If you are 21 or older and have an ounce of weed, that’s legal in two states (Washington and Colorado), cited in a blog all about the topic. Colorado just recently legalized it (November 5th, according to this article).
Because of this change in state law, it implies that weed doesn’t have to be a taboo topic any longer. The Denver Post is a prime example of that, as the paper put out on ad on Wednesday looking for an editor to manage a website all about the stuff. Jim Romensko’s blog included the picture of the ad, seen below.
The Post’s news director, Kevin Dale, insisted that the job would only be held for people who are already employed at the paper. This ensures that while the job description may seem silly or outrageous to some, it will still be filled by an experienced journalist.
This is an interesting topic as it shows the changing times, both in society, and therefore in journalism as well. Twenty years ago no one would probably have believed this ad to be true; some people today still might not, if they just saw the picture and nothing else. It raises the question of what should newspapers and news organizations support – should they always back new laws that are passed, or should they use their discretion? Some people do not agree that marijuana should be legalized and may be upset if their favorite source of news is supporting this issue.
I’m interested to see if some outlets choose to comment negatively against it or not. Do you respond how you truly feel, even if you think it’ll lose you some readers, or do you write what you think the majority of readers want to hear, even if you as an organization don’t agree? From a journalistic standpoint, I think you’ve gotta go with the former, but I’m also not-so naive to understand that journalism is all about making money. It will be interesting to see how quickly this trend of legalizing marijuana catches on (if it does) and how that will effect the world of journalism.