Right Wing Media Booted off Obama Plane

Reports are coming out that the Obama campaign booted off of the campaign plane three right leaning news organizations. News reporters that their opinion page editors endorsed John McCain. My first reaction was that of being pissed at such a stupid move until I actually read past the headline and hype behind the Obama campaign decision. I picked this story up from Memeorandum and had to follow many of the links from other news organizations reporting on this common sense decision by a “Political” organization. Check out what Drudge Report had to say on this…

The Obama campaign has decided to heave out three newspapers from its plane for the final days of its blitz across battleground states -- and all three endorsed Sen. John McCain for president!

The NY POST, WASHINGTON TIMES and DALLAS MORNING NEWS have all been told to move out by Sunday to make room for network bigwigs -- and possibly for the inclusion of reporters from two black magazines, ESSENCE and JET, the DRUDGE REPORT has learned.

Despite pleas from top editors of the three newspapers that have covered the campaign for months at extraordinary cost, the Obama campaign says their reporters -- and possibly others -- will have to vacate their coveted seats so more power players can document the final days of Sen. Barack Obama's historic campaign to become the first black American president. - Drudge Report

If I read the original report from Drudge Report correct then it was in order to make room for power players in the media? Fox News was not kicked off the plane! Is anyone actually writing about who the New York Post, Washington Times and Dallas Morning News lost their seats too? No they are not because this is hype from the right wing to try and toss some more mud at the wall that Obama is anti right wing. One plane, only so many seats, news organizations across the board fight to get on the Obama campaign plane and each seat is worth millions of dollars in news reporting revenue.

This is just a hypothetical scenario, several major television news networks want their star players on that plane but the minimum staff for that star reporter is already on board. There are only so many seats so somebody has to go, someone has to give up a seat on the plane. And just as courtesy goes at all other airlines, the reporters asked to give up their seats were given a voucher on Joe Biden’s jet plane. But this is not a commercial airline. They didn’t have to offer that option to the reporters asked to or told to give up their seats. This is a privately paid for Obama for President plane! If Tom Brokaw, Brit Hume, or Charlie Gibson want a seat on that plane then the list of passengers is looked at and it is just common sense that the people and news organizations friendly to the “Political” campaign stay, and those not so friendly have to exit the aircraft. Thank you for flying Air Obama, have a nice day.

According to CBS News, all organizations pay for a seat. But there are still only so many seats on the Boeing 757 that the Obama campaign has to fill so this issue is not taking off due to mechanical reporting and simple capacity problems.

Papamoka

Associated Press Blindsiding Bloggers

*****UPDATE From Media Bloogers Association


On my own site and others that I post on I am a stickler for linking to the site the quote comes from, the author when listed also. Over at the Associated Press they are going after bloggers for monetary damages for using quotes in their posts that originated from AP.

You can check the Associated Press thought here.

What I just don’t get is the terms of their definition of “Fair Use” in the news and blogging world. My good friend is a retired Newspaper Editor and she has this definition of “Fair Use” listed on her blog. I may be way off the mark on who knows what is “Fair Use” policy in the printed media world but I’m going to trust my friend BJ. God forbid the Associated Press would go after someone that used to buy ink by the barrel that has a blog. I would be the first one to go to her defense with a fat check for her lawyer if the AP attempted to sue a retired editor that is slowly loosing her vision. I’ve deliberately not linked to her site to protect her happy retirement life from AP lawyers thinking they are on the scent of blood and bloggers… Sorry BJ.

"This site contains copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. I am making such material available in an effort to advance understanding of current issues. I believe this constitutes a 'fair use' of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes."

Tell me I’m wrong and that the Associated Press is making up there own rules for the internet use that they post on the internet that people read every single day. Most legitimate bloggers link back to the persons originally credited with the article which in exchange drives people to the AP post that was paid for by the news service posting it. That in turn pays the advertising bills for the site and thus money is made by the original site. For that fact to be true then Crooks and Liars can steal my work seven days a week if the link back benefits my advertiser. Daily Kos, feel free to hold my entire posts hijacked on a trip to Cuba. As for the Huffington Post, I don’t want those bastards stealing my works. What the AP is doing is picking and choosing what web sites or blogs they want there work to appear on and that is wrong. The law is clear and the AP does not write the law. Legally I don’t think they have a leg to stand on but I will defer that to the people in the know of the law, AP lawyers not included.

As a blogger I read dozens of blogs a day and each one is more or less opinion of the article written than content theft. In that same thought I have found myself clicking on many AP articles to read the associated quote from many sites across the internet. I’m not talking about just AP articles but many other sources of news in the “Fair Use” presentation of the articles posted online. If any organization posts its writers articles online then they are open and free to interpretation just as much a letter to the editor is in your local paper. Or are you guilty of theft if you send a letter to the editor in opposition to an article labeled “XYZ on ABC”?

Some of the folks in the undergound blogger union have spoken of a united front to boycott the Associated Press and I’m finding myself looking favorably toward that position. We bloggers have our own secret handshake and manifest destiny that compels us to rebel against the institution of society. And there is that other thing where we are just one person writing opinion where the media has no clue as to the real world in America.

At the next meeting for the local chapter of Bloggers I’m going to raise the resolution to ban AP from our posts. From now on I will be only quoting over the fence news from my neighbor. No, that won’t work. Maybe I could use this search engine called Google to find relevant information? I’ll have to just check that out.

Papamoka

Feel free to link to, borrow, steal, or call this post your own. A link back is appreciated though!

Syndicated:
Bring It ON!
To the Center

Technorati Tags:
Google, Associated Press, Drudge Retort, Drudge Report, Blogging, Bloggers, Opinion writing, AP Law Suit, Internet Journalism, Internet Publishing, AP, Blogger Fear, Online Journalism, Reporting News, Fair Use, Internet Media, Blogging, Thoughts online, Blog Post, Linking, Linking to posts,