Ryan from Dead Parrot Society offers an innocent explanation for the AP‘s decision to provide one version of its stories to online media, and another (more spiced up) version to online media.
When I earlier mentioned this new policy on my blog, I speculated that the AP might be doing an end run around blogger criticism of its more biased stories. Ryan — who runs a great blog (and did good work getting to the bottom of the flap over the Paul Bremer farewell speech) — says I’m wrong. He says the policy arises from a simple desire on the part of the AP to give a fresh opening to stories that readers may have already seen online.
The best evidence that Ryan is right is that, as he explains, the “optional” and more colorful (and possibly more biased) stories end up on the Internet anyway — though, he admits, they are not as widely circulated online.
I don’t necessarily accept at face value the AP‘s proffered reason for a change like this. But Ryan’s explanation is worth your consideration. I certainly give him more credibility than I give anonymous bomb-throwers, like
Ryan’s boss Ken Sands my rude commenter named “Reader.”
Some anonymous guy who implies that he’s with the Associated Press has been busy insulting me in the comments to this post.
The exchange begins here.
This guy is a piece of work. Right out of the gate, he calls my post “ridiculous and self-centered” — and just gets nastier from there. He offers zero support for his assertions, other than his good name: “Reader.” He misses the humorous angle to my suggestion. He misreads my speculation about motivation in a commentary piece as a positive assertion of fact — then calls me “untrustworthy” because I won’t accept his unsourced (and insulting) assertions at face value, and issue a correction based on them. He clearly has a huge chip on his shoulder about blogs.
Finally, he throws Jeff Jarvis at me — as if Jeff Jarvis would have any respect for a guy like this, who throws anonymous insults at people in blog comments.
I don’t know if “Reader” is really a top guy with the AP, as he seems to imply in his comments — but if he is, it explains a lot, doesn’t it?
UPDATE: The guy’s IP address comes back to Cowles Publishing.
Like Spoons, I occasionally find myself very busy during the week, and putting out my best posts on the weekend, when fewer people read them. So if you’re checking in today, and you don’t read me on the weekend, then make sure and check out these posts of mine from the past two days:
- Don’t tell me that the federal courts got it right in the Schiavo case until you’ve read this post and responded to its arguments.
- In this post, I rewrite David Savage’s article about Republican appointees, to fit the year 1973 — the year Roe v. Wade was decided. I make a compelling case (if I say so myself) that the Court was dominated by Republicans then — as compelling a case as Savage makes that it is dominated by Republicans today.
- This post points readers to previously unknown primary sources in the Schiavo case, including trial and deposition transcripts. Fascinating stuff.
- This post points out where the L.A. Times buries some facts that are inconvenient for Democrats. (Jeez. When’s the last time you saw that??)
- This post notes that the L.A. Times is ignoring a major story about a serial killer in L.A.
- And finally, this post notes that the L.A. Times‘s circulation is way down — and speculates as to the reasons that may be.
Do me a favor. If you are the type who doesn’t read me on the weekend, tell me. And tell me if posts like this make it more likely that you will go back and take a look at the weekend’s offerings. (Or, if posts like this just irritate you, because you already read all of these posts, you can tell me that too.)