Even the one time he did any basic journalism, he couldn't help but change up the fact that he had chocolate milk to coffee with the homeless vet, simply because it's just what Scott does.
Someone competent and truthful could have made these responses work if they admitted the responses range from indifference to fear. The first opens up the opportunity to talk about how a serial killer is just one of multiple issues/threats to the city’s homeless population. That might have led to follow up pieces where the Sun explores these issues further. The second, attributing Nathan Levi Boston‘s quote/belief without embellishment, shows that there is some degree of panic/imaginations running amok which would create the sensationalism Templeton/the Sun wanted and sell the papers they needed
@Jon yeah, the story of Scott and the sensational bullshit is contrasted with the journalist set on telling Bubbles story. It’s not sensational like a serial killer, it’s just an addict trying to put the pieces back together, but considering what Bubs had lived through and seen, it really is one hell of a story. Dude didn’t have to make anything up, he just hung out with Bubbles at soup kitchens and built a good rapport with him. That’s some good journalism there.
@@JR-dv2vw The guy with the business cards in the ammo box. He ended up being a copycat and McNulty nailed him. He was sold as the serial killer instead of a copycat.
“He broke down crying when I talked to him. The mother just sat there stroking the little blond girl’s hair.” Scott’s interviews always end up sounding like the climactic scene in a drama movie.
Templeton was a writer who wanted to be a reporter. He thought that the job was turning in great reads when it's really about giving a true account of what's happening, interesting or not. If he had done the footwork ahead of time to establish sources he could rely on he wouldn't be wasting his time interviewing crazies trying to play catch up, but he wasn't willing to do the footwork and in the end didn't care enough about his stories or the job to do it right. It also made him entirely replaceable. If all it took to get a scoop was asking one guy one question and writing up his answer then anyone could be a reporter, but the pros put in the time and effort ahead of time to understand what they're talking/writing about. I fell like that was the main point of every season of the show: Cops, teachers, politicians, and journalists all want quick and easy answers, but the only way to do their jobs well and get actual results is by doing methodical, boring, unrecognized, and even dangerous busywork that only has a slight chance of paying off in the end. This was in a way the same point Colvin was making to Carver here: ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-Cc33LvpKsGM.html
@@julianisaac6004 No, you missed my point. I'm saying he didn't have the chops to be a reporter because he was too focused on writing a thrilling story. He might have been a great writer but he was not a good reporter. See what I mean?
The first part isn't entirely true; the job of a reporter *is* to tell a thrilling story because good writing moves newspapers. The difficult part is crafting said narrative to simultaneously be a true story, and that's what distinguishes a reporter from a fiction writer. That's why the person who created The Wire was a journalist. It's a job centered around telling stories.
@@jjmarr7130 I'd say that's the job of many "journalists" today but that's because we've moved to a point where most articles are opinion pieces. They're cheap and fast to produce, they use catchy clickbait titles, and if they're provably factually incorrect they blame it on an overly zealous individual. Real journalists aren't profitable anymore, or at least don't get the same number of clicks. Except in a warzone when they're the frontline sources that the clickbait generators feed off of for content.
Yes; for example, if things are so bad for the homeless that they are indifferent to a rampant serial killer on the lose that only targets the homeless, then how bad really are things for the homeless.
Nah, I think It's other way around... his scheme would have failed if it wasn't for Scott. In the end they both got what they wanted...and they both essentially got away with it. It was an equal partnership of lies. What's pathetic is that McNulty the Police lied for real police work, while Scott the journalist lied for fake journalist work. And only McNulty had the decency and introspection to be remorseful despite god results.
My limited contact with journalists who made cold contact with me is eerily familiar to how Templeton was portrayed. Not quite as blatant in their lies but misattribution, exaggeration and as far as I can tell the odd complete lie made under the pretense of protecting their source seems remarkably common in the news media.
@@LuisRojas-fe1oq envy is an ugly thing, isn't it? Sure, maybe we can't all be a winner, like Mr Templeton, but we can appreciate his command of the craft and learn from it. No need to let ourselves be dragged down by those aspects of life which are more dickensian
