The internet “leeches…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.” Thus David Simon, creator of the Wire, to a US Senate hearing. Simon is quoted in a weighty New York Book Review article on the web and the future of journalism which puts both sides of the case. http://www.nybooks.com/articles/22960
A blog for a team.
Asides
Bloggers: “the parasite killing the host”?
© 2009 Writing for (y)EU. 
Unfortunately the link to the New York Times Book Review no longer works. I have checked on their site and the article, though listed, is inaccessible. (2.2.2010)
Good point Julien!
The problem is that people like Simon think about an economic model – many bloggers think about the message that they are spreading.
A message that is worth spreading should be spread, because distribution of information is a basic necessity of an open, democratic society. This has nothing to do with parasitic behaviour.
If the Simons of this world are not able to construct economic models that still function after we have left the communicational limits of the 20th century, they will be replaced by those who will manage to attract funds from interested readers that still value journalistic research while profiting from the “parasitic” spread of knowledge and information that actually belong to everybody.
—-
(Oh, and in order to also make an extreme statement that I just do to attract attention:
Maybe unpaid bloggers who actually do research and double-check sources will very soon replace pressured journalists who, instead of doing what would be there responsibility, copy press releases from lobbyists to write there article and don’t even check the facts.
But maybe “we” against “them” is just the wrongful thinking of certain elites to which Simon belongs, elites who see their old privileges vanish – something that always produces strong reactions, in the media, in politics, and anywhere else.)
Great to see this reaction. Of course, I quoted David Simon as a proponent of one of the more extreme views – to attract attention, of course. The NY Review article (on which I suppose I am being parasitical..!) arrives at a more balanced and nuanced conclusion, and talks at length about the “symbiotic” relationship with the traditional press and blogs.
Nevertheless, I think you have to take seriously the concerns of such a credible figure as Simon. It is not the fault of bloggers, but the economic model which financed and sustained much great investigative journalism (and much, much, more dross) is no longer tenable and, at the moment, no viable alternative seems to be available. If you read Simon’s testimony to the Senate, he actually strongly argues the case that the US newspapers sold out quality journalism long before bloggers came along. He blames Wall Street short-termism and greed. Check out the source: http://tiny.cc/lUcnq
How can one be so narrow-minded…? I’m speechless.
I agree that there is a lot of tedious web sites / blogs capturing materials from other sources, some with and others without attribution, probably in an effort to generate “hits” and in most cases advertising revenue.
These are parasitic.
On the other hand, “little more than repetition, commentary and froth” looks like a disingenuous attempt to discredit bloggers, debate and commentary being (in the best cases) the added value mainstream media often vaunt as their (unique) contribution to society.
My advice would be: Distinguish between leeches, and go after their use of copyrighted material, but interact with anyone contributing to meaningful debate.
As long as the debate is held on the the “host vs parasite” level, the real added value of what could be a symbiotic relationship in an open, democratic society will remain hidden.