Their Language and Concepts Were So Foreign to Our Way of Thinking...

Aliens (Not The Good Kind) Descend Upon Washington DC, 
Their Language and Concepts Were So Foreign to Our Way of Thinking We Dare Not Attempt to Translate.


That is what the headline should have read for the Washington Post's coverage of the DC Tea Party.

The WaPo seemed at a such a complete loss of understanding of what was happening and how these people could think this way that it seemed as if it was as foreign to them as, well, as MEAN HATEFUL scary aliens (NTGK - not the good kind) who had landed right there on the Mall!  Ideas so foreign to them that they dare not interpret choosing rather to just listed the thoughts for all to see.

Wonder how that compares to other recent protest marches?

So did I so I checked back to see how they covered the anti war protest of 2002 and 2005.  Here is what I found (all emphasis mine).

Headlines:

Tea Party

Lashing Out at the Capitol
Tens of Thousands Protest Obama Initiatives and Government Spending

2005

Antiwar Fervor Fills the Streets
Demonstration Is Largest in Capital Since U.S. Military Invaded Iraq

2002

100,000 Rally, March Against War in Iraq

The scary aliens (NTGK) lashed out and protested OBAMA while the others let their fervor fill the street, they didn't protest Bush mind you, no...

First paragraph:

Tea Party

Tens of thousands of conservative protesters, many complaining that the nation is racing toward socialism, massed outside the U.S. Capitol on Saturday, angrily denouncing President Obama's health-care plan and other initiatives as threats to the Constitution.

2005

Tens of thousands of people packed downtown Washington yesterday and marched past the White House in the largest show of antiwar sentiment in the nation's capital since the conflict in Iraq began.

2002

Tens of thousands of people marched in peaceful protest of any military strike against Iraq yesterday afternoon, in an antiwar demonstration that organizers and police suggested was likely Washington's largest since the Vietnam era.

Hmm, strange that isn't it -- scary aliens (NTGK) were angry and they were protesters who massed in the city center!  Run, see if you can get out of the city before they attack!  There were threats, or they saw threats or something like that.  Pray all we get some of the peaceful people to help save us!  But remember they were complaining, they complained for God's sake.

Second Paragraph:

Tea Party

The crowd -- loud, animated and sprawling -- gathered at the West Front of the Capitol after a march along Pennsylvania Avenue NW from Freedom Plaza. Invocations of God and former president Ronald Reagan by an array of speakers drew loud cheers that echoed across the Mall. On a windy, overcast afternoon, hundreds of yellow "Don't Tread on Me" flags flapped in the breeze.

2005

The demonstration drew grandmothers in wheelchairs and babies in strollers, military veterans in fatigues and protest veterans in tie-dye. It was the first time in a decade that protest groups had a permit to march in front of the executive mansion, and, even though President Bush was not there, the setting seemed to electrify the crowd. 

2002

Organizers with International ANSWER, a coalition of antiwar groups that coordinated the demonstration, had hoped for a turnout rivaling that of its pro-Palestine rally in April that officials estimated at about 75,000. Organizers said they easily eclipsed that figure yesterday, assessing attendance at well more than 100,000. D.C. Police Chief Charles H. Ramsey also said he figured yesterday's rally turnout exceeded that in April, but he didn't provide a specific number.

You've got to be kidding me, right? -- Grandmothers, wheelchairs, and everything  -- the scary aliens (NTGK) are loud and animated are clearly threatening grandmothers with vaporization from a primitive leader and their GOD  (if Obama doesn't get them first).   If only an electrified crowd could channel that power and save the babies!

Third Paragraph

Tea Party

"Hell hath no fury like a taxpayer ignored," declared Andrew Moylan, head of government affairs for the National Taxpayers Union, urging protesters to call their representatives. The demonstrators roared their approval. 

2005

Signs, T-shirts, slogans and speeches outlined the cost of the Iraq conflict in human as well as economic terms. They memorialized dead U.S. troops and Iraqis, and contrasted the price of war with the price of recovery for areas battered by hurricanes Katrina and Rita. Riffs on Vietnam-era protests were plentiful, with messages declaring, "Make Levees, Not War," "I never thought I'd miss Nixon" and "Iraq is Arabic for Vietnam." Many in the crowd had protested in the 1960s; others weren't even born during those tumultuous years.

