John McCain’s shielding of his not ready for prime time VP nominee came to a head today when the networks threatened to ignore Sarah Palin’s meetings with world leaders in NY unless they were given more than just the standard photo opportunities.
Today, the McCain campaign had said it would allow only one editorial person inside. Now, the campaign is saying it wants only the camera inside with no editorial presence. All of the networks are objecting.
The networks eventually called McCain’s bluff by voting to not cover the event at all which resulted in a miraculous change of heart.
12 Noon: Word has come in that a CNN producer WILL be allowed to accompany the camera at these meetings. This issue appears to be resolved.
So much for the “Straight Talk Express”…
UPDATE: It looks like the McCain campaign has the last laugh. While CNN did get a reporter into the meeting, they had a whole 29 seconds in the room with Palin. He better be careful, folks might get the idea that he is sheltering his VP nominee from questions that might not make her look as qualified as the kool-aid drinkers had hoped.
While the mainstream media has been getting better at calling out John McCain when he pulls a whopper out of his rear end, NYU journalism professor Jay Rosen thinks they should be doing better. In other words he thinks the political press needs to grow a spine so along those lines he wants to use the power of social media, namely Twitter, to get the message out.
Rosen and others are calling for journalists of all stripes (professionals, amateurs, citizens, bloggers, etc.) to use a #spinewatch tag on Twitter and elsewhere to call attention to whether or not the professional press covering the home stretch of the 2008 presidential election is standing up to stonewalling candidates or sitting back and repeating their talking points.
The Republican’s used Twitter for their “Drill Here, Drill Now” grandstanding on the House floor last month so I guess it’s only fair for the Democrats to turn the table. So if you are so inclined, be sure to tag your Twitter’s with #spinewatch whenever posting about the latest McCain/Palin “say what?“.
And yes I assume that you could use it for Obama untruths as well but since Obama never lies and we’re all a bunch of liberal hacks, the majority I read all dealt with McCain/Palin.
The Parents Television Council aka the “Big Brother” of television decency wants it’s pound of flesh from CBS because of an f-bomb dropped on their popular reality show, Big Brother.
Dan Isett with the PTC is calling for concerned viewers to take action. “It’s important for folks to contact their congressman, contact their senator,” he said. “There’s a piece of legislation that would end this behavior on behalf of the networks. Although Congress is in recess for the month of August, it’s a good time to reach out and let them know how you feel about this. This needs to be right at the top of the agenda when Congress returns in a few weeks,” Isett contends. (emphasis mine)
Gee, when is Congress going to have the time? Energy prices, mortgage crisis, nanny legislation…
Yesterday I wrote on how the AP wants you to pay to quote as little as 5 words from one of their articles. As bad as that is, it gets worse. Even if you pay them for a quote, you cannot use that quote in any manner that might be derogatory to the AP.
You shall not use the Content in any manner or context that will be in any way derogatory to the author, the publication from which the Content came, or any person connected with the creation of the Content or depicted in the Content. You agree not to use the Content in any manner or context that will be in any way derogatory to or damaging to the reputation of Publisher, its licensors, or any person connected with the creation of the Content or referenced in the Content.
So even after paying them, no matter how ridiculous a particular story is, you cannot use the AP’s own words against them. Quite a racket.
Do I owe them for quoting their Terms of Use?
UPDATE: It appears the AP has issues practicing what they preach. Bloggers are now calculating their bills to the AP for lifting their content, without linking by the way.
This really only applies to the few that have blogs but it appears that the AP is trying to re-write current fair use policies in regards to their content. Using tactics that are being compared to the RIAA’s going after grandma for downloading a Neil Diamond MP3, the AP sent DCMA take down notices to several blogs for what they termed copyright violations.
I’m currently engaged in a legal disagreement with the Associated Press, which claims that Drudge Retort users linking to its stories are violating its copyright and committing “‘hot news’ misappropriation under New York state law.” An AP attorney filed six Digital Millenium Copyright Act takedown requests this week demanding the removal of blog entries and another for a user comment.
The AP got their panties in a bunch over the very common and currently legal practice in the blogosphere of providing an excerpt to some other content along with providing a link to the site in which the whole article from where the quote was taken originally appeared. This practice is normally considered good for both parties, the blogger provides a quote from another source to which he can expand upon and the original author gets an increase in exposure as well as a bump in traffic from the link provided. The AP disagrees and is now embroiled in a blogger backlash that they probably didn’t expect.
Does the old adage that “all press is good press” hold true when you are a part of the old dying media and the “press” aimed at you is all bad and coming from the new and growing media?
UPDATE: And if this does in fact change they way blogs do things, will not being able to quote other sources without prior (re: paid) permission doom one of our local bloggers whose endless quotes from WorldNetDaily and Rush Limbaugh make up a majority of his posts? Just wondering…
UPDATE 2: We all know that greed is behind this new AP policy, I briefly touched on it in the update above, but now it is official. The AP showed it’s hand and is now requiring that bloggers quoting their articles must pay $2.50 a word. I have a feeling I know where this is headed and judges and lawyers will likely be involved and Kos already has his wallet ready.
UPDATE 3: Here is the AP form that they want those citing AP content to fill out.
