Should Bluelight actively manipulate the media?

[psood0nym]

Mods move this if you must, but this forum seemed most appropriate for this question.

We discuss a lot of drug related stories here. Most often, we satirize their content. But this is a drugs forum, so our opinions are just echoing. For most of these stories that are posted it's possible to either post on the original media outlet's web page or to email the journalist or their editor and let them know about our discussions. We could even invite them to the forum. To be honest, I've seen some pretty ridiculous pro-drug comments made here, but on the whole a story's reaction thread will display some decent rationale for its criticism. If Bluelight's philosophy is harm reduction through freely available evidence-based information, than by not making a more concerted effort to rectify ignorance in the media aren't we being somewhat negligent towards our own principals?

 

[phr]

If Bluelight's philosophy is harm reduction through freely available evidence-based information, than by not making a more concerted effort to rectify ignorance in the media aren't we being somewhat negligent towards our own principals?

There's the big issue of site representation (who does it? what stance is taken?). We never really tried to reach out and go beyond to help the cause. I'm not sure why, but keep in mind that the site is privately owned, so it may go against the wishes of the person who's name is on all of the papers...


I'm going to move this over to support, where I think you'll get better answers.

 

[psood0nym]

Yeah, I get that there could be a problem if bluelight get's too loud. But at the same time, we just may attract the attention of additional private funders (especially strictly confidential funders) by being loud, and it would certainly go a long way to support our purported cause. I'm not sure exactly how it would work. Perhaps mods could edit in the contact info for journalists along with a link to guidelines informing members that not being a total dick makes you seem much more reasonable when you contact journalists at the bottom of each applicable story? There need not be any official site policy other than that we encourage our members in their democratic deliberations with the media.

EDIT: We have thousands of active members backing a cause that most people have never heard about but that nevertheless has a strong evidence-based rationale. I imagine the typical journalist, as a person with a strong sense of civic duty, no matter how ignorant their attitude towards drugs, would respect what we're doing once they saw how many people support these principals rather than make any attempt to smear the site's name or the names of its funders.

 

[slimvictor]

We have thousands of active members backing a cause that most people have never heard about but that nevertheless has a strong evidence-based rationale. I imagine the typical journalist, as a person with a strong sense of civic duty, no matter how ignorant their attitude towards drugs, would respect what we're doing once they saw how many people support these principals rather than make any attempt to smear the site's name or the names of its funders.

In an ideal world, that might be the case...
But this world is far from ideal.
Not that I am against your general idea - actually, I support it strongly - but I wouldn't personally go into it with the expectation of fair and unbiased media treatment.
Ignorance is not easily overcome, especially based on the comments of some anonymous low-life druggies like us.

 

[psood0nym]

I suppose. But what exactly are these belligerent journalists whose responsibility is to their own geographic region going to do, print a story about the existence of a harm reduction drug board on the internet a decade after its inception because it members independently dared to engage the media in debate over an important issue? Bluelight isn't a story that's going to sell their editor, and sensationalist outlets can certainly find drug boards lower down the evolutionary ladder to make the the point of any propaganda their pushing. The only big story here is a feature expose on the internet-based RC drug culture, of which bluelight is only a part, and which publications like Wired have already somewhat explored (and they've done so pretty fairly). Not to mention if the not so subtle or low key mephedrone debacle in the UK doesn't blow the lid off the scene then our actions certainly aren't going to. No story, no scoop, no motivation, and I say that as a former student of journalism.

 

[helohihello]

I think we should manipulate them by starting to talk about a new RC. Just make something up and see if they pick up on it (coz they do read here occasionally). See if they start writing about it based on no real evidence.

 

[psood0nym]

^Heh heh, I like the idea in principle, it's like the Sokal affair but bullshitting the entire media system. Alas, the logistics of getting thousands of independent Bluelighters to participate in the Google bomb alchemy required to invoke a phantom drug to frighten the media would be pretty scary itself.

 

[tathra]

I think we should manipulate them by starting to talk about a new RC. Just make something up and see if they pick up on it (coz they do read here occasionally). See if they start writing about it based on no real evidence.

our purpose is to save lives. if the place was full of misinformation, or just flat-out lies, we would lose credibility, and by extension, lives would be put at risk. this goes directly against bluelight's mission.

and we've already seen journalists report on completely made up "drugs." i know i've seen articles about jenkem.

 

[psood0nym]

I decided to do a test run myself. I contacted the writer of an article posted in DiTM from the New Zealand paper The Northern Advocate titled Out of control magic mushrooms and simply told him, "FYI, your recent article is being discussed here. <link>".

