the classical description of "drug" or how prohibition has really dicked over legitimate scientific research, but those sections are few and far between and articles focusing on those issues are non-existent. I've been scratching my head over the reaction that these articles have drawn here on the Nexus.

Yes, I am glad that these subjects are being broached more frequently, but let's keep our senses about us. Everyone cheers and applauds these articles, but they're not saying anything new. I've read articles at the beginning of my college career that had everything these recent articles have in them, content-wise, and four years have passed. Is this really something worth getting excited about? To my mind this is one of the reasons it's important that CEL get some literature/pamphlets/articles out there ASAP, we are going to have to be the ones to bring to light many of the facts we take for granted but mainstream media won't touch. I'm gonna end this here, I hope you don't think i'm trying to derail this thread or burst your bubble, I'm just getting tired of people giving praise where praise is most certainly not due, imo.

peace
SB

EDIT: Obliguhl's post made my point exactly; I stumbled across that ABC article yesterday and didn't see the OP's "template" AP article until today. These are the same article discussing a study from 2 years ago...meh, I already said the main relevant points, so i'll just leave it at that. Thanks for posting that, obli.
 
SnozzleBerry said:
...Every couple of weeks there are more articles like this. They never go anywhere, they never lead to anything. It's just the same tired observations over and over again. Maybe occasionally someone will step their pinky toe across the line that has been drawn and comment on how these things don't fit the classical description of "drug" or how prohibition has really dicked over legitimate scientific research, but those sections are few and far between and articles focusing on those issues are non-existent. I've been scratching my head over the reaction that these articles have drawn here on the Nexus.
Click to expand...
These articles DO serve a purpose. They expose non-psychedelic users (most people) to psychedelics in a way that makes them more acceptable. Change isn’t going to happen over night, but if there is a relentless, repetitive drumbeat that says psychedelics are safe and medically useful, then eventually average voters might be more open to relaxing current Draconian drug laws. It’s a start.
 
gibran2 said:
SnozzleBerry said:
...Every couple of weeks there are more articles like this. They never go anywhere, they never lead to anything. It's just the same tired observations over and over again. Maybe occasionally someone will step their pinky toe across the line that has been drawn and comment on how these things don't fit the classical description of "drug" or how prohibition has really dicked over legitimate scientific research, but those sections are few and far between and articles focusing on those issues are non-existent. I've been scratching my head over the reaction that these articles have drawn here on the Nexus.
Click to expand...
These articles DO serve a purpose. They expose non-psychedelic users (most people) to psychedelics in a way that makes them more acceptable. Change isn’t going to happen over night, but if there is a relentless, repetitive drumbeat that says psychedelics are safe and medically useful, then eventually average voters might be more open to relaxing current Draconian drug laws. It’s a start.
Click to expand...
I disagree. With the exception of the NY Times article and the CNN piece, the rest of these articles are not displayed in areas where the average reader/non-psychedelic user would find them. Many of these articles are buried in print-media or only readily found when doing a web-search on the specific substances they are discussing. I'm pretty sure I said that in my initial post. The same tired stories DO NOT serve a purpose. When someone who is unfamiliar with psychedelics sees what is essentially the same article every time he/she decides to look into these things how can you say that will catalyze anything? When I say these articles have been the same over the last 4 years I mean just that; they have LITERALLY been the same. The lack of progression or regression serves no other purpose than providing some pussyfoot and mildly psychedelic-oriented "journalist" with masturbatory prose.

I'm not saying change is gonna happen overnight. Clearly it's not, these articles HAVE NOT CHANGED IN 4 YEARS. This is my point. There need to be new things said. There need to be other studies referenced (yes, they exist) and other issues broached. At least twice a year someone pulls out the "Psychedelics Ease Anxiety Over Death" article, people in forums like this do a happy little jig, conservatives/authoritarians scowl angrily, and the portion of the general public that does happen upon it arches their eyebrows in interest, take note, and continue on with their lives. When they see the same article 6 months later, they are not presented with new data, new evidence, or any reasons why this may be relevant to their own lives. This time they skim the article, see it said the same thing, shrug it off and continue with their lives. 6 months later, the same article comes out and the people glance at the title, see it says the same thing and don't even bother to read it.

