The problem with piracy is manifold and very complex. The problems of today’s modern piracy is that it’s essentially free to reproduce and distribute any digital information, be it a video game, album, or news article. If you don’t want to pay, there will be somewhere to get it. What I don’t like about Anderson’s speech is that he says the economy is moving completely to the “free model,” but offers no insight into exactly how that is viable. You still have to pay someone to produce the information.

Perhaps if everyone stopped paying, they’ll stop producing, and everyone will realize the real cost of information.

Anyway, your point is well taken. If people don’t want to pay, maybe it’s just not that good. Collective quality control. True of games and music, but I’m not sure how it will pan out for the industrial news complex, on which our free society depends. This is what concerns me.

As for Iraq, yes, there’s been less coverage. But that’s a money issue. It’s extraordinarily expensive to cover Iraq. I read the amount The New York Times spent per month a year ago in a Vanity Fair story a few months back. I don’t remember the amount, but it was astounding. At a time when newspapers don’t have enough resources to cover the home front, spending money on journalists in Iraq isn’t — and should not — be a priority. A paper’s primary concern should be its own backyard (provided it’s not The New York Times, The Washington Post and The Wall Street Journal).

What you’re criticizing is the national conversation, not media coverage. And people create the national conversation, not the media. All of it, all your answers, are there, usually on the inside pages of The Times or any of them Big Three papers. They might not be on A1, but if you open and scan the inside, shit’s all there.

And while I might sound like an apologist, I’m certainly not. I think newspapers are pretty much dead. I basically quit them last year. But I routinely hear from a subset of newspaper readers that the reason they’re dying is because they’re becoming less substantial. And that’s completely false. Newspapers have been dying a slow death for a good number of years — even when they were thick, substantial and ascendant.

And last point: A good number of questions you’re asking don’t have black/white answers. I saw a report a week or two ago that said federal officials weren’t sure the stimulus package was working, but they believed state and municipal governments weren’t spending it fast enough.

Also, here’s a link (today) to a bunch of stories that answer some of your questions:

http://www.nytimes.com/pages/world/index.html

And that’s just one day’s coverage!