New at Reason

Julian Sanchez | October 26, 2005

Nick Gillespie works himself up into a meth-induced rage and fires back at Newsweek's editor.

Update: Newsweek Editor Mark Whitaker responds to Gillespie's response:

Dear Nick

I never chided On the Media for hosting a critical conversation on this issue. In fact, in a portion of my note to Bob and Brooke that they chose not to include on the air, I said that I thought the debate was fair game and that reasonable people could disagree about the extent of the meth crisis. My only beef was your contending that Newsweek would publish a cover story without any statistics to back it up. You can parse what you said all you want, but that was clearly the implication that you left with everyone I know who listened to the show. Beyond that, I had no intention, and have none now, of engaging you or Shafer in an extended public discussion of this subject. As usual, we've been praised for our reporting by some experts and attacked by others, but that's par for the course for us when we take on controversial subjects.

Regards,
Mark

And Gillespie's final note in the exchange:

Mark,

Thanks for your response. I respectfully disagree that it's "parsing" to reiterate what I actually said or to throw into question whether the stats you cited supported your story.

Yrs,

Nick

Comments

Baylen Linnekin|10.26.05 @ 4:33PM|#

There's lies, there's damn lies, and then there's Newsweek.

|10.26.05 @ 4:35PM|#

"...works himself up at into..."

All your rage are balong to us.

|10.26.05 @ 4:46PM|#

I appreciate all of Nick's facts and figures and logic and links to supporting documentation...

...but I had a friend who knew somebody once, and, besides, everybody knows.... ...and if it's in Newsweek or a cop said it then it must be true.

|10.26.05 @ 4:54PM|#

I'm not surprised. It seems that the media organizations just want to boost up its revenues. Of course the politicians love it because all they have to do is to pass some harsh anti-meth laws so it's easier for them to win elections.

|10.26.05 @ 5:16PM|#

It's well known that up to 73% of all statistics are made up right on the spot by journalists.

|10.26.05 @ 5:23PM|#

Nick, you showed far too much restraint in your response. Both NPR and Newsweek deserve more heat.

Abdul, you are obviously a shill for the right-wing media conspiracy. A scientific study conducted last year by a non-partisan media consortium found that only 72% of all statistics are made up on the spot.

|10.26.05 @ 5:35PM|#

I'd suggest that Gillepie invite Mark Whitaker to debate the merits of the article in question on On the Media, but Whitaker probably wouldn't accept that kind of challange...

...would he?

|10.26.05 @ 5:40PM|#

Nick Gillespie- Wow. In another forum I frequent, your article would be referred to as an Atomic Bitch Slap.

|10.26.05 @ 5:42PM|#

As a reasonable, cool headed citizen of these great states, as well as wonk-in-training consumer of news-media, my feelings on Mr gillespie's response may only be described in one way,

Pwn3d.

I gotta convince my parents to cancel Newsweek now.

|10.26.05 @ 6:45PM|#

Those are some unsexy statistics. Essentially flat usage rates and muddled "regular" rates. Gah, makes me want to *yawn*

|10.26.05 @ 7:48PM|#

"The key words, of course, are "usage trends.""

Tabloids have their celebrities. "Respectable" magazines have their trends. Newpapers have their polls.

|10.26.05 @ 8:17PM|#

...and if it's in Newsweek or a cop said it then it must be true
As I see it, if it is in Newsweek then it probably no longer relevant.

|10.26.05 @ 8:39PM|#

Also from the Newsweek article:

"60 percent of the time, it works every time."

|10.26.05 @ 11:23PM|#

"You can parse what you said all you want, but that was clearly the implication that you left with everyone I know who listened to the show."

Nice appeal to the gallery there. Every lawyer I know says there should be no limit to punitive damages, so it must be true.

|10.27.05 @ 12:12AM|#

"My only beef was your contending that Newsweek would publish a cover story without any statistics to back it up."

Newsweek is such a noble institution, you should just assume we had the numbers to back it up.

Now I say to you, GOOD DAY SIR!

|10.27.05 @ 1:03AM|#

That's all the response the guy can muster?

