UPDATE: The Wire creator David Simon responds in the comments. I’ve posted them after the jump.
UPDATE 2: Just so there’s no confusion, Simon clearly intended to respond to Plotz’s commentary, which is found in the below link at Slate. But his comments here are edifying, nonetheless.
I will tackle the first episode at length later in the day, but my initial first thoughts are very similar to David Plotz’s, writing in Slate:
I’m a little worried about the Baltimore Sun plot. I’ve had two brief conversations with David Simon—he’s a friend of a friend—and my wife has had two long ones. In all four of those exchanges, Simon demonstrated an obsession with the Sun that bordered on monomania. There Hanna and I were, slobbering to him about Omar, and Simon kept changing the subject to stories that his editors had screwed up 19 years ago. I’m praying that his fury at the Sun won’t overwhelm his genius for storytelling.
The scene in the news meeting, where a tardy senior editor floats in, and seemingly shushes a story out the door because his source, a j professor buddy, assures him that racial relations at University of Maryland are fine feels like score settling (Simon worked at the Sun for many years, and left very bitter). The best drama, I am convinced, does not come from pure bile, spite, or anger. I am a little worried. More to come.
David Simon’s response
Just curious:
What were the circumstances at which those conversations occurred? When I am at say, at a book-release party with a bunch of journos, or at a wedding table, where I am seated exclusively with newspaper people, or simply talking to a noted reporter or editor, the conversation is often about journalism and quite naturally, my unlikely transition from newspapering to television also is a topic and yes, I am very blunt about what went bad for me at The Sun, and for many, many others there as well.
If it were at a party of say, Baltimore cops, then the drug war, or the copshop, or the bar tab itself would predominate. And journalism and/or my experiences in journalism would go unmentioned in any regard.
Entertainment industry people? We talk about the business.
Drug dealers? We talk about the, um, business.
And in all instances when people come up to me to discuss how much they love them some Omar and how he’s the bestest character ever, well, okay, my eyes do glaze to the point of distraction and I do desperately try to change the subject back to whatever the collective conversational zeitgeist might be at a given gathering.
I was a newspaperman from my high school paper until I left the Sun at age 35. It was a delight to me. It informs my work in myriad ways. At some point, it went bad. And the fact is, you’ll not find me speaking openly against the fellows who made it go bad for long after my departure. I held my tongue pretty well despite my low regard for those fellows. But in 2000, five years after I left The Sun, those cats finally made clear that they had dragged The Sun into a journalistic fraud through the same myopia and indifference that later cost Hal Raines and Gerald Boyd their careers, except they did so despite private warnings about the reporter who was the problem. Why yes, at that point — which you describe as 19 years ago, though it is in fact, seven — I got angry and vocal and direct.
Mr. Carroll and Mr. Marimow are notable journalists with impressive resumes. They have done some fine things, I am sure. But in Baltimore, in their hunger for prizes, they tolerated and defended a reporter who was making it up wholesale. Events, quotes, meetings at which people were supposed to have spoken powerfully about The Sun’s powerful coverage of a Pulitzer-worthy issue but never said any such thing — it was simply farce. Yet even after that third retracted article, they continued to defend the behavior as the honest mistakes of a good, aggressive reporter.
To flourish, shit like that relies on silence and fear within the newsroom, and complicity within the industry itself. And at the point when the third story had been retracted in full and these guys were still trying to mitigate the fraud and accept no responsibility for it, I resolved that I was going to speak to it openly and without regard to decorum. I make no apologies whatsoever for that. I grew up a newspaperman; I do not know how to regard newspapermen who would go out of their way, over a period of years, to continually retract stories by the same reporter and continue to defend such. And so, when I meet other journos, I am full-throated in a way that everyone still in the game never manages to be when it comes to a yet-to-be-outed Blair, Bragg, Kelley or Glass. These scandals keep coming one after another and everyone pretends that they are aberrations, that the only guilty parties have all been caught, that there isn’t an underlying and fundamental problem with prizes and ambition and accountability that is inherent within the shrinking pond that is print journalism.
I loved my newspaper and I loved working for my newspaper; and given the basic ethics of newspapering, I don’t know how not to be angry over what happened there. You want to call that sour grapes? No problem. Call it spoiled roast. It is what it is. I got in the business thinking certain things about journalism; naively, maybe, I took that shit to heart. My mistake, apparently.
That said, if you’ve ever taken an Introduction to Logic course, you know that Argumentum Ad Hominem, while a stock maneuver in most half-assed journalism and commentary, is the weakest sort of intellectual crutch. If you are serious in addressing something, then ideas matter, not the man. The Wire’s depiction of the multitude of problems facing newspapers and high-end journalism will either stand or fall on what happens on screen, not on the back-hallway debate over the past histories, opinions passions or pecularities of those who create it. ‘ve got a secret for you cats: Ed Burns has some pretty fierce feelings about the people he worked for and with in the Baltimore Police Department and the Baltimore Public School System. Do you really believe that insiders in the B.P.D. and school system can’t recognize certain specific references to reality in the previous 50 hours of television? Writers of fiction cannibalize their most meaningful experiences and then regurgitate them and hope for the best. There is nothing at all new to this.
