Science and Society

I don't know what you're talking about. But I didn't click the link.

Of course, info. should be free. I could care less about the territorial gorillas of cyberspace. AP parameters are simply no concern of mine.

Lost blogger,

You are so funny.
I do too. I'm lazy to read the whole page.

I like to read so I did click and catch the side stories. Being informed is the best way to make a decision on something. I am apt to criticize an article for not giving details or links to a story. Thank You AP for using good journalism for the basis of your storylines. That is why we depend on you to get us the real facts. I have you in my will.

Ned
I think I understand the logic behind this story but I am not sure if I can agree. If an entire story was copied in a blog I could understand why they would be upset ie. loss of readership. But if someone quotes a line or two the effect would be the opposite. If the reader finds the quote of interest, he/she would want to go to the source and read the whole article (in this case I did not due to lack of interest).

The only way I get exposed to the biased reporting of the AP is through blogs. The AP should be thankful that its propaganda is getting out at all!

oh they're just up set cause they cant COOKIE you and spy on your surfing habits

If the NewsMedia actually practiced serious Journalistic integrity in their reporting, actually took the time to pull all the elements together everytime objectively, I dont believe that blogging would have evolved as it has.

Thing is, that the media has in many cases become a mouthpiece, mass political pundits and apologists for political and corporate fatcats who are only interested in spin, and have a vested interest in keeping the American people ignorant and unable to make informed decisions about everything from where their food comes from, to why their petroleum products are so expnensive.

I havent seen one story critical of the Bush Administration's Cabinet members who are mostly big oil reps. Not one, Nothing questioning why there would be any incentive at all, to get the prices down, when its clear that a huge conflict of interest exists.

So I take pieces parts of news stories on the internet, and go back and get other material, from say, the BBC etc. or even books and Put it all together. I include links because I am ethical researcher and writer. No one pays me for my civic mindedness. But then if they did, some political puppet editor might try to censor me or spin my work.

If you want bloggers to stop this, then I suggest the press start doing their job, and not just function as political ad campaigns for the socially retarded on capital hill.

As Obama has pointed out, Change starts from the bottom up. Could there be anything more grassroots than a passionate blogger?

I blog and use stories from AP and other sources with links. Seriously, the AP is really going to complain about their stuff getting out to a wider audience who otherwise does not have the wherewithal to go read it on their own? Wow, talk about cutting off your nose....way to go AP

While I can see both sides, I understand what the AP is concerned with. It's not about restricting the use of their content, but about how much of their content is used without the user posting a link to the original content. If a blogger uses so much of the original AP article that the reader has no need to read that article to get the whole story, then the blogger is violating the fair use doctrine.

An ethical reporter would not do to a blogger what some bloggers are doing to them.

Fair use means, a reasonable person thinks you're copying a bit to make a larger (original) point. I am very, remarkably unimpressed with the AP's behavior in threatening bloggers. Every time I hear about the AP threatening someone, I trust all mainstream media less. So the AP needs to decide, soon, how badly it wants to be taken seriously. This is the context in which I see this whole conversation.

Let's be honest here. There are two reasons that the mainstream media would be upset with the scenario you describe. One of course is money. If the link isn't clicked, they don't get the money from their advertisers. Obviously that is a legitimate complaint and concern. The second is loss of control. Bloggers are a threat to a media that covers up, spins, and redirects attention from criminal behavior by the administration, congress, and business.

That is obviously the more serious concern for the mainstream media and the powers that be. They won't be able to continue to dismiss bloggers as simply uninformed nutbags with agendas while everyday it is demonstrated who was right six months or a year ago and who either missed it or covered it up.

Has anyone else noticed the percentage of "real news" verses "entertainment news" on the ABC website's homepage?

Sundog and Ka'rin are so right!! The AP should be so lucky to have bloggers use them. Also the MSM is owned by corporate interest that filters what is written. The AP should not have the right to decide who is allowed to use their articles for information. Isn't this a "free press"?

I just began reading political blogs in earnest over the past 3 months; pretty new to all of this.

I am amazed at the degree to which the blogs on some of the major newsmedia sites simply pass along (distortions and all)what other bloggers have already "blogged". You get what you pay for...and blogs are free. I always check the more well respected sources.

Its also possible to catch the hint of a story or two before it hits the mainstream press. That is, after the story has been researched and raised above the level of gossip. Seems as if AP should embrace the relationship instead of fighting it.

Considering that the AP is putting their information out in the public space, be happy anyone clicks on any link on the Internet.

of course information should be freely available, but the fact remains that gaining access to credible information cost money. if you want a heap of unverified, highly corrupted, and highly questionable information, one has no further to look than wikipedia...but to hire paid journalists with some sense of accountability and integrity takes money. plain and simple.

I clicked the link.

The AP spends money to procure this information. They do so in order to make a profit. The bloggers are copying the material without permission and thus, causing the AP to lose money. Bloggers that do this are nothing more than common criminals.

quietman, I agree with you. If I find a story interesting, I definately will go beyond the initial story and read what I can on it. If I dont, I wont...that simple. Very often when I read a story on one news site, even without a link to another, I will search out any extra information from other sites, hoping to find more information on the topic. I really dont see that the issue is one to worry over. And in this story...no i didnt click the link!

The real question is, would people go to the link to the AP story anyway? How many people would visit the link without the excerpt? The excerpts will probably get *more* people to click the link than would have otherwise, and that's a great thing for the AP.