Seriously?

Jesus, I'm in the wrong line of work.

raymond|10.27.05 @ 1:11AM|#

In 2003, 12.3 million Americans aged 12 and older reported having tried methamphetamine at least once in their lifetime. In 2004, that figure was 11.7 million.

I doubt 12.3 million Americans actually reported any such thing. However, let's pretend they did.

Meth Kills! Weed Saves!

According to statistics for 2003/2004, and assuming (for the sake of simplicity) no new users of either drug, 2004 saw the disappearance of 564,000 meth-using Americans and the inexplicable reappearance of 161,000 cannabis users.

The conclusions are inescapable. For a short, brutal exitence, use Meth. For a long, mellow one - extending even beyond the grave - put your feet up; smoke a joint.

|10.27.05 @ 2:17AM|#

"Beyond that, I had no intention, and have none now, of engaging you or Shafer in an extended public discussion of this subject."

Pussy!

|10.27.05 @ 9:17AM|#

Newspeak's just PC garbage. What'd you expect?

|10.27.05 @ 9:26AM|#

Did Nick actually sign it "Yrs"?

|10.27.05 @ 10:40AM|#

Is there a term for "intentionally misrepresenting the other side's position in order to maintain one's own initial, inapposite rejoinder, upon recognizing that a major flaw in one's original position has been revealed"?

In a broader sense, you could call it spin or intellectual dishonesty. But I'm hoping one of our resident Logic mavens knows the Latin or Greek term for it (if one exists).

Calling "parse" on your opponent, without showing where the faulty parse supposedly occurred or how it resulted in an unfair protrayal of your position, is completely shitty.

Guess that's why we call 'em NewsWEAK.

|10.27.05 @ 11:09AM|#

I disagree. In essence, Nick did imply that Newsweek "contained no statistics to substantiate our assertion that it's an epidemic". That's Nick's opinion of the information contained in the Newsweek article, that the information therein does not substantiate their claims of an epidemic. Nick has every right to make that criticism. The NPR show had nothing to apologize for, although they are free to publicize Newsweek's "rebuttal" such as it is. Newsweek should think about Nick's criticism, as he's probably right.

Timothy|10.27.05 @ 11:23AM|#

"You can parse what you said all you want, but that was clearly the implication that you left with everyone I know who listened to the show."

He, apparently, didn't stop tho think that everyone he knows is likely to just agree with him because they're his friends. Next he'll be saying that his dad can totally kick Gillespie's dad's ass.

|10.27.05 @ 11:40AM|#

He, apparently, didn't stop tho think that everyone he knows is likely to just agree with him because they're his friends. Next he'll be saying that his dad can totally kick Gillespie's dad's ass.

Whittaker's dad doesn't stand a chance against leather clad Nick.

|10.27.05 @ 12:23PM|#

I had no intention, and have none now, of engaging you or Shafer in an extended public discussion of this subject.

Talk about not standing by your story...

|10.27.05 @ 2:08PM|#

I had no intention, and have none now, of engaging you or Shafer in an extended public discussion of this subject

Reminds me of the line in Ball Four by Jim Bouton, which I read many years ago. Bouton has a disagreement with one of the coaches, who says to him, "Look Jim, I don't wanna argue with you about this."

To which Bouton thought to himself: Why not? Could it be because I was so right?

|10.27.05 @ 5:32PM|#

Awesome Brett, but I have to be honest with you, that smells like pure gasoline.

|10.27.05 @ 10:36PM|#

Don't know about you, E-Rock, but everything in Newsweek smells like Bigfoot's dick to me...

|10.28.05 @ 2:59AM|#

Is there a term for "intentionally misrepresenting the other side's position in order to maintain one's own initial, inapposite rejoinder, upon recognizing that a major flaw in one's original position has been revealed"?

In a broader sense, you could call it spin or intellectual dishonesty. But I'm hoping one of our resident Logic mavens knows the Latin or Greek term for it (if one exists).

Homo strawus retros?