Marijuana journalism

The outlook in the media business isn't entirely bleak. Sure, newspapers alone laid off or offered buyouts to more than 30,000 people in 2008-2009 alone, reports one of several sites set up to track the decline.
But another trend may offer a professional lifeline to at least a few of them. The boom in marijuana decriminalization and medical marijuana laws is rippling into the publishing world, says the Denver Post:

The woman gracing Kush Colorado's centerfold is long-limbed and lovely, but the new magazine's real star is the marijuana plant she clutches to her breast.
Billed as the "premier cannabis lifestyle magazine," the slick glossy debuted in Colorado last month, one more sign of galloping growth in the state's medical-marijuana business.

...In the first four days it was available, shoppers snapped up 20,000 copies from stands at retail stores and dispensaries around the metro area, Kush publisher Michael Lerner said. Racks are reloaded twice a week
...Colorado is the magazine's first foray outside Los Angeles, but it won't be the last. Kush Michigan and clones in several other cities in California and Oregon are expected to roll off the presses shortly. Each magazine will feature content that is generated locally.
With medical-marijuana laws on the books in 13 states, New Jersey poised to become the 14th and bills that would permit the drug's use pending in others, [publisher Michael] Lerner expects the Kush brand to circulate in 34 cities by the end of the year.
Demand is so strong that potential advertisers in Michigan clamored for space before Lerner officially announced his magazine was coming to the state.

Reporting on Sex Scandals: It’s a Thankless Job But Somebody’s Got to Do It

by Dagny Leonard, Editorial Intern, CQ Researcher, Jan. 22, 2010

The ink was barely dry on our latest report on “Sex Scandals” when former Sen. John Edwards of North Carolina finally fessed up to what had long been suspected. On Thursday, Jan. 21, Edwards, a former contender for the 2008 Democratic presidential nomination, admitted to fathering the child of his former campaign videographer and mistress, Rielle Hunter, thus confirming claims that the National Enquirer has been making since 2007. Barry Levine, the paper’s executive editor, told Washington Post media reporter Howard Kurtz that he thought the Enquirer should be in the running for a Pulitzer Prize for its coverage of the sensational story.

The supermarket tabloid is the perennial butt of journalistic jokes and not exactly your typical prize-winning publication. But the Enquirer’s coverage of the Edwards saga has proven to be accurate, and pace-setting, with the mainstream media holding their noses and following the Enquirer’s lead.

Kurtz quotes Enquirer editor Barry Levine saying of Edwards, “it’s great to see he’s taking responsibility for this child, Frances Quinn. She needs to know who her father is.” Quips Kurtz: “That's right: a supermarket tabloid editor is now lecturing a former vice-presidential nominee on matters of morality.”

Are such stories prize-winners? Certainly the persistent prying into the private life of a public figure shows tenacity, but it may not qualify as a “distinguished example” of journalism, which the Pulitzer Web site lists as a criterion for all categories of a Pulitzer Prize for journalism.

The Enquirer has also been keeping busy following beleaguered Tiger Woods – who was pictured on the cover of the new CQ Researcher report on “Sex Scandals.” The Enquirer has reported he entered a sex rehabilitation clinic, with photos showing a hoodie-wearing man who could be Woods walking outside a rehabilitation center in Hattiesburg, Miss.

With sex scandals seeming to run rampant in the past few years, the coverage of the Edwards and Woods scandals once again prompt some media critics and readers to question whether the media should be covering the private lives of public figures. As the pro-con debate in the Researcher report makes clear, there is wide and continuing disagreement.

Meanwhile, the down-market Enquirer is getting its props, even from The New York Times. The Times’ Jan. 21 article about Edwards’ admission is accompanied by a National Enquirer photo of him and his former mistress. The Times notes that Edwards “initially denied the veracity of a series of articles in the National Enquirer, calling them “tabloid trash.”

Both the Times and The Washington Post had teasers about the Edwards story on the front pages of their Jan. 22 issues, while other major papers such as the LA Times and the Chicago Tribune made no front page mention.

For more information see the CQ Researcher report on "Sex Scandals" [subscription required] or purchase the CQ Researcher PDF.

