El Paso Times Disproves Itself Again

You read this article today http://www.elpasotimes.com/news/ci_20058074.

The headline reads "U.S. Rep. Silvestre Reyes can't support key claim in ad on drugs."  The article goes on to prove the key claim made in ad.  It's the weirdest/dumbest think I've ever read. 

I'm not taking a stand on the race or the issue of drugs here, I'm just critiquing journalistic integrity - or the lack of it in this case.  Please don't take what I'm about to say a judgement on anyone except the people at the El Paso Times - who are obviously in the can for O'Rourke, which is okay as long as that affection stays on the opinion pages and off the "news" pages.

Real quick - why is the El Paso Times backing Beto?  Several reasons, but I think foremost would be the fact that Reyes has been unreachable for 16 years.  He didn't care to return their calls because he didn't have to. What was the Times going to do if he didn't talk to them - support his insane opponents?  Well, now he's got a not-so-insane opponent and they're going to exact their revenge on him and try to gain favor with the new guy.

Back to the issue at hand.

So the headline is pretty clear - Reyes' ad claims something it can't back up.  That's pretty easy track down usually.  Candidate X says candidate Y loves green cars.  Candidate Y proves he's never owned a green car and candidate X is labeled a "liar."  That's what I expected to find in this story from reading the headline.

However...

The entire article is spent proving the headline false and the original ad correct.  O'Rourke is an advocate for drug legalization.  Marty "I Should Know Better" Schladen tries to slink around the issue by claiming that O'Rourke doesn't want to legalize "all" drugs.  That caveat is what Schladen is hanging his hat on and it doesn't seem to be holding up. 

Marijuana is a drug that is currently illegal. 

Beto wants to legalize Marijuana. "Decriminalizing" it is the same a legalizing it. 

Beto wants to legalize drugs. 

It's that simple.  You can't get any more clear than that. Oh, wait... you can.

O'Rourke wrote a book on the subject. And the theme of the book was quoted in the story.

I'd like to think I am trying to convince the masses of what I'm saying here, but it appears nobody is buying Schladen's idiotic headline.  Everybody has been quick to call "bullshit" on Marty Farty's little editorial party.  Of course, he could have done a better job of proving his point by not mentioning every single possible fact that refutes it.

I really don't know what the El Paso Times is trying to do here other than play all of the remaining credibility they have to try and get O'Rourke elected.  If anything they've failed at that miserably since they sent thousands of their readers to a very sharp campaign ad for Reyes.  I think many of the people came away wanting to vote for Reyes after seeing the ad. 

Leave it up to the El Paso Times to shoot themselves in the foot - again. And you wonder why El Paso is corrupt... you can't even get ethical news coverage on politics, much less anything with any depth to cover the obvious crimes being committed by public officials and employees.  Any other paper in the country would have laughed at Schladen's article and told him to go find a car crash to cover. 

I don't feel bad for you guys - you bring it on yourselves by not being an active participant in your community.

Comments

[jj]

insane guys aka Jorge Artalejo

[Gossip Girl]

I cancelled my subscription to the EPT long ago. Simply they do not print the truth and refuse to correct mistakes when called on it. So why should anyone pay to receive a daily newspaper where you don't know if you are reading the truth or not. It is that simple. I encourage everyone to also cancell their subscription. Better to not have a paper than have a deceptive paper!

[Texas Woman]

One thing all Veterans should know about O'Roark. He could care less about you. He has never supported America's Veterans. Doesn't care for them.

[There's a difference]

Actually, legalizing drugs is different from legalizing marijuana.

All drugs includes crystal meth, heroin, acid, cocaine, etc.

Legalizing marijuana would not mean legalizing all drugs.

There is a difference.

You just happen to have a grudge against the Times reporter, so you refuse to see the difference.

[David K]

there's a difference,

Sorry - no grudge. You're an O'Rourke supporter and have a bias, which is great - you should have one. However, your premise has been disproved in the post. Marijuana is a drug and O'Rourke wants to legalize it - legalize drugs.

Sorry, if you can't see it the way the public sees it, but your bias blinds you - well not completely. You wouldn't have to make the argument you are making if you really believe what you are saying. The very fact you have to take up arms against my charge means I'm right and you know the devastating effect that O'Rourke's stance on drugs is having on his chances.

I like Beto O'Rourke a lot - I hope he's your next congressman, but that doesn't preclude me from telling the truth. You should fall in love with the truth as well - it will set you free.

[hobo]

Man, you just got busted DK. There's plenty of differences.

[frequent reader]

I'm going to have to disagree.

From a logical standpoint, you're taking the fact that the candidate wants to legalize one drug and imply that the candidate wants to legalize all drugs. Even your own arugument shows that he wants to legalize a drug (emphasis on 'a drug') and imply all
drugs.

From your post:
[Marijuana is a drug that is currently illegal.

Beto wants to legalize Marijuana. "Decriminalizing" it is the same a legalizing it.

Beto wants to legalize drugs. ]

*Marijuana is a drug that is currently illegal. (singular)

*Beto wants to legalize Marijuana. "Decriminalizing" it is the same a legalizing it. (singular)

*Beto wants to legalize drugs. (plural)

From the comments:
[...your premise has been disproved in the post. Marijuana is a drug and O'Rourke wants to legalize it - legalize drugs.]

*Marijuana is a drug (singular)
*O'Rouke wants to legalize it [marijuana] (singular)
*legalize drugs (plural)

[There's a difference]

David K:

Adding an "s" to the end of a word indicates that it is plural.

Drug is singular

Drugs is plural

People who are blinded by (a) their hatred of good reporting, (b) their loathing of O'Rourke, (c) their loyalty to reyes refuse to see the obvious.

There is a difference.

[theothercarlos]

Legalization is a process often applied to what are now regarded as victimless crimes, such as the consumption of illegal drugs (see Drug legalization).

It should be contrasted with decriminalization, which removes criminal charges from an action, but leaves intact associated laws and regulations.

[Texas Woman]

The reason given by O'Rourke for legalizing pot is to cut back on the cartels money flow. Taking that thought to its logical conclusion we must also deal with the fact that the cartels also ship heroin,coke,meth and other drugs over the border into the U.S. So does legalizing Pot really impact the Cartels. No because if you really want to cut them out money wise legalizing all drugs re your only option if you are O'Rourke.

Now the truth of the matter is if you do legalize Pot in the US like O'Rourke wants all you will do is move the violence across the border into the US as its not likely that the Cartels will just give up such a money making endeavor.

[As Always, J....]

And of course, it also doesn't help when there are videos of Beto throwing himself among the cast of users of marijuana-- an illegal drug-- and repeating the claim that voters call him the guy who wants to legalize drugs, to which he replies, "yes." Tough to take that back. And so not only does he continue to breathe life into what is really the truth ("M" is a subset of "D", so therefore, "M" **IS** D), he also calls attention to his poor mother who was not guilty, but still pleaded guilty ON BEHALF of the business SHE owns to money laundering charges (and paid a hefty and very public fine for trying to skirt federal criminal laws). It's a tough sell to claim you feel for your poor besieged brethren in Juarez when your related business interests don't comply with laws designed to help law enforcement fight the bad guys.

Maybe you need to get back to EP and help Beto start thinking like the average person.