In recent years, the field of journalism and the media have struggled significantly with their credibility. The term “#FakeNews” follows the media, and they are accosted daily by the highest leaders. While the Golden Age of Journalism may be gone, there are still excellent examples in the field of journalism. The best of these examples receives one of the most distinguished prizes in the literary and journalism world: the Pulitzer Prize. A Pulitzer Prize-winning story was chosen for review. The article won the prize in 2012 in Investigative Reporting. The writers examined the use of pain management drugs and how individuals are often forced to choose cheaper, but more dangerous options to control their pain. There were a series of articles, and one was chosen for review.

The article is entitled “State Pushes Drug that Saves Money, Costs Lives.” It was published in the Seattle Times on December 11, 2011. The journalists are Michael J. Berens and Ken Armstrong. Their series of articles focused on various aspects of pain management clinics, including the policies that govern how chronic pain patients are managed. This particular article examined one of the more shocking aspects of the issue. The authors examined how the horrific epidemic of deaths from methadone were clearly clustered in lower income neighborhoods. Methadone is a drug that is used as a chronic pain management drug or as a treatment for heroin addiction. In recent years, the prescriptions for pain management drugs as a chronic treatment has increased. This has helped fuel the current opioid epidemic that has gripped the nation. The authors recognized this as a problem earlier than many others. They wrote this series of articles in 2011, showing that they recognized a trend. When used correctly, opiate derivatives have beneficial outcomes for patients. When used incorrectly, or when abused, they can be deadly. Methadone is a difficult drug to manage. It is highly unpredictable in its outcomes, and often leads to overdoses. There were 2,173 deaths from methadone between 2003 and 2011 in Washington. The authors represented each death as a dot on a geographical map, and they mapped the epidemic. They noted that poorer neighborhoods had the majority of dots. Affluent neighborhoods had none. Their research led them to the cause: individuals with state benefits, such as Medicaid, state employees, and injured workers were given methadone as a treatment. Medicaid patients faired the worst. They represent only eight percent of the population, yet they accounted for forty-eight percent of methadone deaths.

The story is newsworthy because it indicates that the normal operating procedure of the government is to provide for cheap and possibly dangerous care for its must vulnerable citizens. The story is good journalism because the writers recognized a problem, namely the overdoses, and investigated what was beyond them. They did not assume anything about the overdoses or the victims. Rather, they sought answers, which indicted how the government runs. The story occurred at the beginning of the current discussion on opiates and the effects. It contributes greatly to this discussion, because there is more beyond the epidemic than just personal choice. Some people are forced to use dangerous drugs because it is all they can access for their medical concerns.

Personally, I found the article sad. The journalists share personal stories of these victims, and how much they suffered. The story also covers the struggles of the people who are involved in controlling these medications. They tried to stop this, but the government did not want to listen. It becomes apparent that the reason the government would not listen is strictly because of cost. It is quite sad when the government puts a price tag on the lives of its citizens. However, the journalists exposed the truth: the government did this. It is an excellent article because the journalists sought the truth, found it, and published it.