DA Rosales & The Sticky-Icky

Full disclosure - I'm not a marijuano (pot head for the bilingually impaired) and never have been. Just not my thing.  

But I do enjoy Snoop Dogg and Willie Nelson, so I guess that counts for something. And who doesn't like Rick James' classic, Mary Jane?

I basically don't care if someone smokes weed any more than I care what kind of alcohol they drink. It just isn't that important to me - although I do look at people who put pineapple on pizza like someone dropped them on their head when they were a child. 

I know it doesn't make sense to other people, but as long as I don't have to smell a stoner, me importa que sean Marijuanos.

But I do have a big problem with government entities even implying a threat to journalists for their reporting. 

I know, some of you are scratching your head right now, so let me bring you up to speed. Earlier today I was scrolling through Facebook and I came across an interesting post from Aaron Montes. 

It is a garden-variety media request that is relevant to a story he's working on. 

The response from a spokesperson is what is really surprising to me. I have been around a lot of journalists and PR professionals and I can tell you that whoever it was that sent that response does not have a lot of experience in public or media relations and I'm willing to further bet that the DA probably wasn't aware of the tone of the response. 

But that response should bother everyone. 

Especially because of this line that appears to be a not-so thinly veiled threat. 

"Please know that we will be monitoring what your station reports, especially given the fact that there have been some inaccuracies and false reporting in the past."

Say what????

But if there were inaccuracies and false reporting in the past, why not say exactly what they were? Any experienced media professional knows that if there is something inaccurate and "false reporting" - you jump on it right away and get a correction or retraction. You don't dump vague complaint in an email on an unrelated story. 

People in government have gotten a little too used to panning a story as "fake news". 

The other dead-wrong thing you can do as a media contact is be dead wrong. You lose all professional credibility when you can't be trusted to give an honest answer. Now, I don't know if the person was lying their teeth, or just completely ignorant to comments made by their boss, but either are inexcusable. 

Earlier in the reply the spokesperson states 

"...I'd advise against using the statement, 'Representative Annello mentioned that the District Attorney's Office said during a community meeting that small possession cases would not be pursued.' as that would be false reporting, inaccurate and not the entire statement given at the community meeting..."

Except that DA Rosales has taken that position on the record multiple times. In fact, I found her appearance at a NORML candidate forum, which is an organization of stoners that advocate for the reform of weed laws. 

Yeah - she spoke to them - on the record. And guess what the first question of the forum was about?

And not only that, her answer in that forum directly relates to the media inquiry by Montes because an element to her convoluted and cagey answer involved testing.

Given how she responds in that forum, the DA needs to provide clarity to the community about what the policy is going to be going forward and she should absolutely make it clear that her office is in no way, shape, or form, trying to intimidate or threaten journalists covering her office.