The only difference between your discussion of seasons one through four and the current one seems to be that you did not encounter Ed Burns at a party. Next time we meet, remind me to talk about the Orioles parsimony when it comes to pitching or my complete collection of Professor Longhair albums in order that you might be able to address yourselves to the work itself, for better or for worse.
Best,
David Simon
10 responses so far ↓
1 David Simon // Jan 7, 2008 at
Just curious:
What were the circumstances at which those conversations occurred? When I am at say, at a book-release party with a bunch of journos, or at a wedding table, where I am seated exclusively with newspaper people, or simply talking to a noted reporter or editor, the conversation is often about journalism and quite naturally, my unlikely transition from newspapering to television also is a topic and yes, I am very blunt about what went bad for me at The Sun, and for many, many others there as well.
If it were at a party of say, Baltimore cops, then the drug war, or the copshop, or the bar tab itself would predominate. And journalism and/or my experiences in journalism would go unmentioned in any regard.
Entertainment industry people? We talk about the business.
Drug dealers? We talk about the, um, business.
And in all instances when people come up to me to discuss how much they love them some Omar and how he’s the bestest character ever, well, okay, my eyes do glaze to the point of distraction and I do desperately try to change the subject back to whatever the collective conversational zeitgeist might be at a given gathering.
I was a newspaperman from my high school paper until I left the Sun at age 35. It was a delight to me. It informs my work in myriad ways. At some point, it went bad. And the fact is, you’ll not find me speaking openly against the fellows who made it go bad for long after my departure. I held my tongue pretty well despite my low regard for those fellows. But in 2000, five years after I left The Sun, those cats finally made clear that they had dragged The Sun into a journalistic fraud through the same myopia and indifference that later cost Hal Raines and Gerald Boyd their careers, except they did so despite private warnings about the reporter who was the problem. Why yes, at that point — which you describe as 19 years ago, though it is in fact, seven — I got angry and vocal and direct.
Mr. Carroll and Mr. Marimow are notable journalists with impressive resumes. They have done some fine things, I am sure. But in Baltimore, in their hunger for prizes, they tolerated and defended a reporter who was making it up wholesale. Events, quotes, meetings at which people were supposed to have spoken powerfully about The Sun’s powerful coverage of a Pulitzer-worthy issue but never said any such thing — it was simply farce. Yet even after that third retracted article, they continued to defend the behavior as the honest mistakes of a good, aggressive reporter.
To flourish, shit like that relies on silence and fear within the newsroom, and complicity within the industry itself. And at the point when the third story had been retracted in full and these guys were still trying to mitigate the fraud and accept no responsibility for it, I resolved that I was going to speak to it openly and without regard to decorum. I make no apologies whatsoever for that. I grew up a newspaperman; I do not know how to regard newspapermen who would go out of their way, over a period of years, to continually retract stories by the same reporter and continue to defend such. And so, when I meet other journos, I am full-throated in a way that everyone still in the game never manages to be when it comes to a yet-to-be-outed Blair, Bragg, Kelley or Glass. These scandals keep coming one after another and everyone pretends that they are aberrations, that the only guilty parties have all been caught, that there isn’t an underlying and fundamental problem with prizes and ambition and accountability that is inherent within the shrinking pond that is print journalism.
I loved my newspaper and I loved working for my newspaper; and given the basic ethics of newspapering, I don’t know how not to be angry over what happened there. You want to call that sour grapes? No problem. Call it spoiled roast. It is what it is. I got in the business thinking certain things about journalism; naively, maybe, I took that shit to heart. My mistake, apparently.
That said, if you’ve ever taken an Introduction to Logic course, you know that Argumentum Ad Hominem, while a stock maneuver in most half-assed journalism and commentary, is the weakest sort of intellectual crutch. If you are serious in addressing something, then ideas matter, not the man. The Wire’s depiction of the multitude of problems facing newspapers and high-end journalism will either stand or fall on what happens on screen, not on the back-hallway debate over the past histories, opinions passions or pecularities of those who create it. ‘ve got a secret for you cats: Ed Burns has some pretty fierce feelings about the people he worked for and with in the Baltimore Police Department and the Baltimore Public School System. Do you really believe that insiders in the B.P.D. and school system can’t recognize certain specific references to reality in the previous 50 hours of television? Writers of fiction cannibalize their most meaningful experiences and then regurgitate them and hope for the best. There is nothing at all new to this.
