We noted quite awhile ago that the Apologist Press is outright hostile to bloggers; you can find yourself in a lot of trouble for using Apologist Press material. But, why would you even want to? We have also noted many times that Apologist Press articles might as well have been written by the RNC. As a “news” organization, they were an unapologetic mouthpoiece for the Reign of Error between 2001-2009, and these days they are a nest of hacks for the Rushpublican pundits who choose to try to hide their intent under the guise of “news reporting.”

I do not use them; if I wanted the “news” the Apologist Press puts out, I can go to gop.com for that. If you use them, now would be a wonderful time to rethink what you are doing. There are plenty of far less biased organizations to quote from; Bloomberg, al Jazeera, Reuters, UPI, CNN (yes, even CNN is far less biased than the AP,) and a host of smaller and/or foreign sources. And there’s a bonus to using them; most of THEM realize that your links will drive traffic to them, while the Apologist Press just wants to punish you for quoting from them.

The hell with the Apologist Press. Who needs them anyway?

Plucking the already tense string that binds new media and old, the Associated Press announced an initiative Monday to protect online versions of its news content from what it called “misappropriation” by a variety of online news outlets.

At its annual meeting in San Diego, AP Chairman Dean Singleton said the news syndicate would pursue “legal and legislative remedies” against entities that it believes are unfairly borrowing its content.

“We can no longer stand by and watch others walk off with our work,” he said.

At the heart of the AP’s complaint are websites — not named by Singleton — that provide editorial services to users by picking out and featuring the day’s most important, interesting or sensational stories.

The Drudge Report, a news site with a conservative bent, is one of the Web’s most successful aggregation sites; the Huffington Post provides a similar service for liberal-minded readers.

But it’s Google News, the search giant’s automated and constantly updating digital front page, whose relationship with the AP and its member newspapers is so complicated that distinguishing the harms from the benefits may be a matter of perspective.

From one viewpoint, Google News has been a boon to the imperiled newspaper industry, driving huge numbers of readers to the websites of the publications whose stories it features. Google also pays an undisclosed fee to the AP for the use of its material.

“We send about a billion clicks a month to newspaper publishers,” Google Inc. spokesman Gabriel Stricker said. “That means that every single second, you have 400 openings of newspapers stories that come from Google.”

But just as a newspaper reader may casually glance at headlines without reading every story, readers of Google News may go to the site specifically to scan the news without clicking through to the originating site. Google News recently started running ads.

The stories behind headlines such as “Four killed in Iraq” aren’t free, said Sue Cross, a senior new media executive at the AP.

“You have millions of dollars go into just having people there to report that and no small amount of risk to people’s lives just to get that headline,” she said. “If someone’s making money off the news, it needs to tie back and be shared in a way that it supports the newsgathering.”

And just think how much extra money the AP has to spend on things like overtime, so that their “reporters” have time to think up the proper Rushpublican tilt for their stories.

The AP is getting a lot of traffic through aggregators, traffic it would not otherwise have and does not deserve-but they aren’t satisfied with that. Strangely enough, I’m not satisfied with the kind of Rushpublican garbage that comes out of the AP on a daily basis-so I guess we should just leave each other alone.

You should leave the AP alone, too. Let them suffer the same way the RIAA has.

Tweet this via redir.ec