Both Times and P-I readers learned this morning about the sad case of Tim Garon, who died of liver failure a week after being denied a transplant for the third time because of his use of medical marijuana. The dead-tree editions of both papers placed the story front page, top-left, a testament to the newsworthiness of Garon’s death, and the issues it raises.
But loyal HA readers have been following this story for weeks, thanks to Lee’s thoughtful and engaging coverage. We first learned of Garon’s plight back on April 22, and it was Lee who broke the news of his death on Thursday. But I don’t bring up the timeliness of Lee’s posts in order to tout a scoop, but rather as an illustration of the relevancy and legitimacy of the brand of advocacy journalism both Lee and I practice.
While I share Lee’s general perspective on the utter failure of our “War on Drugs” and its negative impact both at home and abroad, I don’t share his passion for the topic, and I didn’t grant him posting privileges in order to transform HA into one of our state’s most vocal advocates for legalization. But my, um, libertarian approach to the editorial choices of Lee and his fellow co-bloggers has paid off in spades, producing a long series of posts on our drug laws that have generated a coherent and accessible conversation that rivals anything I have read on the subject in the popular press.
This is not intended as a knock against the coverage in today’s Times and P-I, except to point out that if the newsrooms at our two dailies had permitted themselves to indulge in a little bit of advocacy — an exercise most “serious” reporters look down on as a journalistic vice — they might have championed Garon’s cause before his death rather than after, thus potentially changing the outcome, or at the very least allowing Garon to die knowing that the publicity surrounding his case might ultimately help to save the lives of others.
I’m not arguing that our dailies should have championed Garon’s cause, just that they could have, and that Lee’s urgent and unabashed advocacy was at least as legitimate a journalistic approach to this story as the after-the-fact reporting in today’s Times and P-I. My friends in the legacy media misread me if they think that I believe for a moment that the blogging paradigm is inherently more credible than that which guides their efforts, but I insist that if pursued professionally and honestly blogging can be just as credible, because we wear our bias on our sleeves, not in spite of it. Moreover, while our efforts can be hit or miss, it is our freedom to advocate that often makes the blogosphere more relevant and timely than the daily fare we tend to get from our corporate media.
Which I guess is just a long-winded way of saying, “Thanks Lee, for a job well done.”
I appreciate that Goldy and I really appreciate being able to post about this stuff here. And I think it also should be pointed out that Dominic Holden at Slog has done a great job with this story too.
Lee @1,
Yes, and The Stranger is often criticized by other journalists for its advocacy as well.
Yes. Thank you Lee & Goldy.
Something tells me that those who would support the dailies to do advocacy journalism for issues they side with would cry foul when those same dailies advocated for issues they disagreed with.
Given the sorry state of today’s journalism, liberal bloggers like Goldy arguably are the most impartial observers of the political scene around.
Garon’s mistake was not having GOP connections. As the fishwrapper’s story makes clear, the underlying problem is a shortage of transplant organs. If Garon were a loyal Republican, the White House could make a phone call to their Chinese pals (you know, the guys buying our public debt), and — voila! — the Chicoms would kill a political prisoner to harvest his liver and Garon would be good to go. So, in a real sense, he was executed in a manner of speaking for not being a rightwinger.
Garon was trying to get an organ transplant in a city run by a democrat, in a county run by a democrat, in a state run by a democrat.
His first attempt was made at Harborview , his second at UW Medical Center, both state (Christine Gregoire)-run institutions.
Case closed.
Roger Rabbit said @6 that the doctors executed Timothy Garon.
Now I know what Goldy meant when he called his own comment section a “toilet.”
Kudos to Goldy and Lee, both of whom have done wonders for our local civic discussions.
Troll has noted how advocacy journalism will get criticized by readers on the other side of an advocated issue. While true, it misses the point. Our local media advocate all of the time, often on the side of money, and against what the rest of us want (no baseball stadium) or need (monorail). They just don’t admit to their shilling for the rich and powerful. Goody contrasted this dishonesty with bloggers’ open admission of advocacy.