The only difference between your discussion of seasons one through four and the current one seems to be that you did not encounter Ed Burns at a party. Next time we meet, remind me to talk about the Orioles parsimony when it comes to pitching or my complete collection of Professor Longhair albums in order that you might be able to address yourselves to the work itself, for better or for worse.
Best,
David Simon
2 Keith O'Brien // Jan 8, 2008 at
David,
If you happen back here - first to clarify - the quote is from David Plotz of Slate. I am not aware of the circumstances around said conversations. However, to your point - absolutely - “If you are serious in addressing something, then ideas matter, not the man.” Maybe, as a journalist, I am too close to the subject. I am sure my experience (at a trade magazine) is different than yours was at the Sun. It was my critical comment (and we’re talking about your fictionalized Sun here) that I absolutely loved the first four seasons - and was worried that the fifth would (based on your previous experiences) try too hard to depict the struggle between corporate bosses at media companies and the ink-stained wretches. I understand very much that the struggle is there, but (my opinion based on my experiences) is that that struggle plays out glacially and is, frankly, boring to watch. To make it interesting in a “TV drama” way, I fear, would require hyberpole. I look forward to you proving me wrong this season. I very much appreciate your comment, and look forward to the rest of the season.
3 David Plotz // Jan 8, 2008 at
Hi David
This is David Plotz. I think you’re responding to my post on Slate.com. If you’d like to post this on Slate too, we would be honored to have it. Please let me know at dplotz@slate.com.
Best
David
4 Wenalway // Jan 8, 2008 at
There’s a lot of fear in today’s newsrooms. It starts from the top down, with the gutless MEs cowering in their offices and doing after-the-fact critiques while they ignore problems.
But there aren’t too many people in the newsrooms who are working to change that culture.
5 Bill Snyder // Jan 8, 2008 at
Well, I’ve been a journalist for decades and have to say that the depiction of life in the Sun newsroom in Episode One of the final season is the best I’ve ever seen on TV or the movies. Clark Johnson (who I also liked in Homicide) reminds me of some of my best city editors.
6 Jasonb // Jan 8, 2008 at
As a non-journalist and huge Wire fan (I had the pleasure of marketing season 2) I found the newsroom scenes exciting. These are the first moves of a chess match that will last all season and we know from experience nothing is as simple as it first appears with The Wire. Maybe the characters seem broad at first but that is the nature of storytelling, there’s only so much detail you can pack into one scene. I’m sure the shades of grey will fill in as the season progresses. (Anyone remember Kima from her first few episodes? Interesting but broad, now look at her.)
7 Michael // Jan 9, 2008 at
You know if somebody had told me beforehand that I’d be watching a show about the inner workings of the Balitmore Police Department, with cops not shooting drug dealers but bitching about their unpaid overtime, or the family business of stevedores on the Baltimore harbor, or how a city councilman came to be mayor, or experimental projects in baltimore public schools run by a former cop, well to be honest I don’t think I would have been that interested at the start. But the Wire seemed to make it work for some pretty damn good television. How about a little faith that the same show can bring a newsroom alive as well?
8 Seth Faison // Jan 9, 2008 at
‘Hal’ Raines ???
9 Bob Andelman // Jan 13, 2008 at
You might enjoy this audio interview with “The Wire” creator David Simon.
10 Arvin Hill // Jan 14, 2008 at
The only people I’ve heard bitching about this season are jounalists and/or media figures. Rule Number One of any club is to refrain from talking about people in The Club - and, hence, its inner workings.
That Simon has struck a nerve with this group a mere two episodes into the final season gives me great joy. Up until now, the media got off easy on The Wire. Those who work in that particular crumbling institution have been able to sit back and watch this story unfold in amazement like any other person who appreciates the rarity of seeing truth told through the medium of television. Now that The Wire has turned in their direction, I’m noticing deflections, nitpicking criticism and the usual histrionic bullshit that many of us have come to expect on those rare occasions when media figures or institutions are subjected to scrutiny or, God forbid, criticism. In fact, the thin-skinned reaction by many people accustomed to having their opinions accepted as gospel is very revealing.
I just read a discussion of Episode 2 of The Wire over at Salon and it is notable for its amazing lack of insight. It made me wonder whether they were tinkering with their Blackberries or I-Phones while watching the show. They sound an awful lot like the people who can recite every line of every episode of The Simpsons while bemoaning the supposedly declining quality of the show for the last ten or more years.
None of it matters. The Wire is easily the best television series ever created, and every person who ever had anything to do with bringing it to us should be very, very proud of what it has accomplished. Namely, showing a television viewing audience what truth looks like on a little box known for its lies and gross distortions of the world we all have to share whether we want to or not. No small accomplishment considering most of us prefer not to think of our own personal responsibility as cogs in the institutional machinery, official or otherwise, which is part and parcel of the grotesque disintegration of this country.
Leave a Comment