Oy. I don't have time to read all the comments, here, so this may have already been said in one form or another...
...but Mr. Masnick might want to consider the possibility that the BBC is an AP subscriber (it almost certainly is); and it's very, very common for AP subscribers to essentially just rewrite AP copy, adding something to it, perhaps (or not), and then placing a "AP copy was used in this piece" or "The AP contributed to this article" or something like that at the bottom.
Mr. Masnick might also bother to intuit what is at least part of the "rewrite desk's" role in a typical newsroom."
The whole POINT of such as the AP is so that budget-limited news organizations can report news from places where they, themselves either would or could never place reporters in person. It's clear in the Terms-of-service agreement between the AP and its subscribers that such as what the BBC is alleged by Mr. Masnick to have done is not only allowed, but encouraged. Rewriting a story so that its language and delivery has the character of the news organization publishing it, which its readers have come to know and appreciate, is EXACTLY what the AP wants to see its subscribers do.
It's true that no one owns the news. However, the written (or spoken) words of the journalists who report it is THEIR creation, and may be legally and justifiably protected. Agreements between such as the AP and its subscribers which set forth the terms of use of such works is PART of said protections.
Why Mr. Masnick finds any of this odd is a mystery to me.
×
Email This Story
This feature is only available to registered users. You can register here or sign in to use it.
Oy. I don't have time to read all the comments, here, so this may have already been said in one form or another...
...but Mr. Masnick might want to consider the possibility that the BBC is an AP subscriber (it almost certainly is); and it's very, very common for AP subscribers to essentially just rewrite AP copy, adding something to it, perhaps (or not), and then placing a "AP copy was used in this piece" or "The AP contributed to this article" or something like that at the bottom.
Mr. Masnick might also bother to intuit what is at least part of the "rewrite desk's" role in a typical newsroom."
The whole POINT of such as the AP is so that budget-limited news organizations can report news from places where they, themselves either would or could never place reporters in person. It's clear in the Terms-of-service agreement between the AP and its subscribers that such as what the BBC is alleged by Mr. Masnick to have done is not only allowed, but encouraged. Rewriting a story so that its language and delivery has the character of the news organization publishing it, which its readers have come to know and appreciate, is EXACTLY what the AP wants to see its subscribers do.
It's true that no one owns the news. However, the written (or spoken) words of the journalists who report it is THEIR creation, and may be legally and justifiably protected. Agreements between such as the AP and its subscribers which set forth the terms of use of such works is PART of said protections.
Why Mr. Masnick finds any of this odd is a mystery to me.