Haiti

Haiti occupies a place all its own in U.S. culture. The 1791-1803 uprising that marked the first successful slave revolution in history terrified American slaveowners. Over the centuries that followed, Haiti has represented sorcery (not in a good way), AIDS and pretty much every other social and physical illness associated with poverty and dictatorship - all in the spirit of blaming the Haitians.
Yet the overwhelming U.S. response to the catastrophic earthquake, from ordinary Americans as well as the Obama administration, seems to show a new attitude. Haitian-Americans are noticing.
"My spirit is totally uplifted by this," Yves Colon, a former Miami Herald reporter who now teaches at the University of Miami told the Washington Post. "Not too long ago 'Haitian' was a maligned word. Either you had AIDS or you were poor. It seems like people's eyes have been opened. The earth shook to open people's eyes."
Highly publicized remarks by the Rev. Pat Robertson and others might seem to point in another direction. But they were slapped down by a variety of other commentators for suggesting, among other things, that Haitians brought the disaster upon themselves. To be sure, Haitians themselves have been debating for decades how much responsibility they have for their country's enormous troubles, but these are discussions within the family, so to speak.
We last reported on Haiti, where I spent considerable time in the early 1990s, five years ago ("Haiti's Dilemma," Feb. 18, 2005). We expect to examine the country's reconstruction in the not-too-distant future.

Are powerful men especially prone to affairs?

To follow is an excerpt from the CQ Researcher report on "Sex Scandals" by Alan Greenblatt, January 22, 2010.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

From his adolescence through his foreshortened presidency, John F. Kennedy “didn't have to lift a finger to attract women,” as one reporter put it. “They were drawn to him in battalions.” [Footnote 4] Kennedy's close friend Lem Billings recalled that the president's sexual conquests were not just fun but important to him as “a form of being successful at something.” [Footnote 5]

Kennedy, aware that his father was a notable philanderer, sought to follow in his footsteps. As Joseph Kennedy had, JFK felt multiple liaisons were his just due as a powerful man. “Jack's easy conquests compounded the feeling that, like the member of a privileged aristocracy, of a libertine class, he was entitled to seek out and obtain what he craved, instantly … from the object of his immediate affection,” writes his biographer Robert Dallek. [Footnote 6]

One school of thought holds that the lust for power is related to sexual lust. For millennia, suggests Florida Atlantic University evolutionary psychologist Todd Shackleford, the underlying motivation for males in taking risks and achieving power and status was to become attractive in order to woo and win women. “It's a relatively new development for men to be vilified for reaping what would have been ancestral rewards for power and prestige,” he told The Washington Post. [Footnote 7]

What may be true for powerful men in general is even more so for politicians, who constantly meet new people and must make themselves attractive and likable to strangers. “Generally, people who want to be politicians are craving the spotlight,” says Melanie Sloan, executive director of Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington. “No matter how ugly and unattractive you are, as a senator you'll have plenty of groupies, and you're away from home a lot.”

“Politicians are different,” said Schwartz, the University of Washington sociologist. “How many of us would have the desire, much less the ability, to promote ourselves ceaselessly? You have to do that as a politician. It's an amazing level of self-love … and a need for affirmation.” [Footnote 8]

Charles Goodstein, a psychiatrist at New York University, contends that “it's almost mandatory” for successful politicians to possess a “healthy narcissism” — what most people call confidence. “People don't arrive at these positions if they're passive or let other people take credit,” Goodstein says. “They have a certain aggressiveness and a certain degree of healthy narcissism.”

“Having all these attractive women around you constantly … appeals to people with a narcissism issue, and I guess to any man,” says Lavoll, the Northwestern psychologist. “You have to be firm not to fall into the trap. It's hard to achieve that fantasy of being special and then not to act on it.”

W. Keith Campbell, a University of Georgia psychologist, says that there's something to the joke that “politics is show business for ugly people. If you're powerful, even if you look like a beluga whale in a suit, you're going to be far more attractive to people than you were in high school,” Campbell says.

Nevertheless, Campbell suggests, there's no data to prove that politicians are more likely to cheat than other men. It's hard to get good data about adultery or infidelity in general, largely because people are not likely to be honest when answering social-science surveys about such matters.

“Overall, the best estimates are that between 15 percent and 40 percent of men will cheat at some point in their first marriage — best guess, 25 percent — whereas about 5 percent to 25 percent of women will cheat at some point in their first marriage — best guess, 15 percent,” said psychologist David Schmitt of Bradley University in Peoria, Ill. [Footnote 9]

Although it sometimes seems that every other politician has been caught in an affair, the percentage who are exposed is actually far less than 15 percent. Politicians may appear to engage in more illicit sex than, say, carpenters or dentists because they dominate cable news coverage when caught, and the average Joe doesn't.

