WP: David Simon: In Baltimore, No One Left to Press the Police

[Heisenberg]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/02/27/AR2009022703591.html?hpid=opinionsbox1

Interesting article on policy changes in the BPD and how the dying newspaper industry has helped to pave the way for less accountability coming from the department.

Fans of The Wire should recognize the author of the article immediately.

[FanboyOf91]

Very good article. His point about how the crime beat has been thinned is pretty much true everywhere.

There is a lot of talk nowadays about what will replace the dinosaur that is the daily newspaper. So-called citizen journalists and bloggers and media pundits have lined up to tell us that newspapers are dying but that the news business will endure, that this moment is less tragic than it is transformational.

Well, sorry, but I didn't trip over any blogger trying to find out McKissick's identity and performance history. Nor were any citizen journalists at the City Council hearing in January when police officials inflated the nature and severity of the threats against officers. And there wasn't anyone working sources in the police department to counterbalance all of the spin or omission.

Quoted for ****ing truth.

[Heisenberg]

Very good article. His point about how the crime beat has been thinned is pretty much true everywhere.

Quoted for ****ing truth.

Yeah, I find it a bit disturbing that the people who would have pressed for answers and accountability in the past are becoming extinct. It's a scary situation when these organizations that have so much power don't have journalists to help keep them in check.

[ACW]

We need more David Simons and Radley Balkos.

[Elessar78]

Really good article. Got me fired up.

I think he illustrates why it's important that newspapers in this country stay viable and vibrant. Unfortunately, a lot of people these days are alliterate (choose not to read) and/or confuse 10 second sound bites and 250 word online "articles" as being informed.

The founding of this country, support for the Revolution, possesses direct links to the ability of the press to incite people to action. It's a shame we live in an age where we're seeing the rapid decline of quality journalism. We have better, faster, and more access to information than ever before but no avenue ("media") to synthesize it in a thoughtful and useful manner. It's counter-productive (not to mention counter-intuitive) to make less with more.

You can try and blame the "suits" who try to streamline these newspapers to turn a profit. But really it boils down to the fact that not many people want to read in this day and age. The DC area is an anomaly, but it's in decline there too.

The top-5 current NY times best seller lists is fluff, it's a joke. Housewife lit and Twilight books. C'mon??

[Heisenberg]

Really good article. Got me fired up.

I think he illustrates why it's important that newspapers in this country stay viable and vibrant. Unfortunately, a lot of people these days are alliterate (choose not to read) and/or confuse 10 second sound bites and 250 word online "articles" as being informed.

The founding of this country, support for the Revolution, possesses direct links to the ability of the press to incite people to action. It's a shame we live in an age where we're seeing the rapid decline of quality journalism. We have better, faster, and more access to information than ever before but no avenue ("media") to synthesize it in a thoughtful and useful manner. It's counter-productive (not to mention counter-intuitive) to make less with more.

You can try and blame the "suits" who try to streamline these newspapers to turn a profit. But really it boils down to the fact that not many people want to read in this day and age. The DC area is an anomaly, but it's in decline there too.

The top-5 current NY times best seller lists is fluff, it's a joke. Housewife lit and Twilight books. C'mon??

It will be a sad day when all of these newspapers are forced to fold.

[Larry]

It will be a sad day when all of these newspapers are forced to fold.

Bad news is, IMO, journalism died a decade or more ago.

Anybody remember when powerful people were scared of the words "60 Minutes"? Now they do Larry King celebrity interviews. (Heck, that may be something for the "Things that make you feel old" thread.)

20 years ago, if a political party were to make a TV ad that made false claims about their opponent, would those same ads (and the sound bites from the politician himself) wouldn't still be running, unchallenged, months later? (Or would they? Am I simply holding to a fictional image of how reporters used to be?)

At least the image I used to have was that reporters dug and worked at every little bit of a story, to try to find the Truth. These people (in my mind) lived for the day when they could expose a coverup, or even a misleading statement, from a politician. (A lot of them would commit crimes, if they thought it would get them The Story.)

Now, it's more like, they "cover a story" by picking two sides (and as far as they're concerned, every story has exactly two sides), calling up those sides' press offices, getting a one-paragraph press release from each side, picking one half of one sentence from each, and printing that one half sentence, completely unchallenged.