This was his response:

Great to see so much reaction to one story!

How about a letter to the editor from some of these respondents, to get some debate going in the paper as well?

Cheers,

Peter de Graaf

Newspapers love dissenting opinions. In part, their democratic function is to serve as a public forum for discussion and debate, and online participation is more important to their survival than ever before. I think encouraging members to interact with the media would largely be mutually beneficial.

I'll post the journalist's invitation in response to the article's thread in a few days unless an admin posts here requesting that I don't.

 

[psood0nym]

I wrote back to Mr. de Graaf and explained to him my intent was to try to get those who felt misrepresented by the media to engage with the media more actively. I also said that there seemed to be a fear that exposure would hurt the site's cause. This is his reply:

Well, keep trying ... As robust as their discussion is on the forum, they are only preaching to the converted.
I am also sceptical about some of the claims made about magic mushrooms, but my views have no place in a newspaper story (there would be, quite rightfully, howls of complaint if I did try to pass off my views in the guise of a news story).
One thing I can understand is that they'd be reluctant to put their names to a letter to the editor - we don't do anonymous letters except in extreme circumstances, for reasons I'd be happy to explain - but if they're outside NZ I can't see what risk there would be to them. Online commenting is very limited on our budget website, unfortunately.

 

[psood0nym]

Posted in DiTM.

 

[solistus]

Interesting idea. Like phrozen I strongly support the idea but have concerns about implementation.

I think a sticky thread and/or section in the DiTM Guidelines thread about contacting the authors or publications responsible for posted stories, with guidelines about how to get the necessary contact info, an explanation for both BL members and members of the media that BL members contacting these media outlets are doing so on their own accord and not as official representatives of Bluelight, etc., would be a great place to start. I'm no mod or admin of course, but IMHO it would be best for BL to avoid officially sponsoring any responses of this sort, especially if said responses extend past correcting factual errors into editorializing about drug policy or culture. We're an information sharing community, not an editorial page

The discussion with Mr. de Graaf raises one issue that should definitely be in the FAQ, assuming one is written, for contacting the media: the issue of anonymity. A lot of smaller papers will be willing to print at least a short rebuttal to an article if it's respectful and well-written, but if that report comes from drugzuzer666 on bluelight.ru instead of, you know, a person with an actual name, it's not gonna carry quite the same weight.

 

[psood0nym]

^I agree mostly. I am not suggesting Bluelight become a platform of pro-drug activism in any way. Like I said earlier: "There need not be any official site policy other than that we encourage our members in their democratic deliberations with the media." This would of course include making it more convenient to contact writers of pro-harm reduction articles as they relate to drug use, too. I'd simply like to see us make it more convenient for our members to engage in media discussions that involve topics that Bluelight concerns itself with, because convenience is everything in getting people to act. I don't think a sticky giving guidelines on how to contact journalists would work very well. I feel effective convenience for members means something like a direct link immediately after the story, while people still care about it enough to summon the courage to do something. Ideally clicking on that link would present them with reminders to be respectful, and not to implicate the site in the presentation of their opinion in any way.

We may just be an information board, but we're constantly complaining about people's negative perceptions of drug users. It's difficult to state our opinions in person, because we risk sabotaging our own social networks. But the media channels of other countries allow us quite a bit of safety in expressing these views. If even an online community of drug users doesn't act to change these perceptions though the media, I guess I simply don't know who will.

 

[psood0nym]

This is a reaction to my posting of quotes from this thread in the thread of the mushroom article in DiTM. I'm posting it here because it contains information that is relevant to how actually implementing these ideas would work.

As for the next step:
Are you going to write a letter to the paper, using some of the ideas in this thread?

If you want to post it somewhere before sending it, I would happily make comments/ give my opinion, and others would probably be willing as well.

My response:
I would love to lead by example and write a letter to this paper's editor that could be published. The problem with that is, if it were published, simply through the information in these two posts it would be easy to find out my actual identity by reading the paper's online addition. I don't expect anyone to post about the fact that they've contacted any publication with a non-anonymous letter to the editor, just that they do it if they feel they have a rational evidence-based argument that applies to the content of an article. They could post that they've emailed a journalist or editor without the intent of having their communications published however, because there is no risk in having their name published if they only do that.

Edit: more

I like your idea, however I highly doubt we could influence any new sources. You have to remember that if a newspaper looks pro-drug in any way, they're going to lose a ton of readers.

