I'd take its portrayal of Simon with a very large grain of salt. It beggars belief that someone who made a series with as much nuance as The Wire could be as one-sided as the man portrayed in that article. Simon himself thinks it's a hit job, and it strikes me as a low move of the article author to use his complaints as further evidence in the case against Simon instead of respecting them.

I think the author is also off base in claiming that Simon avoids having good people in the show. Most of The Wire's characters are good to some extent, and more to the point, in The Corner one of the characters is precisely one of the community do-gooders referred to. Two groups that The Wire doesn't give prominent place to are A) these do-gooders, and B) the addicts (other than Bubbles -- but since these are the base of the whole drug economy we might expect to see more of them). That's not because Simon doesn't care about them -- it's because The Corner was all about them already, and I presume Simon doesn't want to repeat himself.

No good people in the show? Lester Freeman is a good person. Ronnie is a good person, as far as we can tell. Beadie is a good person. C'mon...NOBODY is without skeletons. OMAR is a better person than many of these board room a-holes. I think it's grossly overly-simplistic and just plain missing the point to suggest there are no good people in the show.

I figured there would be media backlash from this season, because, after all...it's an indictment of the media for it's complicity in the decay of urban society, and even society as a whole. Of course it's coming. Not to mention they all have experience as journalists to some degree or another and are, of course, going to write themselves into the story. The story absolutely reads like the author has an axe to grind. Why attack Simon? Why not let the material speak for itself? Maybe it hits a little too close to home? I don't know what the motive is, but there is some motive behind this piece.

It seems pretty clear that the author's opinion changed when he found out his 2 good friends would be portrayed harshly by Simon in the 5th season. This piece reads more like a defence of them than anything else.

As far as good people Steve Earles character certainly jumps out as well as the minister who is friends with Colvin and helps Cutty

squirrel:

I figured there would be media backlash from this season, because, after all...it's an indictment of the media for it's complicity in the decay of urban society, and even society as a whole. Of course it's coming.

Excellent point, and there will be much more criticism before it's all said and done, to be sure. People don't like feeling guilty. We don't like feeling complicit.

Simon himself said that this season is all about the response to the problem. He said something like, ok we've shown you all this really messed up stuff but now we're gonna ask you why isn't something being done about it?

When the finger is pointing back at you it's easy to get defensive.

I've not yet read the Atlantic piece. Though I've read everything I can get my hands on about Simon, The Wire, and his previous work. With that being said: Simon is an abrasive guy with a real sensitive streak. Combine the two, you've got a recipe for a class one jerk. He is also fairly candid and I bet he would agree he is a pain in the ass.

There was a positive story in the New Yorker a few months ago that I thought read like he wasn't the most huggable guy around. The letter Simon wrote to Slate further evidences some the thin skin.

All that being said, the guy is a brilliant artist. I enjoy his work. My life would be lesser had I not been challenged to think and feel by his writing.

The whole point of this, is in my humble opinion, any backlash has more to do with a guy who rubs people the wrong way than an entire industry feeling guilty and lashing out.