Pricing:
5-25
$ 12.50
26-50
$ 17.50
51-100
$ 25.00
101-250
$ 50.00
251 and up
$ 100.0
Ok so I just quoted 10 items from the AP, I suppose I will be getting a bill for $12.50
The AP is reporting that the libel suit against the Argus Leader by Dan Scott could hit the next milestone in the coming few weeks when a circuit judge should decide on whether it will proceed to trial.
A circuit judge says she might issue her decision within a couple of weeks in a libel lawsuit filed against the Sioux Falls Argus Leader and its executive editor, Randell Beck.
Judge Kathleen Caldwell of Sioux Falls heard arguments this past week during a court hearing and said her written ruling will be handed down “hopefully, within a couple weeks.”
Dan Scott sued the newspaper over a July 15 column written by Beck. Scott, who was president of the Sioux Falls Development Foundation at the time, argues that his reputation was tarnished because many people were fooled by Beck into thinking that a letter of apology Beck wrote in Scott’s name was for real.
The wheels of justice sure turn slowly don’t they? And for those that want to again read the column in question, I have posted it here as it is no longer easily available on the Argus’ web site.
The Argus Leader lost another round in the Dan Scott libel case brought against the paper by the Sioux Falls Development Foundation president over a column published last July.
A Minnehaha County judge Friday denied a motion by the Argus Leader to dismiss a libel lawsuit brought against it by Dan Scott, president of the Sioux Falls Development Foundation.
The lawyers for the Argus thought that once the judge read the Randell Beck column, she would dismiss the lawsuit. But just as is the case with the Argus’ website where we can no longer view the column in question, the article wasn’t attached to the complaint so she refused to consider it stating it was outside the civil complaint. (I have posted the Beck column in it’s entirety here)
A quick question for any lawyers out there. Who files a libel lawsuit but doesn’t include the alleged libelous material as part of the lawsuit or am I missing something?
I posted earlier on how the right is going ga ga over the fact that the Argus finally printed a review by Brent Lerseth of Daschle Vs. Thune: Anatomy of a High-Plains Senate Race by South Dakota Thune blogger Jon Lauck. Some are acting as if the blogosphere accomplished the impossible and literally forced the editors to relent and review a book that pretty much throws the paper under the bus.
congrats to the conservative bloggers. they really forced the hand of the Argus on this one and it drives the liberals crazy because they have long assumed that the Argus is a wholly-owned subsidiary of the Democratic Party.
I went on to ask what was the big deal as the Argus actually didn’t review the book and instead asked a Republican government professor to do it for them? Well anyway commenters over at SDWC are throwing a party and God help any liberal that tries to inject some sanity (emphasis mine).
Leave it Todd Epp to smear Professor Lerseth, whoever he is. Nothing could be more predictable. If the review had been critical, Epp would have said “see, I told you the book sucked!” Since the review is positive, Epp says “the reviewer is a right-wing hack!” This is oh so predictable. Epp, who is supposely a “lawyer,” apparently doesn’t have anything intelligent to say about this book, which isn’t too surprising.
You really got to like a guy that will blindly stand up from someone they have never heard of while ripping someone’s comments about that person. And comments like that go on and on.
Todd, I know you and PP are bud’s but why do you even bother posting comments on SDWC, every time you do you get ripped unmercifully, you have to realize by now that you just can’t win over there?
So now the Argus has given the handful of Republican’s out there that were in a lather a full on woody by farming off a review of a little known book (outside of the blogosphere) that praises Thune and rips the state’s largest paper. What exactly has this accomplished? The Argus still hasn’t reviewed the book as the last time I checked Lerseth worked at Augustana, and now Beck and Co. won’t have to deal with the constant criticism over not reviewing it. Sounds more like the Argus comes out Ok on this to me.
But at least the little bit of exposure the book got by appearing in the paper might push it to number 1 in South Dakota beating out the ever popular books about the James River and Deadwood so it ain’t all bad. Oops, I guess not as when the review appeared on Saturday, the book was #2 and now 2 days later it has fallen to #15, so much for the power of the Argus.
The hated liberally biased Argus Leader has finally printed their impartial review of the all time best selling book (tongue fully in cheek) Daschle Vs. Thune: Anatomy of a High-Plains Senate Race by South Dakota Thune blogger Jon Lauck.
Overall, Lauck’s book provides a worthwhile discussion of the 2004 race, the role of local media and the importance of alternative media sources. While his partisanship has to be considered as part of any evaluation of his depiction of events, he does raise valid concerns about the need to critically evaluate traditional media on similar grounds.
Read Augustana College assistant professor of government Dr. Brent Lerseth’s full review.
By the way, in response to commenter poly43 on the Argus forum who responds to this review in between ripping our fine South Dakota blogs by incorrectly listing the book as being rated #13 on Amazon for local books in South Dakota. It is in fact way up there at #2 as of this posting just behind an all time popular book about the James River and just ahead of a book about Deadwood and Wild Bill Hickock.
UPDATE: As an aside, what is the big deal? Those in the GOP blogosphere were ripping the Argus for not reviewing it and in theory they still haven’t because they had someone not associated with the paper doing it. Is the act of printing an outside review good enough? Apparently so…