2002

"We think this was just extremely, extremely successful," said Mara Verheyden-Hilliard, a D.C. organizer with International ANSWER, Act Now to Stop War and End Racism. "It absolutely shows that when George Bush says America speaks with one voice, and it's his voice, he's wrong."

Mommy, the scary aliens (NTGK) roared, they roared I tell you!  Antiwar protests were nothing but impressive!  Hey, wait, they mentioned they were against Bush, huh!

You get the point.

A few more statistics:

Number of signs quoted:    
Tea party -- 9              
2005  --  0 (mentions of Bush signs and one sign with the picture of a mothers son who was in Iraq)

Chanting/shouting:
Tea Party  -- "We Own the Dome!"
2005  --  "Shame on you, Shame on you!" (a counter protester shouted)

"Peaceful"
Tea Party --0 (none)
2005 -- 1

"Angrily" or Angry
Tea Party -- 1
2005 -- 0

"Grandmother" and"Babies"
Tea Party -- 0
2005  -- One of each


Crowd estimate:
Tea Party -- No "official" estimate given
2005 -- 300,000 the organizers claim

Reason for protest:
Tea Party --

The demonstrators are part of a loose-knit movement that is galvanizing anti-Obama sentiment across the country, stoking a populist dimension to the Republican Party, which has struggled to find its voice since the 2008 elections.

2005 --

(T)he events were sponsored by groups including the ANSWER Coalition and United for Peace and Justice and focused on a succinct theme: "End the War in Iraq and Bring the Troops Home Now."

Interesting:

Tea Party -- "(H)e watches Fox News host Glenn Beck "all the time" and wanted to be part of an event that he thinks will be historic. Beck had drummed up support for the march."

2005 -- "The protest groups helped organize caravans and carpools, and many participants began arriving early in the morning after bumpy, all-night bus rides."

BEEEECCCCCKKKKK!

Yea, I'm a bit over critical perhaps, but 8 years of coded Bush hate in the press and 2 years of blatant Obama love in the same press will do that.

Hey WaPo, how are that Acorn and vetting of the Czars story going?
DKK

Please forgive the grammar and if this reads choppy -- my meds have failed in clearing the cognitive issues lately.

Obamaganda

Obamaganda -- the MSM treatment of the 2008 election as described by Time Magazine Editor, Mark Halperin.

Edwards Admits Affair -- Stabs Media And Wife In The Back -- Media Forced To Finally Cover Story!

Former Sen. John Edwards has admitted having an extramarital affair in 2006. In a written statement today, the former Democratic presidential candidate said he "made a serious error in judgment and conducted myself in a way that was disloyal to my family and to my core beliefs." 

National Enquirer was right and the media covered it up, until they couldn't any longer.   This was really a disgraceful display by the media.
CNN

Update:  Hot Air -- David Shuster: You know who else deserves an apology from Edwards? The media

After all they did to suppress the story for him, it’s really the least he can do. Tip via TV Newser, which neglects to mention the punchline here: Upon pronouncing the media a hapless victim whose blind trust was so cruelly exploited by Edwards’s aides, Shuster then turned around and pulled rank on the one press outfit that actually bothered to do some reporting. This one’s for you, Kaus.

If David Schuster knows politics more then all the people at MSNBC then they are really in trouble!
DKK

Ouch -- Washington Post Caught With Pants Down As They Post Inaccurate Obama Propaganda!

OKAY, I MENTIONED IT IN PASSING EARLIER, but this Washington Post correction is worth quoting in full: "An earlier version of this story about campaign donations that Florida businessman Harry Sargeant III raised for Sen. John McCain, former New York Mayor Rudolph Giuliani and Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton incorrectly identified three individuals as being among the donors Sargeant solicited on behalf of McCain. Those donors -- Rite Aid manager Ibrahim Marabeh, and lounge owners Nadia and Shawn Abdalla -- wrote checks to Giuliani and Clinton, not McCain. Also, the first name of Faisal Abdullah, a McCain donor, was misspelled in some versions of the story."

Next time, do some research to confirm what the Obama operatives email you, before you run the story on Page One. It'll work out to be less embarrassing in the end . . . .

DKK
Instapundit

Time And Factcheck Puff Up Obama's Air Pressure Claims -- Unfortunately They Need To Check Their Assumptions, They Are Half Full!

Barack Obama's suggestion that we can't drill our way out of the current energy shortage, but we can solve the problem through tire inflation, has been the source of much hilarity. We did the math here, and found that it would take approximately 11,308 years of tire inflation to equal the energy we can obtain by developing our own petroleum resources.