Politicians are “subject to more scrutiny, and they also have enemies who are eager to put this into public view,” says John J. Pitney Jr., a political scientist at California's Claremont McKenna College. “In the private world, opposition research usually takes the form of something like corporate espionage. One company will seldom [put investigators] on the ex-wives of executives,” the way political opponents might.

“If you're in office — senators and congressmen — you can think of all the social pressure not to have an affair,” Campbell says. “The consequences are so vast. It's not just your family that suffers, but your party, your office, your country.”

Still, despite being fully aware of the potential ramifications, many politicians remain convinced that they can get away with just about anything — or at least are unable to resist temptation. “In certain contexts, in certain situations, the environment almost feeds into this kind of narcissism, and simple confidence is transformed into people seeing themselves as legends in their own minds,” Goodstein says. “They can get away with anything, because of who they are. It's risk-taking that knows no bounds.”

“I do not think politicians are less moral than other people,” says Tom Fiedler, dean of the College of Communication at Boston University and former executive editor of The Miami Herald. But elected officials are more often subject to what Catholics call “occasions of sin,” so they are “presented with more opportunities for these types of transgressions than other people.

“When temptation rears its head,” he concludes, “not all of us are strong enough not to give in.”
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
The Issues
* Do the media pay too much attention to adultery?
* Does the public have a right to know about politicians' affairs?
* Do celebrities deserve more privacy than public officials?

