David Simon: Somebody Ought to Pay

Having read his Senate testimony, I have to applaud Mr. Simon for spelling out his contempt for the current state of media and the crop of current suggestions for how to improve it.

What I say will likely conflict with what representatives of the newspaper industry will claim for themselves. And I can imagine little agreement with those who speak for new media. From the captains of the newspaper industry, you will hear a certain martyrology – a claim that they were heroically serving democracy to their utmost only to be undone by a cataclysmic shift in technology and the arrival of all things web-based. From those speaking on behalf of new media, weblogs and that which goes twitter, you will be treated to assurances that American journalism has a perfectly fine future online, and that a great democratization in newsgathering is taking place.

In my city, there is a technical term we often administer when claims are plainly contradicted by facts on the ground. We note that the claimant is, for lack of a better term, full of it. Though in Baltimore, of course, we are explicit with our nouns.

High-end journalism is dying in America and unless a new economic model is achieved, it will not be reborn on the web or anywhere else. The internet is a marvelous tool and clearly it is the informational delivery system of our future, but thus far it does not deliver much first-generation reporting. Instead, it leeches that reporting from mainstream news publications, whereupon aggregating websites and bloggers contribute little more than repetition, commentary and froth. Meanwhile, readers acquire news from the aggregators and abandon its point of origin –namely the newspapers themselves.

In short, the parasite is slowly killing the host.

It's a great read.

I've often thought of blogging as little more than a free clipping service. There are obvious exceptions (actual new media like TPM and the like) but aggregators/ commentators and those who just link to and comment on what stands out to them are all utterly dependent on somebody doing the actual work of journalism.

If the NYT were to go dark, I'd have a lot less to do - and I'm nobody. Those sites out there that depend on millions of eyeballs showing up to devour their daily take on the news, where do they go when the content producers shut down?

There are all kinds of journalists who don't deserve the title - and plenty of bloggers who surpass paid professionals in terms of output and dedication. But the blogger's free lunch - newspapers giving away high quality content - cannot go on indefinately.

Simon's rebuttal to citizen bloggers holding government accountable is deliciously blunt.

I am offended to think that anyone, anywhere believes American institutions as insulated, self-preserving and self-justifying as police departments, school systems, legislatures and chief executives can be held to gathered facts by amateurs pursuing the task without compensation, training, or for that matter, sufficient standing to make public officials even care to whom it is they are lying or from whom they are withholding information.

I remember a lot of teeth gnashing about what Mr. Simon has said in the past - but I think his underlying logic is correct. If the content producers are dying - those who rely on them won't be far behind. I love a great many news blogs, but I can't help but see them as complimentary services.

I have no idea what new business models will shake out to deliver information to the public - but its clear that giving away content for nothing is not working as expected.