Now, remarkably, Time magazine has rushed to the defense of its candidate, arguing that "Obama is right."

The author of the article, Michael Grunwald, mixes apple-and-orange statistics to try to create the false impression that there is more to be gained by inflating tires than through offshore drilling:

The Bush Administration estimates that expanded offshore drilling could increase oil production by 200,000 bbl. per day by 2030. We use about 20 million bbl. per day, so that would meet about 1% of our demand two decades from now. Meanwhile, efficiency experts say that keeping tires inflated can improve gas mileage 3%, and regular maintenance can add another 4%. Many drivers already follow their advice, but if everyone did, we could immediately reduce demand several percentage points. In other words: Obama is right.

Grunwald is trying, through sleight of hand, to conceal certain basic facts: Obama said that tire inflation could save energy equal to "all the oil that they're talking about getting off drilling,"

(...)

That's right: the EIA, writing in early 2007, assumed that oil prices would decline from their 2006 peak; that in 2008, the price of crude oil would be around $60 a barrel; that it would continue to decline until around 2013 to a low of about $50 a barrel; and that the price would then gradually increase to a little under $60 a barrel by 2030. Those were the assumptions on which EIA concluded that it would not be economically profitable to get most OCS oil out of the ground.

Earth to Michael Grunwald: that isn't what happened. The EIA was wrong. Currently crude oil is at around $120 per barrel, not $60. At the elevated prices we are now experiencing and are expected to experience in the future, vastly greater quantities of OCS oil (or ANWR oil, or shale oil) can profitably be exploited, and those resources can make a vastly greater contribution to our economic well-being.

When we read wildly inaccurate reporting in the mainstream media, it's often hard to tell whether the reporter is incompetent, or is deliberately trying to deceive. You can make your own guess. For now, suffice it to say that Time's attempt to rehabilitate Obama's tire-inflation gaffe is a failure.

To repeat what McCain and I have both said, great -- fill up your tires!  But we are still going to need the energy!  Obama's claim has nothing to do with an energy plan and does not discount the need to drill.
DKK
Powerline Blog -- Time Tries To Salvage Obama's Gaffe

Redlasso Tool No Longer Available -- Networks Losers Long Term As They Fail To Adapt To New Media

For those who grew up in the Napster era, the music industry’s emphatic protection of its copyrights in music content is very familiar territory. However, the aggressive shutdown of music download websites has plagued the music industry as a bad public relations move for many years. Despite a shift to legalized digital downloading, the music industry continues to suffer lagging sales.

Today, one must wonder whether other media conglomerates have learned from the mistakes of the music industry—or is history simply poised to repeat itself? On May 19, 2008, NBC, FOX, CBS, and Allbritton Communications served a cease-and-desist letter to the blogger-friendly website, redlasso.com. 

JETLaw blog

Redlasso, the video site that allows bloggers to post clips of television content, has shut down its beta in response to a recently filed lawsuit by Hulu-backers Fox and NBC.
In May, Fox, CBS and NBC issued Cease and Desist notices to Redlasso for copyright violation, which the company largely ignored. In June the company established a “Media Advisory Board” headed by a number of ex-studio execs that they hoped would help smooth things over with the networks.

TechCrunch

So much for that experiment.  I hope they can get a compromised reached soon.  The sad thing is this is the same type of thing the music industry went through.  Instead of working to form a new business model that included supportive use on the net and expanding choices they would rather drive a business plan of limiting what is available in an attempt to force use of their old model.

I don't know of an alternative yet, but I will try to find one that has the flexibility to select specific content.
DKK

Update copied from later post:

You know, the more I have though about the whole Redlasso thing it really makes me wonder the logic.  Imagine I put up a snippet from say, Special Report and say it's a good one.  How many more possible viewers do they get for the two later airings of Special Report that day who go there just to see that snippet in context.  Free advertising driving ratings, now lost because of the inability to adjust to changing technologies.  Oh and the Hulu service supported by NBC and Newscorp is very limited and the videos are not breaking news.
DKK

Media Donations To Democrats Outpace Republicans 100 to 1 -- Nope, No Bias Here!

