Am I the only journalist to be troubled by Rolling Stone owner Jann Wenner’s complete conflation of journalism and lobbying in some of the pardon cases? The New York Post reports that “Clinton ended up commuting the sentences of 17 drug offenders supported by FAMM [Families Against Mandatory Minimums], which claims mandatory sentencing laws have left thousands of first-time, nonviolent drug violators languishing for years behind bars. Wenner lobbied Clinton for 14 of them. Wenner, who has donated over $30,000 to Hillary Clinton and other Democrats, raised the issue with Clinton during a Rolling Stone interview in the White House family quarters in October. He later faxed Clinton and top aide Bruce Lindsey details of the cases along with a personal letter of support.” (My emphasis.) I guess we’re inured to the fact now that someone who runs a magazine like Rolling Stone has gone from counter-cultural rebel to high-level user of presidential access. And we’re no longer shocked to find that Wenner’s indebtedness to Clinton translates into fellatial coverage of the president in the pages of Rolling Stone. And this toadying to a man who expanded the drug war to new and invidious heights! But to use an actual interview to lobby for the cause of a friend seems to me a new low in principled journalism in which there is some distinction between a reporter/interviewer and political supplicant. I’m a big believer in the cause that Wenner was trying to advance. Our drug laws are way too rigid and harsh. But you shouldn’t have to trash any ounce of journalistic integrity to promote a worthwhile cause.

]]>