Judge Richard Posner, who sits on the seventh circuit court of appeals in Chicago, is (so I’m told — like what, I collect judicial trading cards?) a heavy hitter in legal land, one whose word carries genuine heft. He and Nobel Prize winner (economics; 1992) Gary Becker share a blog in which they opine on assorted legal and economic matters. Go figure, huh?

Late last month, Judge Posner weighed in with his thoughts on the state of newspapers today. After running through the standard talking points whenever said subject comes up, in his conclusion he drops this bombshell:

Expanding copyright law to bar online access to copyrighted materials without the copyright holder’s consent, or to bar linking to or paraphrasing copyrighted materials without the copyright holder’s consent, might be necessary to keep free riding on content financed by online newspapers from so impairing the incentive to create costly news-gathering operations that news services like Reuters and the Associated Press would become the only professional, nongovernmental sources of news and opinion.

You can imagine how that’s gone over in the blogosphere. (Hint: none too well.)

It’s not like Posner has never expressed similar sentiments before. As Dan Kennedy in the Guardian points out, Posner wrote this in 2005 – somewhat ironically, for the New York Times:

The bloggers are parasitical on the conventional media. They copy the news and opinion generated by the conventional media, often at considerable expense, without picking up any of the tab. The degree of parasitism is striking in the case of those blogs that provide their readers with links to newspaper articles. The links enable the audience to read the articles without buying the newspaper. The legitimate gripe of the conventional media is not that bloggers undermine the overall accuracy of news reporting, but that they are free riders who may in the long run undermine the ability of the conventional media to finance the very reporting on which bloggers depend.

However, in the same article Posner digs deep at the root of much of traditional media’s current struggle:

Thus the increase in competition in the news market that has been brought about by lower costs of communication (in the broadest sense) has resulted in more variety, more polarization, more sensationalism, more healthy skepticism and, in sum, a better matching of supply to demand. But increased competition has not produced a public more oriented toward public issues, more motivated and competent to engage in genuine self-government, because these are not the goods that most people are seeking from the news media. They are seeking entertainment, confirmation, reinforcement, emotional satisfaction; and what consumers want, a competitive market supplies, no more, no less. Journalists express dismay that bottom-line pressures are reducing the quality of news coverage. What this actually means is that when competition is intense, providers of a service are forced to give the consumer what he or she wants, not what they, as proud professionals, think the consumer should want, or more bluntly, what they want.

In short, Pogo was right: we have met the enemy and he is us.

Back to Posner’s more recent suggestion that owners of copyrighted material should be allowed to prohibit linkage to said material without their express permission. For the record, the Associated Press has already gone on record that it is most provincial in allowing its material to be used, linked to or quoted. Posner’s opinion is that this should be mandated by law.

Would that really be such a bad thing?

An embarrassingly large amount of blogging today, especially in the political realm, is to journalism what Guitar Hero is to creating music. Namely, a look-alike and if you hit the right buttons sound-alike, yet void of a single shred of genuine originality and/or creativity. It’s follow the dots drek. Find a story, and depending on your leanings tag select the appropriate checkbox, one for Me Too or two for F U. Nothing is added. Nothing is illuminated. It’s Hee Haw hermeneutics minus the folksy wisdom and insight. It’s Oakland reporting. There’s no there there.

What we need is more genuine reporting and intelligent commentators who don’t have to hide behind the work of someone else, lobbing their two cents worth over its shoulder while proclaiming it to be pieces of eight. What we also need is acknowledgment of how disingenuous it is to with one hand write today’s snarkfest ripping on traditional media for bias or whatever while the other ruffles through its body of work looking for something to talk about.

So much of the stuff from which traditional media draws its content is present in raw form. You can read bills before Congress; you can read statements from the White House. You can look at police reports. Research and source materials are readily available. In this era of social media, many newsmakers are directly accessible and willing to directly communicate. Nothing is stopping anyone from doing the work and doing it themselves. So why aren’t we?

Instead of churning out your third fan fodder post this hour about the evil/inept/biased media, how about writing your own news article? Look things up, talk to people, put it together, present it in unvarnished honesty. Set aside your preferences and report both sides of contentious issues in a straightforward manner. Yes, it’s a lot of work. Yes, it means you won’t have all day to do nothing aside from sit on your happy self and surf the Net looking for something to riff on. If the media is as bad as you say it is, why are you doing that anyway?

Whether Judge Posner’s suggestion violates fair use laws is a matter for his fellow judiciary to decide. That said, there is nothing in his suggestion precluding fairness in reporting. If that means doing it ourselves, then let’s do so.