Let's look at the coverage of California's requirement that Type 48 license holders provide drug testing kits to patrons. Because the article/reporter wanted to provide a look into both sides of the issue (those who like the requirementand those who don't) they included this quote:
"While I've heard about drink spiking, I suspect that it's extremely rare, at least here in the Palm Desert area."
If the reporter had been providing all the facts, they would have immediately followed that with the rate of occurrence of drink spiking. If it was "extremely rare", they could have then followed up with a government official's thoughts on why the requirement is necessary even if the drink spiking is "extremely rare".
There was no such information provided, leaving the reader with one man's opinion that is clearly only conjecture but given credibility by being included in the article. In an effort to present both sides, but surely on a deadline that prevented proper research, they left the reader with the idea that drink spiking is rare and that the government is simply overreaching.
Mainly indirect measures; reports at womens centres for example- not all spiking events are reported by any means .. but a rise in reports likely follows a rise in spiking (or the effectiveness of a recent campaign to report such things).
Consistent sampling of the dregs tray at various bars would be an indicator, as would sewerage sampling (as used to track other drug use).
Conceivably spiking rates might also be reflected in certain types of bathroom grafitti or social media posts.
"While I've heard about drink spiking, I suspect that it's extremely rare, at least here in the Palm Desert area."
If the reporter had been providing all the facts, they would have immediately followed that with the rate of occurrence of drink spiking. If it was "extremely rare", they could have then followed up with a government official's thoughts on why the requirement is necessary even if the drink spiking is "extremely rare".
There was no such information provided, leaving the reader with one man's opinion that is clearly only conjecture but given credibility by being included in the article. In an effort to present both sides, but surely on a deadline that prevented proper research, they left the reader with the idea that drink spiking is rare and that the government is simply overreaching.