Putting Money Where Mouths Are: Media Donations Favor Dems 100-1



By WILLIAM TATE | Posted Wednesday, July 23, 2008 4:20 PM PT



The New York Times' refusal to publish John McCain's rebuttal to Barack Obama's Iraq op-ed may be the most glaring example of liberal media bias this journalist has ever seen. But true proof of widespread media bias requires one to follow an old journalism maxim: Follow the money.



Even the Associated Press — no bastion of conservatism — has considered, at least superficially, the media's favoritism for Barack Obama. It's time to revisit media bias.



True to form, journalists are defending their bias by saying that one candidate, Obama, is more newsworthy than the other. In other words, there is no media bias. It is we, the hoi polloi, who reveal our bias by questioning the neutrality of these learned professionals in their ivory-towered newsrooms. Big Media applies this rationalization to every argument used to point out bias. "It's not a result of bias," they say. "It's a matter of news judgment."



And, like the man who knows his wallet was pickpocketed but can't prove it, the public is left to futilely rage against the injustice of it all.



The "newsworthy" argument can be applied to every metric — one-sided imbalances in airtime, story placement, column inches, number of stories, etc. — save one.



An analysis of federal records shows that the amount of money journalists contributed so far this election cycle favors Democrats by a 15:1 ratio over Republicans, with $225,563 going to Democrats, only $16,298 to Republicans .



...



Let me repeat: $315,533 to Democrats, $3,150 to Republicans — a ratio of 100-to-1. No bias there.

DKK

IBD Editorials

The Op-ed Too Dangerous For The NY Times!

NYT REJECTS MCCAIN'S EDITORIAL; SHOULD 'MIRROR' OBAMA
Mon Jul 21 2008 12:00:25 ET

An editorial written by Republican presidential hopeful McCain has been rejected by the NEW YORK TIMES -- less than a week after the paper published an essay written by Obama, the DRUDGE REPORT has learned.

The paper's decision to refuse McCain's direct rebuttal to Obama's 'My Plan for Iraq' has ignited explosive charges of media bias in top Republican circles.

'It would be terrific to have an article from Senator McCain that mirrors Senator Obama's piece,' NYT Op-Ed editor David Shipley explained in an email late Friday to McCain's staff. 'I'm not going to be able to accept this piece as currently written.'

MORE

In McCain's submission to the TIMES, he writes of Obama: 'I am dismayed that he never talks about winning the war—only of ending it... if we don't win the war, our enemies will. A triumph for the terrorists would be a disaster for us. That is something I will not allow to happen as president.'

NYT's Shipley advised McCain to try again: 'I'd be pleased, though, to look at another draft.'

[Shipley served in the Clinton Administration from 1995 until 1997 as Special Assistant to the President and Senior Presidential Speechwriter.]

MORE

A top McCain source claims the paper simply does not agree with the senator's Iraq policy, and wants him to change it, not "re-work the draft."

McCain writes in the rejected essay: 'Progress has been due primarily to an increase in the number of troops and a change in their strategy. I was an early advocate of the surge at a time when it had few supporters in Washington. Senator Barack Obama was an equally vocal opponent. 'I am not persuaded that 20,000 additional troops in Iraq is going to solve the sectarian violence there,' he said on January 10, 2007. 'In fact, I think it will do the reverse.'

MORE

Shipley, who is on vacation this week, explained his decision not to run the editorial.

'The Obama piece worked for me because it offered new information (it appeared before his speech); while Senator Obama discussed Senator McCain, he also went into detail about his own plans.'

Shipley continues: 'It would be terrific to have an article from Senator McCain that mirrors Senator Obama's piece. To that end, the article would have to articulate, in concrete terms, how Senator McCain defines victory in Iraq.'

Developing...



The DRUDGE REPORT presents the McCain editorial in its submitted form:

In January 2007, when General David Petraeus took command in Iraq, he called the situation “hard” but not “hopeless.” Today, 18 months later, violence has fallen by up to 80% to the lowest levels in four years, and Sunni and Shiite terrorists are reeling from a string of defeats. The situation now is full of hope, but considerable hard work remains to consolidate our fragile gains.

Progress has been due primarily to an increase in the number of troops and a change in their strategy. I was an early advocate of the surge at a time when it had few supporters in Washington. Senator Barack Obama was an equally vocal opponent. "I am not persuaded that 20,000 additional troops in Iraq is going to solve the sectarian violence there,” he said on January 10, 2007. “In fact, I think it will do the reverse."

Now Senator Obama has been forced to acknowledge that “our troops have performed brilliantly in lowering the level of violence.” But he still denies that any political progress has resulted.

