Comments on: The NYTimes Is Conflicted And Wrong About The A.P. And Needs To Stop Defending Them

By: If You’re Arrington The Rules Do Not Apply to You | The Blog Herald

If You’re Arrington The Rules Do Not Apply to You | The Blog Herald — Sat, 17 Oct 2009 16:17:52 +0000

[...] Arrington, founder of Techcrunch, is a known preacher of ethics and disclosure and has hit out regularly at the MSM. Techcrunch has often been criticized to only promote startup who pay to be featured but [...]

By: Losing Its Religion: The New York Times Compromises | Tech stuff center

Losing Its Religion: The New York Times Compromises | Tech stuff center — Mon, 07 Sep 2009 15:30:42 +0000

[...] we do take issue with the NY Times preaching about ethics when they continue to engage in the same behavior, sans [...]

By: Losing Its Religion: The New York Times Compromises

Losing Its Religion: The New York Times Compromises — Mon, 07 Sep 2009 02:17:37 +0000

[...] we do take issue with the NY Times preaching about ethics when they continue to engage in the same behavior, sans [...]

By: PiBlondin

PiBlondin — Mon, 07 Sep 2009 02:02:41 +0000

TechCrunch, not the Times, is wrong. Did you ever consider that? Two sides of the issue? Doesn’t look like TC is giving its readers more than one.

By: Why it’s best not to anger Google « -30- | Adventures at the end of journalism.

Tue, 07 Apr 2009 16:09:45 +0000

[...] and mighty as this blog is, it’s also influential with a huge following. Now they’ve banned all links to AP [...]

By: Behind The A.P.’s Plan To Become The Web’s News Cop | Reviews Manual

Behind The A.P.’s Plan To Become The Web’s News Cop | Reviews Manual — Tue, 07 Apr 2009 03:44:19 +0000

[...] antiquated and twisty jural theories. The A.P. is so backwards in its intellection that we’ve banned course to every of its stories on [...]

By: Behind The A.P.’s Plan To Become The Web’s News Cop | CHARGED's Digital Lifestyle at Work or Play

Tue, 07 Apr 2009 01:15:17 +0000

[...] antiquated and tortuous legal theories. The A.P. is so backwards in its thinking that we’ve banned links to all of its stories on [...]

By: Behind The A.P.’s Plan To Become The Web’s News Cop

Behind The A.P.’s Plan To Become The Web’s News Cop — Mon, 06 Apr 2009 23:36:39 +0000

[...] antiquated and tortuous legal theories. The A.P. is so backwards in its thinking that we’ve banned links to all of its stories on [...]

By: The Rules Apply To Everyone | Reviews Manual

The Rules Apply To Everyone | Reviews Manual — Mon, 16 Mar 2009 02:19:33 +0000

[...] requirement to attain disclosures in (very occasional) stories where they were conflicted (here and here, for example), he said the production was above distrustfulness and, therefore, [...]

By: The Rules Apply To Everyone | The Scripts Zone

The Rules Apply To Everyone | The Scripts Zone — Sun, 15 Mar 2009 11:06:06 +0000

[...] they didn’t need to make disclosures in (very occasional) stories where they were conflicted (here and here, for example), he said the newspaper was above suspicion and, therefore, disclosures [...]

By: The Rules Apply To Everyone |

The Rules Apply To Everyone | — Sat, 14 Mar 2009 12:51:14 +0000

By: The Far Edge » Blog Archive » The Rules Apply To Everyone

The Far Edge » Blog Archive » The Rules Apply To Everyone — Sat, 14 Mar 2009 07:01:45 +0000

By: The Rules Apply To Everyone

The Rules Apply To Everyone — Fri, 13 Mar 2009 20:11:46 +0000

By: Crastinate » Associated Press Wants to Rewrite Copyright Law

Crastinate » Associated Press Wants to Rewrite Copyright Law — Tue, 06 Jan 2009 19:38:32 +0000

[...] this experience, I am not surprised by the latest controversies surrounding the AP. Apparently, the AP doesn’t want anyone, anywhere, to quote them without explicit [...]

By: TechCrunch Gets into Copy and Paste Press Release Journalism : The Drama 2.0 Show

Tue, 24 Jun 2008 23:43:14 +0000

[...] recently made claims about a conflict of interest he thinks exists with the New York Times, so it was with interest that [...]