[The Sisko]

Well Larry, you're one of the few who feel as you do because you're a gutless pinko. Personally, I'm glad that the liberal media is dying. After all, there's nothing for them to uncover. I mean, nothing at all. So see, there's no real need for local journalism, or even a national press for that matter.

Being serious, the comment about the loss of the press being a "transformative" event and that news will endure ignores the fact that most bloggers tend to write their stories based on the basic reporting investigation and "gruntwork" of bricks and mortar based reporters. If those folks go away, I'm not sure how many of the bloggers will be willing, or even able to do that type of thing.

[zoony]

One part of me says he's right, another part of me says that we heard similar arguments before. When TV was invented, for instance.

I see a lot of things, both good and bad coming from the death of journalism. The Redskins are a perfect example.

I mean, just think. I remember like it was yesterday not even being able to read or hear a players or coach's press conference. You had to rely on a few snippets as relayed by the reporter covering the story. And you had to rely on that reporter's slant. That it would be unbiased and fair. (cough)

That's just not the case anymore. The info is out there. You can get it straight from the source and make up your own mind. I think that holds true for a lot of news surrounding world events, too. So it's not all bad I don't think.

[Larry]

That's just not the case anymore. The info is out there. You can get it straight from the source and make up your own mind. I think that holds true for a lot of news surrounding world events, too. So it's not all bad I don't think.

You can get what the source wants to tell you.

Take the article as an example: I'd bet that if you want to read BPD's press releases on the subject, that you can read every one of them, in it's entirety, on the BPD web page.

You can also find aggregators: People who will sift through the Inter (that's the stuff that the Internet is made of) in order to find everything that's out there that will fin whatever agenda you want to have fed. IMO, what I think of as "special interest media" is a real growth industry.

OTOH, if you want to find out that Senator Lardbutt's latest campaign commercial is a fraud, then well, you must be part of the 1% of the electorate who puts in the effort to visit factcheck. (And, odds are, you're so repulsed by what you saw there, that you probably won't vote. Or you're one of them third party freaks.)

And factcheck pretty much can only look at the lies told in national elections.

-----

Edit:

Now, I do agree with you. When you really want to do "do it yourself journalism", there's something to be said for being able, say, to read an entire piece of proposed legislation, rather than some reporters two-sentence summary (that he probably got from Senator Lardbutt's aide, anyway.)

(OTOH, the crooks are on to that game, now. They don't reveal what the proposed legislation is any more. They release a "preliminary version" of the thing, and tell you that "the details are being worked out in committee". In fact, the vote's scheduled for Noon tomorrow, and they're still writing the thing.)

[zoony]

Larry, I don't disagree with your points, and I do see the threat.

I think that in 50 years what we're going to have is credibility ratings. I could, for instance, see the Washington Post morphing into something similar to present day Snopes.com. Not so much a news reporting organization, but more of an organization that assigns degrees of credibility to the info that is out there. Who knows though, I certainly don't.

And of course, if you want to know the REAL dangers of the internet, look no further than the Ron Paul sickness that swept this country's angry white 25 year old male demographic around election time.

[Larry]

Larry, I don't disagree with your points, and I do see the threat.

I think that in 50 years what we're going to have is credibility ratings. I could, for instance, see the Washington Post morphing into something similar to present day Snopes.com. Not so much a news reporting organization, but more of an organization that assigns degrees of credibility to the info that is out there. Who knows though, I certainly don't.

'Course, right now, people are already assigning their own credibility ratings. They're just doing so on the basis of how often the source tells them what they want to be told.

[GibbsFactor]

I hope you're right zoony. But will that also work on local levels?

How will we deal with press? Press won't go away, there will just be much more of it out there, most not creditable. So I like your idea for the Post. But again, for national or global stories, no problem with press, for the local police briefs or government contracts? Hopefully the smaller papers will be just as viable online as CNN.

[zoony]

I hope you're right zoony. But will that also work on local levels?

How will we deal with press? Press won't go away, there will just be much more of it out there, most not creditable. So I like your idea for the Post. But again, for national or global stories, no problem with press, for the local police briefs or government contracts? Hopefully the smaller papers will be just as viable online as CNN.

You're absolutely right- watchdogging at the local level is going to be a real issue.