this morning in the freep

I wonder if I should title this entry something more like--paranoid plants--or hypocritical hydroponics--

enh--what I am choosing to rant about this morning is a huge discrepancy I noticed between two stories in the Detroit Free Press. It seems unjust to me that while on the front page of the LOCAL section there is a huge story about the herbal bust of a suburban grower of--well--I don't want to look at google ads for bongs for the next week--so you just guess what this guy had under *his* grow lights. The tone of Witsil's article is barely objective--it paints a picture of a pretty normal dude trying to make a buck--not hurting anybody (well not directly) and getting socially smacked down for supplying the demand (of society).

THEN in sharp contrast located in the LIFE section of the same daily paper-- there is a prominently placed article about two more plant growers. However despite their agricultural similarities the two articles are vastly different in tone and voice. Marty Hair's piece about the suburban couple growing African violets is all happy crappy and pleasant. No quotes from the county sheriff in this piece, WHY do the grow lights in the first dude's basement rank a condescending and patronizing tone, while the grow lights in the basement of the second piece evoke granny's frilly petals and blue ribbons at 4-H?? "attracting new fans".
I'll bet the first busted guy has a pretty sad fan base right now.

If the Freep editors are going to run stories on home botany constructions I think the value judgments on the plants should be left to the reader and not insinuated by the reporter. "distinctive smell" --feh.