Perhaps he is unaware that the U.S. Embassy in Baghdad has recently certified that, as one news article put it, “Iraq has met all but three of 18 original benchmarks set by Congress last year to measure security, political and economic progress.” Even more heartening has been progress that’s not measured by the benchmarks. More than 90,000 Iraqis, many of them Sunnis who once fought against the government, have signed up as Sons of Iraq to fight against the terrorists. Nor do they measure Prime Minister Nouri al Maliki’s new-found willingness to crack down on Shiite extremists in Basra and Sadr City—actions that have done much to dispel suspicions of sectarianism.

The success of the surge has not changed Senator Obama’s determination to pull out all of our combat troops. All that has changed is his rationale. In a New York Times op-ed and a speech this week, he offered his “plan for Iraq” in advance of his first “fact finding” trip to that country in more than three years. It consisted of the same old proposal to pull all of our troops out within 16 months. In 2007 he wanted to withdraw because he thought the war was lost. If we had taken his advice, it would have been. Now he wants to withdraw because he thinks Iraqis no longer need our assistance.

To make this point, he mangles the evidence. He makes it sound as if Prime Minister Maliki has endorsed the Obama timetable, when all he has said is that he would like a plan for the eventual withdrawal of U.S. troops at some unspecified point in the future.

Senator Obama is also misleading on the Iraqi military's readiness. The Iraqi Army will be equipped and trained by the middle of next year, but this does not, as Senator Obama suggests, mean that they will then be ready to secure their country without a good deal of help. The Iraqi Air Force, for one, still lags behind, and no modern army can operate without air cover. The Iraqis are also still learning how to conduct planning, logistics, command and control, communications, and other complicated functions needed to support frontline troops.

No one favors a permanent U.S. presence, as Senator Obama charges. A partial withdrawal has already occurred with the departure of five “surge” brigades, and more withdrawals can take place as the security situation improves. As we draw down in Iraq, we can beef up our presence on other battlefields, such as Afghanistan, without fear of leaving a failed state behind. I have said that I expect to welcome home most of our troops from Iraq by the end of my first term in office, in 2013.

But I have also said that any draw-downs must be based on a realistic assessment of conditions on the ground, not on an artificial timetable crafted for domestic political reasons. This is the crux of my disagreement with Senator Obama.

Senator Obama has said that he would consult our commanders on the ground and Iraqi leaders, but he did no such thing before releasing his “plan for Iraq.” Perhaps that’s because he doesn’t want to hear what they have to say. During the course of eight visits to Iraq, I have heard many times from our troops what Major General Jeffrey Hammond, commander of coalition forces in Baghdad, recently said: that leaving based on a timetable would be “very dangerous.”

The danger is that extremists supported by Al Qaeda and Iran could stage a comeback, as they have in the past when we’ve had too few troops in Iraq. Senator Obama seems to have learned nothing from recent history. I find it ironic that he is emulating the worst mistake of the Bush administration by waving the “Mission Accomplished” banner prematurely.

I am also dismayed that he never talks about winning the war—only of ending it. But if we don’t win the war, our enemies will. A triumph for the terrorists would be a disaster for us. That is something I will not allow to happen as president. Instead I will continue implementing a proven counterinsurgency strategy not only in Iraq but also in Afghanistan with the goal of creating stable, secure, self-sustaining democratic allies.

DKK
Drudge Report Flash!

Could The Coverage Of The Rainbow Tour Backfire -- Americans Believe Media Is In The Tank!

The New York Times’ refusal today (Monday) to run an op-ed piece by John McCain challenging an article in the paper less than a week ago by Barack Obama is sure to further fuel the belief that much of the major media is biased in favor of the Democratic candidate.

At issue is McCain’s response to an article by Obama entitled, “My Plan for Iraq.” Obama was in Afghanistan over the weekend and in Iraq today attempting to build his foreign policy portfolio for the fall campaign.

The idea that reporters are trying to help Obama win in November has grown by five percentage points over the past month. The latest Rasmussen Reports telephone survey, taken just before the new controversy involving the Times erupted, found that 49% of voters believe most reporters will try to help the Democrat with their coverage, up from 44% a month ago.

Just 14% believe most reporters will try to help McCain win, little changed from 13% a month ago. Just one voter in four (24%) believes that most reporters will try to offer unbiased coverage.