How does this promote anything positive? If anything it turns people off. Varied content is the key to media success and news agencies know this. Why do you think major disasters and scandals disappear from the front page after time passes on? It's not because there are not still relevant and newsworthy issues going on with these stories, it's because the public has lost interest. News media exists to sell their media and they do so by changing content, why? Because that's what the public "needs" to stay interested and continue to see it as worthwhile to buy news media. Why would this be any different with psychedelic articles? These "journalists" need to act like the rest of the news media and vary their content, research, and topics with in the realm of psychedelia. To think otherwise is to relegate yourself (and psychedelics/psychedelic science) to the news media archives and crime statistics sections.
 
I wasn’t looking for articles. This particular article came up on my (very mainstream) Yahoo homepage under the “health” section. And I’d prefer seeing articles such as “Psychedelic trips aid anxiety treatments in study” rather than “DMT lab busted at apartment, man arrested”.

Upon reading the article, I didn’t do “a happy little jig” and I doubt any other forum members did either. You seem to forget that the media could just as easily focus on the perceived evils of drug use (crime, death, drug lab busts, hospitalizations, suicide, etc.). In fact, writing negative sensationalist articles would probably get more attention. The fact that some writers in the media choose to write positive articles about currently illegal drugs, even if the articles just rehash 4-year old research papers, is a move in the right direction, especially when you consider the kinds of articles they could be writing.
 
I feel like you're not getting my point. It's not that they're rehashing 4 year old studies, it's that this article has come out 8 or so times over the past 4 years. Each time they pick a different subject from the Griffith's study and talk about their experience then go into a general "here are some vague benefits of psychs, but science has yet to really study them" mode. Why do this? Energy spent on positive (as opposed to negative) articles is only beneficial if it adds to the discourse. There have been new findings, to not publish these new findings is to do a disservice to the topic you are reporting on. To laud stories that are so obviously recycled and devoid of new, salient information is to perpetuate the writing of such atrociously underwhelming articles.

Professional athletes don't get credit just for showing up, why are you so ready to praise journalists for barely meeting the bare minimum in these types of stories? This is my point. I don't see it as a cause for happiness just cuz someone mentions something near and dear to my heart. As professional journalists, there is an expectation that they will follow through (that's the downside of being a professional journalist; you get paid, but you have to uphold reasonable journalistic standards) and not just rehash the same tired shit. Would you applaud the authors of a once groundbreaking story if every year they published multiple snippets of the original story with no additional facts or developments? I personally would not and would get pissed off that someone would try to pass off such drivel as journalism. That's just me, clearly you feel differently, and while I respect your opinion (or at least your right to have it), I see no merit whatsoever in it.
 
SnozzleBerry said:
...Energy spent on positive (as opposed to negative) articles is only beneficial if it adds to the discourse. There have been new findings, to not publish these new findings is to do a disservice to the topic you are reporting on. To laud stories that are so obviously recycled and devoid of new, salient information is to perpetuate the writing of such atrociously underwhelming articles.
Click to expand...
I understand what you’re saying. One reason journalists don’t produce more new stories regarding psychedelic drug studies is because there aren’t that many drug studies going on. I don’t follow these studies/trials too closely - aren’t most of them still in progress? There isn’t a whole lot to report. And remember, most of these articles are aimed at a general (non-scientific, non-professional) audience.

What I find encouraging is the simple fact that positive articles about psychedelics are making it into the mainstream. Frequent exposure to a particular subject or point of view can, over time, cause people to change their views regarding the subject. So the articles may not be very informative or break new ground, but the more frequent they become, the more people’s attitudes will be changed.

Your focus seems to be on the repetitive and unoriginal content of the articles, and the lack of reporting regarding new findings. But I view these types of articles more like “commercials” introducing the masses to something they’re not familiar with. People need to hear the same (positive) message over and over and over again before their attitudes will change. This is a good beginning.
 
Back
Top Bottom