New Fuel for Local Papers: Medical Marijuana Ads

What would happen in the many communities now allowing medical marijuana had been a subject of much hand-wringing. But few predicted this: that it would be a boon for local newspapers looking for ways to cope with the effects of the recession and the flight of advertising — especially classified listings — to Web sites like Craigslist. Full Story »

Posted by Seth Roberts Farber - via Steve Outing, Patrick LaForge, Nieman Journalism Lab, Jim Romanesko, Jack Shafer, David Carr, New York Times (Most Emailed), Google News (Media), Josh_Young (t), Matthew Nadler (t), Lynnette Fusilier (t), Kaizar Campwala (t), Jeremy Caplan (t)

See All Reviews »

Review

Scott Morton
4.0
by Scott Morton - Jan. 31, 2011

Writing an article about how medical marijuana ads can increase the revenue of a local newspaper organization can be very controversial, but The New York Times does a wonderful job of clearly stating on exists in Colorado, a state that has legalized the distribution of marijuana for medical purposes. Keeping this report in the conversation in the context of Colorado (Colorado Springs, in particular) makes it easy for an anti-marijuana NY Times subscriber to still read the article informed. Also, the author of this article makes it very clear that the context of this particular "pot business boom" is only relevant to one local Colorado paper: The Independent. The context is very clear throughout the entire report. The data shown includes quotes from John Weiss, the founder and publisher of the Independent, pictures of the marijuana ads, and competitor's remarks (which are surprisingly supportive). This article does a marvelous job of highlighting important and informative data, thus making the article credible and effective. Aside from the context and data given, the article as a whole is incredibly thought provoking; allowing the reader to imagine what their local paper would become if it were to be filled with medical marijuana advertisements.

See All Reviews »

Scott's Rating

Overall
4.0

Good
from 11 answers
Quality
4.0
Facts
4.0
Fairness
4.0
Sourcing
4.0
Style
4.0
Context
4.0
Depth
4.0
Enterprise
4.0
Relevance
4.0
Popularity
4.0
Recommendation
4.0
Credibility
4.0
More How our ratings work »