...
In the latest survey, a plurality of Democrats—37%-- say most reporters try to offer unbiased coverage of the campaign. Twenty-seven percent (27%) believe most reporters are trying to help Obama and 21% in Obama’s party think reporters are trying to help the Republican candidate.

Among Republicans, 78% believe reporters are trying to help Obama and 10% see most offering unbiased coverage.

As for unaffiliated voters, 50% see a pro-Obama bias and 21% see unbiased coverage. Just 12% of those not affiliated with either major party believe the reporters are trying to help McCain.

In a more general sense, 45% say that most reporters would hide information if it hurt the candidate they wanted to win. Just 30% disagree and 25% are not sure. Democrats are evenly divided as to whether a reporter would release such information while Republicans and unaffiliated voters have less confidence in the reporters. 

DKK
Rasmussen Reports -- Belief Growing That Reporters are Trying to Help Obama Win

As ForThe Press -- Guys, Hey Guys, You there?

He says drill. Oil prices drop immediately. The press doesn’t see the connection.


And on top of that, dropping oil prices now are a bad thing.

To recap: President Bush officially announced at a press conference a lift on the presidential ban on offshore drilling — at 10:20 a.m. on Tuesday.

At 11 a.m. on Tuesday, oil prices began a slide from about $145 a barrel to just under $130.

That’s a 10% drop.

How has the press reported this?

Read the summary of the reportage, but needless to say they mentioned just about everything but the above.
DKK
Don Surber -- Ignoring Bush

Tony Snow Dies At Age 53

Tony Snow, the former White House press secretary and conservative pundit who bedeviled the press corps and charmed millions as a FOX News television and radio host, has died after a long bout with cancer. He was 53.
A syndicated columnist, editor, TV anchor, radio show host and musician, Snow worked in nearly every medium in a career that spanned more than 30 years.
"Laura and I are deeply saddened by the death of our dear friend, Tony Snow," President Bush said in a statement. "The Snow family has lost a beloved husband and father. And America has lost a devoted public servant and a man of character."

DKK 
Fox News

Inside The Liberal Mind -- Juan Williams, if we were armed, "We'd all be shooting our husbands and wives!"

via RedLasso

Inside the liberal mind -- Juan Williams explains the honest truth, liberals believe people can't be trusted, especially with guns. Even his fellow elite media members can't be trusted as he explains that they would be shooting their husbands and wives if they were allowed to carry weapons!
DKK

NY Times Identifies CIA Interrogator Against CIA Wishes

Too bad, because an otherwise fascinating story about the scramble to build a counterterror apparatus after 9/11, the merits of coercive vs. non-coercive interrogation, and the stings that nailed Abu Zubaydah and KSM is going to be submerged in a debate over their decision to publish the lead interrogator’s name against his wishes and those of CIA chief Michael Hayden. Here’s the obligatory editor’s note justifying the decision. Quote:

After discussion with agency officials and a lawyer for [the interrogrator], the newspaper declined the request, noting that [the interrogator] had never worked under cover and that others involved in the campaign against Al Qaeda have been named in news stories and books. The editors judged that the name was necessary for the credibility and completeness of the article.

The Times’ policy is to withhold the name of a news subject only very rarely, most often in the case of victims of sexual assault or intelligence officers operating under cover.

Read the piece and you’ll see that credibility and completeness have nothing to do with it. It’s not a story about him; he’s just the springboard to explore the themes I mentioned earlier.
Hot Air -- NYT reveals name of KSM’s chief interrogator — against CIA’s wishes

Hey, didn't Valarie Plame work for the CIA? This case, like the Plame case did not involve a covert agent -- but unlike the Plame case this agent was overseas within the last 5 years, which I think was of concern when determining Plame's status.
DKK

AP Update -- Foolishly Destroying A Brand

And you thought their PR on this subject couldn’t get any worse. Must be nice to have an exemption from the same federal fair use statute every other content provider in America is governed by.

The AP’s disharmony with bloggers may have only just begun, as the alternative it’s now offering to being served with takedown notices involves paying an up-front sum for excerpting online articles — as few as five words…

The pricing scale for excerpting AP content begins at $12.50 for 5-25 words and goes as high as $100 for 251 words and up. Nonprofit organizations and educational institutions enjoy a discounted rate.

