The AP has articulated its new policies on intellectual property. Gauntlet: thrown.
‘See you on the other side’ - Meet Jessica Lum, a terminally ill 25-year-old who chose to spend what little time she had practicing journalism
#Realtalk: This is the best moment to be in journalism - The old stuff isn’t coming back, but that’s okay
Streams of consciousness - Millennials expect a steady diet of quick-hit, social-media-mediated bits and bytes. What does that mean for journalism?
Sticking with the truth - How ‘balanced’ coverage helped sustain the bogus claim that childhood vaccines can cause autism
An ink-stained stretch - Can Aaron Kushner save the Orange County Register—and the newspaper industry?
This is the best moment to be in journalism (25)
The WSJ editorial page hits rock bottom (19)
A backgrounder for understanding the storm that hit Moore, Oklahoma
Is the ‘chilling effect’ real?
http://www.newrepublic.com/article/113219/doj-seizure-ap-records-raises-question-chilling-effect-real
One year ago four journalists were brutally murdered in the bloodiest attack on the press in Mexico’s drug war. For those left behind the pain — and the threats — continue
50 years of foreign reporting from the NYRB
CJR's Guide to Online News Startups
Uptown Messenger – Hyperlocal news for a neighborhood in New Orleans
Who Owns What
The Business of Digital Journalism
A report from the Columbia University Graduate School of Journalism
Questions and exercises for journalism students.
You call that articulated?
I'd say AP just obfuscated its new policies on intellectual property.
After reading through the entire FAQ, I have even less of an idea what AP's about to do, and I suspect AP doesn't have much of one either:
The follow-up sections that attempt to clarify that astounding bit of Dilbert-speak make it even worse.
#1 Posted by Aaron, CJR on Fri 10 Apr 2009 at 07:20 PM
So what I get is that AP is all about demanding the changing of news search algorithms to downrate (or outright eliminate) competing news providers -- you know, those non-"authoritative" ones -- maybe like Reuters, AFP, and original content from the majors like NYT, in favor of THE "authoritative" news provider, Associated Press! It seems like they are wanting for AP content to always come up first on a news search?
Either that, or they are flailing wildly and landing air punches against imaginary straw men. What am I missing?
#2 Posted by Tom, CJR on Fri 10 Apr 2009 at 08:45 PM
Just to take an example of the AP's incompetence from the FAQ itself, item number five (I dare note quote) is flat out ridiculous. Why use the phrase rights-based which is in quotes to indicate that it does not mean what in plain English it would mean. And then the describe adding metadada tags that describe the content and aid in searching and browsing content. There could of course be rights based tagging such as XRML http://www.xrml.org/ but no such tags are not mentioned. Why? I don't know.
#3 Posted by TimothyWMurray, CJR on Sat 11 Apr 2009 at 03:06 AM