Fact is, newspapers don't want to tell people what they don't want to hear, and believe me, people don't want to hear anything which doesn't crucify drug users.

Response:
^That may be true to an extent. But by contacting the journalists and editors who write the stories and decide how they are presented we influence the conscience and knowledge of those journalists and editors. That can change a future story's presentation from blatently anti-drug to neutral. By writing letters to the editor and posting responsibly and rationally in a newspaper's own forums/story discussions we influence the opinions of participants in those discussions, participants who very likely have never been exposed to our perspectives and arguments, or at least, and most importantly, that actual people rather than talking heads support such positions (thereby acting on their social perceptions).

 

[tathra]

attempting to influence policy or news/media isnt really in line with bluelight's mission of harm reduction and saving lives (it could be argued that by ensuring news stories are unbiased and factual, instead of demonizing drugs/users and being full of misinformation, could help contribute to the cause, but thats pushing it, and outside the scope of the site; that said, a "Public Relations Officer" or some kind of general PR guidelines/suggestions, to help increase our visibility and public perception and possibly other things, might not be a bad idea).

as with any other topic, there's no reason why bluelighters shouldnt write letters for the op/ed section about an article (or just to discuss stuff with the author), as long as it in no way sounds like you're speaking on behalf of the site. if you want to have a chance at having a real impact though, instead of just being some anonymous drug user (since most common folk tend to automatically view drug users as pathological liars and the scum of the earth, not deserving to live), it would probably be best to join/support a group who is working for policy change, such as National Organization for Reform of Marijuana Laws, Law Enforcement Against Prohibition, or Students for Sensible Drug Policy, etc.

 

[psood0nym]

if you want to have a chance at having a real impact though, instead of just being some anonymous drug user (since most common folk tend to automatically view drug users as pathological liars and the scum of the earth, not deserving to live), it would probably be best to join/support a group who is working for policy change, such as National Organization for Reform of Marijuana Laws, Law Enforcement Against Prohibition, or Students for Sensible Drug Policy, etc.

I don't imagine anyone writing to a publication, editor, or journalist would explicitly identify themselves as a drug user, there's no reason to. They could simply make a cogent argument for or against an article. Any group label heard or read, including "I'm a member of NORML," serves as a powerful psychological cue for generalization and dismissal. It is the fact that these arguments are perceived as coming from regular people that works most powerfully on the influenceable reader's sense of their social milieu, and their intuitive sense that "other normal people like me have thought about this, too" is far more powerful than any argument.

I don't think nearly as many people independently believe drug users are the scum of the earth as you seem to imply. Look at the response of Mr. de Graaf above. He wrote an article about mushrooms that was skewered by posters for it's ignorance and alarmist tone. You'd imagine he was certainly one of the people that believes drug users are the scum of the earth. Yet, after reading posts from a number of people giving good reasons why what he said was a problem, he encouraged us to write into his newspaper and expose the contradictions he had published. He even says he is personally skeptical about some of the propagandized claims about mushrooms, but that he doesn't want to put personal opinion in the story, as though he intended his article to fall in line with what he perceives to be the attitudes of the region he writes for.

But I don't think most people's attitudes towards drug users are solid at all, it's that through the media they have a social feedback mechanism that maintains their delusions and eschews critical thought by acting as an intellectual crutch (if we want to be included it's easiest to believe and speak about what we perceive normal people to believe). That's what makes the perception of numerous random intelligent persons' opinions so much more powerful than those of a political organization, and that's the new avenue of public influence that Bluelight is in the best possible position to work through.

Also, the idea isn't to tell members to contact the media with pro-drug messages because that's what Bluelight is about. It's simply to make it convenient to interact with members of the media and provide a few basic guidelines for writing a respectable letter/email, whatever your opinion may be. I'm not sure doing something so general as this is outside the scope of the site; it's just asserting that we make it convenient for our members to be democratically active about the topics they care about, not to steer them in any particular direction. Though it's obviously unlikely, someone who hates drugs could conceivably read a story on Bluelight, see the contact information for a slanderous story, and write in to say "good job".

 

[-Guido-]

Control the media, control the mind.

 

[tambourine-man]

Bluelight should be staying as far from the media as humanly possible. They are interested in nothing but satisfying their own business need to titillate.

Influencing them is not really an viable. When you deal with the devil, he will inevitably want his pound of flesh.

Leave the partisan campaigning to others.

 

[psood0nym]

^Ok, but what is your specific response in the context of the arguments above that argue against that notion?

 

[Vader]

I imagine the typical journalist, as a person with a strong sense of civic duty

That's a good one.