This scale is likely only a temporary solution, as it raises a truckload of questions. For instance: Suppose a news source holds a press conference, and makes a statement to several attendees including an AP correspondent. Does the citation of that quote count as an excerpt of an AP story? What if Reuters cited the same quote? Or worse, what if Reuters cited the quote differently, and a blogger noticed the difference and excerpted both for comparison? If the AP citation turned out to be in error, would the blogger still owe?

Bloggers like Ace are now summarizing and refusing to link to news they can't find elsewhere.
DKK
Hot Air -- AP wants $2.50 a word to excerpt its stories now!

Success -- Troop Reduction -- Media Questions Public

Meanwhile, the AP not only notes significant progress in Iraq, but actually (get this) kinda-sorta wonders why the public hasn't taken note of it.

Signs are emerging that Iraq has reached a turning point. Violence is down, armed extremists are in disarray, government confidence is rising and sectarian communities are gearing up for a battle at the polls rather than slaughter in the streets.

Those positive signs are attracting little attention in the United States, where the war-weary public is focused on the American presidential contest and skeptical of talk of success after so many years of unfounded optimism by the war's supporters.

That's rich. The MSM has reduced its coverage of the war by ninety-two percent over the past year, conveniently since the US has been winning the war, and AP blames the lack of public attention on the public itself.

DKK
Ace Of Spades HQ -- Bush Announces Over-the-Horizon Redeployment of 34,000 Troops Out Of Iraq

The Associated Press Bites The Hand That Feeds Them

The stories over the weekend were bad enough - the Associated Press, with a long history of suing over quotations from their articles, went after Drudge Retort for having the audacity to link to their stories along with short quotations via reader submissions. Drudge Retort is doing nothing different than what Digg, TechMeme, Mixx and dozens of other sites do, and frankly the fact that they are being linked to should be considered a favor.

After heavy criticism over the last few days, the A.P. is in damage control mode, says the NYTimes, and retreating from their earlier position. But from what I read, they’re just pushing their case further.

They do not want people quoting their stories, despite the fact that such activity very clearly falls within the fair use exception to copyright law. They claim that the activity is an infringement.

Many blogs are not linking to AP stories, preferring to link to the original source or another news service such as AFP or Reuters.

This is an interesting test of the business model the AP and other traditional media outlets have set up. I have no idea how they think they can get around fair use, but even more curious is how they think they are going to get around making money via hits.

As Tech central continued:

The A.P. doesn’t get to make it’s own rules around how its content is used, if those rules are stricter than the law allows. So even thought they say they are making these new guidelines in the spirit of cooperation, it’s clear that, like the RIAA and MPAA, they are trying to claw their way to a set of property rights that don’t exist today and that they are not legally entitled to. And like the RIAA and MPAA, this is done to protect a dying business model - paid content.

So here’s our new policy on A.P. stories: they don’t exist. We don’t see them, we don’t quote them, we don’t link to them. They’re banned until they abandon this new strategy, and I encourage others to do the same until they back down from these ridiculous attempts to stop the spread of information around the Internet.

DKK

Tech Central --Here's Our New Policy On A.P. stories: They're Banned

Tim Russert Dies at 58

Tim Russert, NBC journalist and political heavyweight host of "Meet the Press," has died after collapsing at NBC's Washington news bureau, a source said. He was 58 years old.

NY Post

He will be missed by us political junkies!
DKK

Violence In Iraq Drops -- Coverage Of Success Follows Suit

Conservative pundits have made this complaint ever since the beginning of the surge, but now the editorial board of the Washington Post adds its voice to the protest. They note the “odd” lull in reporting and debate on Iraq over the last few weeks, but fail to draw the obvious conclusion. The American media and the Democrats became so invested in American defeat that they have decided to ignore the collapse of their position as Iraq stabilizes

DKK
Hot Air

Economic Growth Numbers Adjusted Up -- Media Still Down!

The economy logged slightly better -- but weak -- growth in the first quarter, spurred by improved sales of U.S. products overseas. While that's heartening, the country's economy is still far from being out of the woods.

The numbers were increased from .6% to .9% primarily on lower imports and improved exports.
DKK
AP - US logs better but still weak growth

Fox News -- 77th Month On Top

For the 77th consecutive month, FNC finished first in total day and prime time ratings during May. FNC was the sixth highest rated cable network on all of basic cable during prime time for the month (CNN and MSNBC finished 19th and 26th) and the seventh rated network in total day (CNN and MSNBC were 19th and 27th).
DKK
TV Newser -- May ratings, FNC Stays On Top