In the P-I, Joel Connelly has advocated creation of Wild Sky Wilderness Area for years; if his passionate advocacy affected his reporting at all, no one has shown how. Advocacy journalism has a long and great history, especially here in the U.S. So long as the journalist is honest, and the journalism drives the advocacy, it can make for a great contribution to our civic life.
(For an example of what happens when the advocacy drives the “journalism”, see the intentionally-misnamed Sound Politics.)
Just like the solution to race problems, wait a few years until the hip-hop generation is in power.
Too many old people in the government to be able to make the change today.
I don’t think medicinal use of marijuana had much to do with this incident. I heard it was other complicating items that made him a bad candidate for a transplant.
As for me, I not only support the use of marijuana for medical reasons, I support outright legalization of the herb. And, of course, the use or non-use of medicinal marijuana should have no impact as to who gets a new liver and who doesn’t.
Goldy,
WADR to Lee (whom I admire), I think he conflated two very different issues here and may be denigrating a very important and fair medical process..
There is no evidence that the decision was based on this guys use of pot. If it was, however, the decision as to prioritizing for TP is a very complicated one. Either we appoint good committees to make such decisions or we set up scary and arbitrary “rules.” I suppose ultimately we might get the lawyers in the process too, THAT would help raise costs of health care through the roof.
The problem with the medical marijuana movement is that it is an unsubtle effort to support legalization. That effort can do harm if it forces medicine to accept legislative judgments, rather than scientific ones, about what does and does not help.
The topic may be partially true, granted that. But, there’s a sliver of obsession by Lee for him trying to justify being a stoner, and also with Goldy being ditzy Darcy’s lil man-bitch and being totally in puppy-love with her in a freaky pathtic kinda way. Watch those pubes! Time for real jobs-both of you.
@12
The problem with the medical marijuana movement is that it is an unsubtle effort to support legalization.
This is a lie, Steve. If you want, I’d be more than happy to introduce you to people within the medical marijuana community so that you can get a better idea of how wrong you are about this.
@13
Mark1,
I have either been working full-time or attending college non-stop since the day I graduated high school in June 1993. I had a full-time office job when I graduated high school, was taking business trips for that company a year later (after my freshman year of college) and have worked at both Boeing and Microsoft since moving to Seattle. I’m still fully employed as a computer programmer today.
I’m honest about my pot use because I think it helps break down the stereotypes that people like you have about the folks who find enjoyment from the drug. And if you’re unable to handle that, I think you’re the one with the unhealthy obsession.
@14 Lee
Lee,
A lie is something one says that is knowingly false. I do not ever knowingly lie.
I suspect there are folks who fervently believe that MJ is a useful drug. There are folks who believe the same of apricot pits. I do not think there is any substantial evidence that MJ is a critical drug but woud certainly read anything oyu can find that says this sis true.
As for whether it wou,d be fair to lower a person’s chances for a liver transplant because they insist on self medication with MJ (with ot without a scrip), again I want to note oyu have no evidence that this was the case here.
BUT, suppose it were. Suppose the ctee had a liver and want5ed to rate two patients who are equal in all other ways. (I hate this sort of logic but what else can you do?) One person nis an absolutely compliant patient, willing to take whatever his docs ask. The other says “Yes, but?” Horrible choice to make, no?
The bigger issue for me is the impportnace of rationalism in public debate. The MMJ issue is a red herring. MJJ use is pleasant. There is no more evidence that abuse is a problme thasn there is for a huge range if things we accept as normal in our society. On that basis it ought to be legal.
Contaminating that issue (from either side) with the MMJ issue hurts the argument for ration decision making.
On Rationalism
As the power of science expands, how do we deal with the new facts?
I wish the debate on political issues about MJ could start from an agreeed on set of facts.
@16
I suspect there are folks who fervently believe that MJ is a useful drug.
Yes, there are.
There are folks who believe the same of apricot pits.
Maybe there are, but I don’t know of very many doctors who agree with them.
I do not think there is any substantial evidence that MJ is a critical drug but woud certainly read anything oyu can find that says this sis true.
I will send you some information over email.