Could that Stephen Glass character really be making shit up? Its being telegraphed so ham-handedly that there's got to be a twist.This would be Scott Templeton he is referring to. In the second episode, the Sun runs a bullshit/feel-good-by-feeling-bad article about a kid in a wheelchair (allegedly shot with a stray bullet) named EJ trying to bum a ticket to the game on Orioles opening day. Clark Johnson's character Gus Haynes (the sole reason I am getting into this season's expansion to the newsroom so far) cannot find any information to back up this EJ story but he gets overruled and the story gets run. I have no idea whether the story is a fake or not but my prediction is that the kid is not totally fake, but was himself lying to Templeton, if it ever comes up again.
And since everything in The Wire (except Rawls' homosexuality) comes up again, that's my prediction. Templeton will get even looser with the facts when he realizes that he has Whitting's ear.
Since we are on the topic of newspapers, even a fictionalized one, I want to put down my thoughts on something that I have been thinking about lately. Remarks by David Simon were the jumping-off point. Simon was criticizing the internet for diminishing the significance and viability of daily newspapers. It has been a conundrum for daily papers to figure out how to compete with the internet. Subscription sales have not worked and people are not excited to pay for content. TimesSelect bombed and now even the Wall Street Journal is online without a subscription. People will not buy what they think should be free. It irks the shit out of real journalists that people consider their work to be "free".
But that's a misperception by journalists. It isn't that readers think the information is free, it's that we think it's already been paid for. In my mind, all the advertisements I have to wade through pay for the content. The cost of my home subscription covers the cost of getting the paper to my door: the paper, the printing costs, the delivery. The Internet obviates the need for those costs: no paper, no printing, no delivery (except for the computer that I bought). Meanwhile the paper is still selling advertising on-line. In my mind, they can afford the content, and I don't need to pay for the ancillary production costs.
Another effect of the "democratization" of the web is that the readers can figure out for themselves how hard, or easy, producing content is. The mythical/libidinal newsroom suddenly doesn't seem so special. Plus papers can't even seem to be on top of the news anymore. Nor do they seem to want to be. I don't think papers have the desire to truly be all things to all people. The NYT might resent Daily Kos for its depth and breadth of political issues, but do they want be DK? I doubt it. They wouldn't make the ad revenue they make being the NYT.
Anyway, these are just some thoughts.
