David Simon, creator of "The Wire" and "Treme," on Bill Moyers' Journal
David Simon, creator of HBO's The Wire and Treme, its forthcoming series about post-Katrina New Orleans, was the guest on Bill Moyers' PBS program on Friday night. Simon, as always, had some interesting things to say on a variety of subjects. Here's Simon on America's generational war on drugs...
BILL MOYERS: It’s also clear from your work that you think the drug war has destroyed the policemen.
DAVID SIMON: Absolutely. That’s the saddest thing in a way, is that, again, because the stats mean nothing. Because a drug arrest in Baltimore means nothing. Nothing. Real police work isn’t being done. In my city, the arrest rates for all major felonies have declined, precipitously, over the last 20 years. From murder to rape to robbery to assault.
BILL MOYERS: Because?
DAVID SIMON: Because to solve those crimes requires retroactive investigation. They have to be able to do a lot of things, in terms of gathering evidence that is substantive and meaningful police work. All you have to do to make a drug arrest is go in a guy’s pocket. You know? You don’t even need probable cause anymore in Baltimore. The guy who solves a rape or a robbery or a murder, he has one arrest stat. He’s going to court one day. The guy who has 40, 50, 60 drug arrests, even though they’re meaningless arrests, even though there’s no place to put them in the Maryland prison system, he’s going go to court 40 or 50 or 60 times. Ultimately, when it comes time to promote somebody, they look at the police computer. They’ll look and they’ll say, “This guy’s made 40 arrests last month. You only made one. He’s the Sergeant.” You know, or, “That’s the Lieutenant.” So the guys who basically play the stat game, they get promoted.
Here's Simon on the future of journalism...
BILL MOYERS: I read something you recently told "The Guardian," in London: "Oh, to be a state or local official in America..." without newspapers. "It's got to be one of the great dreams in the history of American corruption."
DAVID SIMON: Well, I was being a little hyperbolic. But-
BILL MOYERS: But it's happening. I mean, it's becoming true.
DAVID SIMON: Yes. It absolutely is, it absolutely is. To find out what's going on in my own city I often find myself at a bar somewhere taking, writing stuff down on a cocktail napkin that a police lieutenant or some school teacher tells me. Because these institutions are no longer being covered by beat reporters who are looking for the systemic. It doesn't exist anymore.
And this is not all the Internet. This was a-- you know, there's a lot of the general tone in journalism right now is that of martyrology. Of-
BILL MOYERS: Being martyrs, right.
DAVID SIMON: Yes, we were doing our job. Making the world safe for democracy. And all of a sudden, terra firma shifted, new technology. Who knew that the Internet was going to overwhelm us? I would buy that if I wasn't in journalism for the years that immediately preceded the Internet because I took the third buyout from the "Baltimore Sun." I was about reporter number 80 or 90 who left, in 1995. Long before the Internet had had its impact. I left at a time-- those buyouts happened when the "Baltimore Sun" was earning 37 percent profits.
You know, we now know this because it's in bankruptcy and the books are open. 37 percent profits. All that R&D money that was supposed to go in to make newspapers more essential, more viable, more able to explain the complexities of the world. It went to shareholders in the Tribune Company. Or the L.A. Times Mirror Company before that. And ultimately, when the Internet did hit, they had an inferior product-- that was not essential enough that they could charge online for it.
I mean, the guys who are running newspapers, over the last 20 or 30 years, have to be singular in the manner in which they destroyed their own industry. It-- it's even more profound than Detroit making Chevy Vegas and Pacers and Gremlins and believing that no self-respecting American would buy a Japanese car in 1973. That-- it's analogous up to a point, except it's not analogous in that a Nissan is a pretty good car, and a Toyota is a pretty good car. The Internet, while it's great for commentary and froth doesn't do very much first generation reporting at all. And it can't sustain that. The economic model can't sustain that kind of reporting. And to lose to that, because you didn't-- they had contempt for their own product, these people.
Here's Simon on the future of the United States...
BILL MOYERS: Do you really believe, as you said to those students at Loyola, that we're not going to make it?
DAVID SIMON: We're not going to make it as a first rate empire. And I'm not sure that that's a bad thing in the end. I mean, you know, empires end. And that doesn't mean cultures end completely and it doesn't mean that even nation states... You know, I mean, if you looked at Britain in 1952 and what was being presided over by Anthony Eden and those guys. You'd have said, "Man, you know, what's going to be left?" But, you know, Britain's still there. And they've come to terms with what they can and can't do.
