What if people start to strip random bark and try extracting DMT? People "could" get hurt.

"that's comparable to cocaine!"

LOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOL... I LIVE IN A SOCIETY WITH A BUNCH OF FUCKING IDIOTS

FFS

If it can be made from mixing any bark with lye and ammonia. This doesn't even make sense to people who don't know what dmt is.

Journalist #1: you cant really blame the reporter here, he probably had not even heard of DMT until the cops told him. wghp is actually a really good shop. The web script says: "Dr. Sam Gray, a physician with Drug Free NC, says that the highly addictive drug will only grow in popularity." So it's more on this doctor than the news report. no where in the piece does the reporter say anything about "addictive". I would never have a reporter speculate on the moral aspects of an illegal drug, we are going to report people getting busted meth, crack, lsd, weed, and molly all the same, its not up to us in the news media to decide which illegal drugs are bad and wich ones are good. besides most adult know the difference between shrooms and crack. the guy never said its addictive. of course it can be dangerous, just like any drug. but don't expect that reporter to go out of his way to make an illegal drug look "not so bad" he would probably get in trouble.

I just watched it again. Ok here is my final word and I will get off this thread. I have done literally thousands of news stories over the years and I have no problem with this story except for the tree bark ammonia thing. The reporter does all the attributions correctly. (I'm only talking about the video, not the web script.)

Journalist #2: I find the ignorance here astounding. (Journalist #1) is actually throwing some real information at you people, and you insist in wallowing in your self-righteousness. Believe me, were any one of you with first-hand knowledge of the substance to come out and talk about it (and they would conceal your identity), they'd jump on the story. Or you can just sit here and whine about it.

I've actually been a journalist for nearly 20 years, and the job of a journalist is not necessarily to present facts, but information. Those are not always the same. I can tell you that in situations like these, people like you, who often have intimate knowledge of an opposing position, refuse to actually go on camera to be part of the discussion. Journalists, then, are left with getting as much information as they can to fill the time they are responsible for in a newscast. Feeding that beast may smack our righteous sensibilities about what news should be, but it's the real world, and we do what we can.

No journalist can know everthing, and it is unfair of you to indict Brandon for not knowing much about the substance. And to think one can inform oneself in the course of a news day is also unrealistic. So he was left referencing his expert interviews. That you would rather insult his journalistic integrity than endeavor to understand the real-world confines within which he works seems rather juvenile in it's idealism. You certainly seem smart enough to know better, but I've been let down before.

In the end, Brandon was left relaying the best information he had at the time. Every story I do would be better if I had another hour or another day to work on it. But I rarely do...such is journalism and it's deadlines. So I challenge you to now take part in the discussion, or if you're not in the Greensboro, NC area, to try to put him in touch with someone who can.

I worked with Brandon Jones for a while. I suspect if you knew him, you'd be less critical...and maybe you'd help him with a subject you actually know something about.

I find it ironic that you blast this news story for it's inaccuracies and ignorance, but, in this thread, refuse to learn from two news professionals why things came out the way they did. Instead, you all seem quite comfortable with believing only what's convenient to your world view. What I've read in this thread is much the same nonsense I hear from other ill-informed people who would rather complain than try to help fix the problem.

you cant really blame the reporter here, he probably had not even heard of DMT until the cops told him.

wghp is actually a really good shop.

The web script says: "Dr. Sam Gray, a physician with Drug Free NC, says that the highly addictive drug will only grow in popularity." So it's more on this doctor than the news report. no where in the piece does the reporter say anything about "addictive".

I would never have a reporter speculate on the moral aspects of an illegal drug, we are going to report people getting busted meth, crack, lsd, weed, and molly all the same, its not up to us in the news media to decide which illegal drugs are bad and wich ones are good. besides most adult know the difference between shrooms and crack.

the guy never said its addictive.

of course it can be dangerous, just like any drug. but don't expect that reporter to go out of his way to make an illegal drug look "not so bad" he would probably get in trouble.

I find the ignorance here astounding. (Journalist #1) is actually throwing some real information at you people, and you insist in wallowing in your self-righteousness.

Believe me, were any one of you with first-hand knowledge of the substance to come out and talk about it (and they would conceal your identity), they'd jump on the story. Or you can just sit here and whine about it.

I've actually been a journalist for nearly 20 years, and the job of a journalist is not necessarily to present facts, but information. Those are not always the same.

I can tell you that in situations like these, people like you, who often have intimate knowledge of an opposing position, refuse to actually go on camera to be part of the discussion. Journalists, then, are left with getting as much information as they can to fill the time they are responsible for in a newscast. Feeding that beast may smack our righteous sensibilities about what news should be, but it's the real world, and we do what we can.

No journalist can know everthing, and it is unfair of you to indict Brandon for not knowing much about the substance. And to think one can inform oneself in the course of a news day is also unrealistic.

So he was left referencing his expert interviews.

That you would rather insult his journalistic integrity than endeavor to understand the real-world confines within which he works seems rather juvenile in it's idealism. You certainly seem smart enough to know better, but I've been let down before.

In the end, Brandon was left relaying the best information he had at the time.

Every story I do would be better if I had another hour or another day to work on it. But I rarely do...such is journalism and it's deadlines.

So I challenge you to now take part in the discussion, or if you're not in the Greensboro, NC area, to try to put him in touch with someone who can.

I worked with Brandon Jones for a while. I suspect if you knew him, you'd be less critical...and maybe you'd help him with a subject you actually know something about.

I find it ironic that you blast this news story for it's inaccuracies and ignorance, but, in this thread, refuse to learn from two news professionals why things came out the way they did.

Instead, you all seem quite comfortable with believing only what's convenient to your world view. What I've read in this thread is much the same nonsense I hear from other ill-informed people who would rather complain than try to help fix the problem.