What happens when there are no newspapers? David Simon knows...

Great points, Deskslave.

 

Very well-done by Simon. Great explanation of what is at stake here.

But . . . I've sadly had to mute my passion for this topic because I've resigned myself to the fact that readers don't care. They may lament the newspaper and its coverage after it's gone.

I doubt it, though.

 

Most of them seem content to do a touchdown spike on our respective graves. Which begs the question ... why in the hell were they reading in the first place?

 

I couldn't agree more. It's almost as though most people specifically want to know from every source that isn't a newspaper. I don't understand it, and I never will.

Maybe that makes me part of the problem...?

 

Ben Sargent sums it up nicely ...

 

The Sun took me through the looking glass this morning.

They've been following up on this whole "Police won't identify officers who shoot people because it makes them targets for retaliation" ever since Simon spanked them with his Post op-ed. Now it looks like the PD will probably change its policy. One City Councilor made a great point today -- in a city where the "Stop Snitching" ethos is embedded, and the police have to beg witnesses to come forward, the police are now saying that their own officers are too endangered to have their names publicly mentioned after they shoot someone? That's not exactly going to inspire confidence in the citizenry that they'll be safe if they speak out or testify against criminals.

But The Sun's article also had this line:
"Political pressure on the department intensified this week after The Baltimore Sun reported that none of the 23 threats against officers last year were related to police-involved shootings."

This is exactly the kind of prize-chasing, self-serving stuff that Simon went crazy on in Season 5 of The Wire. The Sun loves to pad its Pultizer entries by submitting stories that show how The Sun's reporting changed public policy. In the case of the guy that Simon based his fabricating reporter on, those policy changes simply didn't happen. And in this case, The Sun is taking credit for "pressure" and reporting that actually started with Simon himself, in the pages of another paper.

 

Just to set the record straight...

Simon's piece was largely BS. No doubt his bigger point is true, and so-called citizen journalism isn't going to sniff out corruption and keep us all safe. But he chose the wrong example.

Simon's piece in the Washpost appeared Feb 27, claiming the Sun ignored this important story, and that Simon had to dust off his reporter's notebook and do the legwork himself.

But the Sun didn't ignore the story. Far from it, in fact.

Here's a story from Feb 19 that appeared in the Sun and on its web site that Simon either missed or conveniently ignored: http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/local/baltimore_city/bal-shooting-officer0219,0,3681903.story

And here's a lengthy blog post also on the topic, also from Feb 19: http://weblogs.baltimoresun.com/news/crime/blog/2009/02/withholding_names_of_police_wh.html

Both of these appeared more than a week before Simon reported the same information.

So how exactly can our hero claim to have done the legwork ignored by the daily newspaper? In truth, in this instance, Simon altered facts to fit his preferred narrative. Sounds like a pretty good plot for a TV show, huh?

For the record: I love Simon's TV work, and I'm sad seeing what's happening to the Sun. Nine days out of 10, I'm much more comfortable defending Simon and trashing the Sun.

 

I know there may not be a direct correlation, but I wonder how much of the shift to community news and all local fronts at small-town rags has hurt their viability. Whether people admit it or not, they enjoy the crime and death aspect of papers.

 

When it comes to things like corruption and abuse of power, I think most people don't give a shit. Really...overwhelmingly, people don't give a fuck. And the places with the most apathy are also the places where corruption and abuse of power is at its worst.

 

The timing of Simon's piece in the Sunday Outlook section of the Post is immaterial. I thought it appeared March 1, which means it was probably printed on Feb. 26 or so and accepted for publication at least several days prior. According to Simon, and I don't know if he's telling the truth or not ("...the Sun caught up on the story somewhat; I called the editor and vented everything I'd learned about the earlier incident.") the Sun's story arose in large part from what he phoned into the editor.

He might be full of shit. I just hate when papers pat themselves on the back for developments in a story, ala today's "Political pressure on the department intensified this week after The Baltimore Sun reported..."

I just thought it was a very meta moment that one of Simon's major beefs with the Carroll/Marimow regime (full disclosure: I have posted here before that Simon's vitriol toward these two wonderful gentlemen and journalists was off-target and mean-spirited) -- the way they would write their own reporting into their news columns with an eye toward influencing Pulitzer judges -- is now occurring in a developing story that Simon is claiming credit for helping uncover.

 

I worked in two areas where political corruption was rampant. One was a growing Sun Belt place, and I think you're right, people didn't care because most of them were from someplace else, and the two things that mattered to them was 1.) plentiful jobs and 2.) no snow! The other place, people were extremely interested in local politics, but they accepted extortion and nepotism as the nature of politics. People got reelected when they were under indictment. The people at the paper seemed to think of themselves like missionaries among cannibals -- "Whattaya mean it's not OK to eat people? We've been eating people since time began! You reporters are crazy! Bunch of prudes!" They liked reading about it, didn't think we were assholes for uncovering it, just thought we overreacted about societal impact and severity of the crime.

 

Simon is such a bizarre character to me. I loved the book Homicide and the show, and the Wire was the best thing on TV, but it's true that he's an egotistical jerk. He's now turned himself into the watchdog of the watchdogs, a professional second-guesser. Those sort of backseat-drivers can drive you nuts when you're out there grinding every day yourself.