For more information see the CQ Researcher report on "Sex Scandals" [subscription required] or purchase the CQ Researcher PDF.

~~~~~~~
Footnotes:
[4] Robert Dallek, An Unfinished Life: John F. Kennedy, 1917–1963 (2003), p. 48.
[5] Ibid., p. 46.
[6] Ibid., p. 46.
[7] David Segal, “Blame It on the Primal Brain of Homo Politicus,” The Washington Post, March 13, 2008, p. C1.
[8] Sharon Jayson, “Narcissism Is in the Cards for Many Politicians,” USA Today, Sept. 29, 2009, p. 10B.
[9] Sharon Jayson, “Why Some Men Keep Cheating,” USA Today, Dec. 8, 2009, p. 10B.

Should religious displays be allowed on public land?

To follow is an excerpt from the January 15, 2010 CQ Researcher report on "Government and Religion" by Thomas J. Billitteri
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Despite the Constitution's prohibition against government “establishment of religion,” most Americans don't seem bothered when crèches, menorahs and other such religious symbols appear on public property. A 2008 Rasmussen poll found that 74 percent of adults thought such displays should be allowed. [Footnote 19] The Pew Research Center has found similar popular support. [Footnote 20]

Yet, the presence of religious symbols on government property has a long and sometimes conflicted history in the courts.

In 1980 the Supreme Court ruled that a Kentucky law requiring public schools to post a copy of the Ten Commandments in all classrooms was a violation of the Establishment Clause. [Footnote 21] But in 1984, the court said it was constitutional for a Nativity scene to be displayed in a Rhode Island town square. [Footnote 22]

“Since these two decisions in the 1980s, the Supreme Court and lower federal courts have issued somewhat unpredictable rulings, approving some religious displays while ordering others to be removed,” the Pew Forum on Religion & Public Life noted in a 2007 review of religious display cases.

Added Pew, “[t]he lack of clear guidelines reflects deep divisions within the Supreme Court itself. Some justices are committed to strict church-state separation and tend to rule that any government-sponsored religious display violates the Establishment Clause. These same justices also believe that, in some circumstances, the Establishment Clause may forbid private citizens from placing religious displays on public property.” But “[o]ther members of the court read the Establishment Clause far more narrowly, arguing that it leaves ample room for religion in the public square.” Meanwhile, other justices have taken a middle path, arguing that “a religious display placed in a public space violates the Establishment Clause only when it conveys the message that the government is endorsing a religious truth.” [Footnote 23]

Some activists firmly oppose religious displays. Lynn of Americans United for Separation of Church and State, for example, argues that “a bright-line rule would make sense: If it's a government-sponsored event, icon or symbol, it should not be religious. When you put up a manger scene at Christmas and it's the government that owns it, it looks like the government is endorsing that religion,” he argues.

Hooper, the Council on American-Islamic Relations spokesman, takes a broader view, arguing that “as long as everyone has equal access” to a site, “we're not opposed to it.”

“It's really up to each religious community to make sure it has equal access,” he adds. “We've dealt with this in the past as an organization. If a local library has a Christmas display, we don't ask people to go and tell them to take down the Christmas display. We say, ‘Look, reserve it for the next time Ramadan comes along.’ It's in our court, really.”

Carey of the National Association of Evangelicals says that while the group is “not overly concerned about most of these issues,” many cases concerning religious displays “do raise constitutional issues and need to be carefully studied on their merits.

“So much depends on context,” says Carey, “There's a difference between ‘In God We Trust’ on our money or having a Nativity scene at city hall. You look at the context in the community.”

What's needed is a “common sense” approach to the issue of religious displays, Carey argues. “We don't want the government to be in the position of establishing or favoring a particular religion.” Many displays don't do much to do that, Carey says, “but if something were endorsing and furthering a particular religion, we would not be in favor of that.”

In the crèche conflict in Chambersburg, Pa., the Nativity scene had been displayed for years in the town's Memorial Square, and some residents believe that's where it should have remained. “Jesus is the reason for the season,” resident Kelly Spinner told a local media outlet. “They're taking that reminder away from us. I don't think it's fair. What's next? Santa Claus? A Christmas tree?” [Footnote 24]

The council president, Bill McLaughlin, argued that Chambersburg was “a victim of the tyranny of the minority,” adding that “the Constitution guarantees ‘freedom of religion’” but says nothing about “freedom from religion.” [Footnote 25]

But a local Jewish resident noted that council members let him put a “Seasons Greetings” sign incorporating religious symbols from a variety of backgrounds on the town square in 1996. “You really can't pick and choose what goes up there,” he said. “Once you let one group in, whether it's Christians, Jews, Muslims, then you have to let other groups in also.” [Footnote 26]

Lynn, commenting broadly on the issue of religious displays and not the Chambersburg flap, says that “if you truly say ‘this courthouse lawn is open to everybody’ — if you're really willing to do that — that I think the Constitution does permit, but I think that's a dopey idea.” In places that have opened public spaces to displays of all persuasion, he says, “you get a cluttered lawn. People trip over stuff on their way to pay their parking tickets.”

Among the most contentious religious-display issues in recent years has been the placement of religious mottoes on automobile license plates. [Footnote 27] The Indiana legislature approved state-issued plates bearing the motto “In God We Trust” in 2006, and Florida followed suit in 2008.

In November, a federal judge ruled that South Carolina couldn't issue plates showing the image of a cross in front of a stained-glass window and bearing the words “I believe.” U.S. District Judge Cameron Currie said a law approving the plates amounted to a “state endorsement not only of religion in general, but of a specific sect in particular.”

Lt. Gov. André Bauer, who had advocated the bill approving the plates, called the ruling “another attack on Christianity” and said Currie was a “liberal judge appointed by [President] Bill Clinton.” [Footnote 28]

But Currie ruled correctly in an “absolutely clear-cut” case,” said Thomas Crocker, an assistant professor at the University of South Carolina Law School. Her decision was “not out to denigrate religion, but it's out of a historical understanding that problems for both politics and religion can flow from the state's entanglement with religious practices.”
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

For more information see the CQResearcher report on "Government and Religion" [subscription required] or purchase the CQ Researcher PDF.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Footnotes:
[19] “74% Support Religious Displays on Public Property,” Rasmussen Reports, Dec. 24, 2008, www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/lifestyle/holidays/december_2008/74_support_religious_displays_on_public_property.
[20] Ira C. Lupu, David Masci and Robert W. Tuttle, “Religious Displays and the Courts,” Pew Forum on Religion & Public Life, June 2007, http://pewforum.org/assets/files/religious-displays.pdf. According to the report, a 2005 survey by the Pew Research Center found that 83 percent of Americans said displays of Christmas symbols should be allowed on government property, and another 2005 Pew poll found that 74 percent said they believed it was proper to display the Ten Commandments in government buildings.
[21] Stone v. Graham, 449 U.S. 39.
[22] Lynch v. Donnelly, 465 U.S. 668.
[23] Lupu, et al., op. cit., pp. 2–3.
[24] “Chambersburg Council Votes to Remove Nativity Scene,” WHAG-TV, MSNBC.com, Nov. 24, 2009, http://your4state.com/content/fulltext/?cid=89441.
[25] Quoted in ibid.
[26] Ibid.
[27] In South Carolina, state law allows private groups to have license tags bearing their own message, and the CEO of a group called the Palmetto Family Council filed a request with the state motor vehicles department to have an “I Believe” plate issued. See John Monk, “‘I Believe’ tag might be resurrected,” The State, Nov. 27, 2009, www.thestate.com/154/v-mobile/story/1045682.html.
[28] John Monk, “Judge strikes down plate,” The State, Nov. 11, 2009, www.thestate.com/513/story/1022683.html.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~