This is an interesting story, but it is lacking in many ways. The old fundamentals of who, what, where, when, why, and how are not all covered. The journalistic strengths are (1) a relative lack of obvious bias and (2) an excellent explanation of the "what" aspects of the story. Where the story is weak is in the "why" part of the information. Has there been a problem with bloggers and AP stories? Has the problem cost AP money? Why would AP choose to do this right now? Another weak aspect is the "how" of the possible remedies available to AP. And just because AP comes up with a "policy toward bloggers" doesn't mean it would stand up in court.

This story raises a lot of interesting issues, though it doesn't resolve many--and misses a few. For example, why just go after blogs? Tim Russert used to routinely quote stories in his questions. Many MSM outlets quote each other, often without attribution. And as MSM continues to cut coverage, where will sources will come from if not citizen journalists? Or, if bloggers usurp them, won't they just cut everything? What standards will bloggers follow, and will they be any more or less reliable? Can MSM outlets afford to report anything if they can't protect their work? Does quoting it hurt or help their ability to draw readers? I'm sure much of this has been discussed elsewhere. I know I've seen some pieces on various aspects of ... More »