Review of Document - excellently reported, considers subject as a

excellently reported, considers subject as a whole

☆

“Josh may be self-pitying or sound as if he doesn’t care enough about those around him - he’s an addict. He’s been using drugs since he was 11, and on opioids from 16 into his twenties. The idea that only those who are incredibly sympathetic warrant freedom from arbitrary and absurd sentencing guidelines is absurd - those who end up in this situation will not be well-adjusted / charming / uncomplicated. How dare the prosecutor bring up Liz’ unborn child. Is Josh being prosecuted for two deaths? Is there no acknowledgment that Liz was using heroin while pregnant? These are two desperate people, Josh on meth, Liz begging him for dope, using her “unborn child” as a reason to get a hit for free. I am grateful for the fact that not every story about an unwarranted sentence has to have a purely heroic protagonist or one entirely “innocent.” You can dislike Josh, if that is important to you, but the idea that his flaws mean this story is fatally flawed or that the reporter has been duped because he does not dwell at length on every aspect of Josh that is less than angelic rather than letting him speak for himself and allowing us to draw conclusions, to feel uncomfortable perhaps - it’s as though you are furious at reality but can’t / don’t want to feel angry at the sheer absurdity of what is going on here. Rather than attacking a reporter for bringing you a story with shades of grey, perhaps consider why it this is a far more interesting / complex story than one which gives you your hero and your villain. It is about humans, caught up in the cycles of addiction, caught up in a fentanyl epidemic completely out of their control while in those cycles.”

scepticalmarshmallow via Apple Podcasts · United States of America · 07/07/22