Americans are still sort of in an age of delusion, I think. And a lot of our foreign policy represents that. And a lot of our-- you know, this notion that the markets were always going to go up. And that once we had invested stocks to death, we could create some new equity, out of magic. Out of nothing.
You can watch the full episode here and I highly encourage you to. It's quite an interesting discussion.






7 comments:
I still think he is way off on his views on newspapers (which is why I thought Season 5 was such a joke compared to the other seasons). He continues to view the medium - and by extension himself - as the guardian/savior of democracy. And I say bullshit. I say we're getting MORE actual, useful, relevant information than we used to. Perhaps Baltimore is the only city left without meaningful and growing blog coverage of on the ground, local events by people who arae actually involved, but I doubt it. I think he just chooses to ignore it.
He's delusional if he thinks a lack of reinvested profits is the reason the print papers are going under.
I was home early last night and saw the whole interview. Really well spoken/done on both sides.
I've met him a couple of times while he's been here working on Treme. The guy can talk about anything, even the Saints. I hope that HBO buys the show. A well done "Wire" about New Orleans would probably be a good thing for us. Plus, those racist idiot commenters would probably end up having heart attacks and dying while they were posting their stupid notes. A big plus for us all.
He's also willfully ignorant to suggest that life in a declining America will be like Britain in the 1950's and 1960's. We have no imperial heir, and the pretenders to global power (China, Russia, Europe) don't inspire much hope.
Simon is a brilliant dramatist and social critic, but at the very bottom, his message is one of despair.
Nick
while the blogosphere is growing in terms of getting actual news...the fact that local reporting is diminishing is not a good thing...nor is the demise of the local paper and local coverage
here in cali, one of the reasons our state is in such a mess, is because most news orgs pulled coverage of the state house on a daily basis
the legislature and gov got to work in a vacuum....with horrific consequences
and i thought season 5 was brilliant, as it pointed out that the corruption we viewed over the past 4 seasons, was aided and abbetted by the news media in maryland
what that show was all about, is that the people hired and appointed to assist the people....dont...they all care about number one
and the people who do care...get thrown under the bus...or shot in the face
I understand Nick's point, just because newspapers, and journalists can be wincingly self-righteous, but the blog model isn't working in the same way, it's like a newspaper that's all columnists and no reporters (which actually sounds exactly like my local paper has become).
It's a bit like Detroit I guess, in that it's was run so incredibly poorly for years that you almost want it to fail, even if it is essential (though I'm not sure a US auto industry is).
Take my local paper, for years they had the idea that to succeed they had to increase features, rather than news.
The problem is that that's the stuff that is done so well online. And as subscriptions have dropped they've only gone at it harder, there' literally an enterire section of my local paper (after recent cuts 1/3rd of the weekday edition) that's a glorified blog writer by two people. They actually belive that people want to subscribe to a paper with a regualr feature that's called "___'s favorite movies of the last decade", with a short couple sentance write up of each, or ___ writes three lines a week about his quest to run a half marathon.
You can't compete with blogs on that playing field.
I'll add (and I think Simon would disagree strongly with this) that while regualr reporting is essential, sometimes they go overboard with the long-form and investigative stuff. I guess it's OK if you have important stuff to investigate, or diligent reporters who will really find a great story. But in the papers I take (both of which have committed to running nearly a long-form piece a week) there's a lot of "in-depth" stuff about pretty mundane topics, often written in a really unpleasant prose-y style.
And it's not as if my city doesn't have areas that should be investigated, it's just that they'd involve a lot of hard work, and (more importantly) ruffling the feathers of people/companies/universities/politicians who the paper can't afford to offend.
David Simon may be "brilliant" on other topics, but I'm pretty sure the Police in Baltimore promote their supervisors based on civil service tests. He really dislikes any kind of illegal narcotics enforcement and continually tries to claim that it is the ruin of the American criminal justice system. He is wrong on this point.
Ed
I watched the interview late last night and wanted to sob when it was over, because David Simon was spot on with his comments.
As a member of the "modern media" (TV), I think Simon is right about his assessment of the media in general: that we're not doing our best work anymore, that companies only care about the bottom line, etc.
@Nick: Newspapers--the media, really--are supposed to act as "guardians" for the public. I still view it as a noble endeavor. The problem is modern day media is now about talking heads screaming at each other and trying to turn things into a left v. right issue. Media's job has always been about shining a light on things to make sure the public sees it.
Post a Comment