By: Aussiewebmaster

Aussiewebmaster — Sun, 22 Jun 2008 19:51:19 +0000

So the AP and NYT want to restrict use of their stories… fine then tell them to stop spamming twitter et al…. we can start using other sources and hey they lose the link love and their online efforts will start heading in the direction of print media…. and Robert Cox who the hell are you?

I realize I do not know everyone in the space… but have been to way to many blogging events and online conferences in general and I would not say you are the voice of our industry.

By: Sharing is Caring

Sharing is Caring — Fri, 20 Jun 2008 18:47:36 +0000

@kevinthegreat

I think Michael Arrington wanted stronger disclosure.

Something like “I work for the New York Times, which owns a stake in the AP and sits on the AP board of directors. Because of this, I have been forced to write good things about the AP.”

Or maybe Michael just didn’t read the article close enough.

By: kevinthegreat

kevinthegreat — Fri, 20 Jun 2008 13:00:13 +0000

#48 — Hansell made it quite clear in the original article (though not in his blogs, but as you said, he’s him, not the NYT, when he’s blogging), that the New York Times is a part owner of the AP.

“The A.P., a cooperative owned by 1,500 daily newspapers, including The New York Times, provides written articles and broadcast material …”

Third graf.

I’m not sure why Michael keeps insisting, repeatedly, that disclosure never occurred. Add that to your existing argument and this whole theory’s drained.

(Note: I think the AP is wrong and out of line, but this whole NYT thing is nonsensical and distracting.)

By: The A.P. Has Violated My Copyright, And I Demand Justice

The A.P. Has Violated My Copyright, And I Demand Justice — Thu, 19 Jun 2008 21:35:30 +0000

[...] story led us to ban the A.P., call the New York Times out on undisclosed conflicts of interest and begin to investigate some ridiculous organization called the Media Bloggers Association before [...]

By: Adam

Adam — Thu, 19 Jun 2008 20:56:49 +0000

“The fact that a source (Adelson) is retracting statements he made to Hansell suggest somewhat sloppy journalism”

I dunno Mike. I work as a journalist. People say things in interviews and later deny them all the time. If my company publishes quotes that are later retracted, that’s not necessarily sloppy journalism. It’s usually a case of loose lips.

By: sodapop

sodapop — Thu, 19 Jun 2008 19:31:45 +0000

Hey Saul,
Why don’t you expend your energy and start publishing facts rather than editorials biased propaganda.

By: Garth

Garth — Thu, 19 Jun 2008 18:25:22 +0000

Mark,

In the NY Times article it mentions that Huffington Post is an AP customer.

By: Mark

Mark — Thu, 19 Jun 2008 15:23:56 +0000

There has always been a fair trade-off between the “originator” and the “aggregator” — the aggregator sends the originator traffic in exchange for a few snippets.

But let’s be honest, a lot of aggregators are now pushing this too far — Huffington Post is one prime example. They grab enough text to make it unnecessary for the reader to even go look at the original article. THAT should be the test of “fair use.”

Another test: How many clicks does the aggregator require before you hit the original piece of content? If it’s more than one, they’re cheating.

By: Ed

Ed — Thu, 19 Jun 2008 14:39:39 +0000

This whole brouhaha points out the growing irrelevancy of traditional single-source media, such as the AP. It makes an organization only look ridiculous trying to fight a rear-guard attack on the future of news: the Internet.

The AP may be doing online news consumers a favor by brilliantly illustrating there has been a break from traditional news dissemination where a choke-point could be enforced. With blogs, that single point vanishes.

The time has come for a social-media news organization employing all the tools that have made blogs and the Internet an unstoppable power of nature. To that end, I’ve created a framework for a social-media newswire allowing bloggers to submit and republish user-created news reports. It’s the future.

By: IrnBru001

IrnBru001 — Thu, 19 Jun 2008 13:38:00 +0000

The Nytimes doesn’t give two shits about it’s readers. When I wrote them once in regards to their coverage of a political their response was “Get a dictionary”. They don’t care about reader’s concerns or criticism. It would be wise if they took a page from blogs and understand that their readers can have their own opinions, and increasingly, other news options.