I'm a graduate student studying the molecular and biochemical evolution of HIV within patients and within populations. I also study epigenetic control of ERVs.
Ive been trying to make an active effort not to link/quote Associated Press articles since their little temper-tantrum last month.
I thought it would be easy, I mean, link to a journal article instead of the crappy AP synopsis. Link to a blogger that was at a 'gay' wedding in CA instead of a chicken-little AP story. Support a real journalist instead of the AP idiots. No big deal, right?
Wrong.
This has been a lot harder than I previously anticipated. I didnt realize how dependent I was on APs hard hitting journalism. You simply cannot get high quality journalism, like this, anywhere else.
What are we gonna do, guys??
Comments
Make shit up, just like Fox. Or the D.I., for that matter.
Posted by: Paul Lundgren | July 9, 2008 12:00 PM
If productive work can be done with leftover monkey droppings, there might be hope for the AP.
Posted by: Jake | July 9, 2008 12:57 PM
Well, first we set your "Days without Associate Press" counter back to zero, and then found Associated Blogs?
Posted by: dreikin | July 9, 2008 1:02 PM
There has to be some sort of insightful interspecies-cooperation/self-gene angle to this AP story. Dogs are generally known for loyalty, but this one actually surrendered himself to the authorities as soon as they got his goat.
Posted by: DAM10N | July 9, 2008 1:11 PM
Eat a cookie? Is that a good answer for what to do?
Posted by: Felstatsu | July 9, 2008 2:21 PM
was that article written by a child?
or perhaps Denyse O'Leary?
Posted by: alex | July 9, 2008 3:29 PM
Fox, monkeys, dogs, goats...
I come here for the viruses; which viruses attacks AP? Is there a Go-APe yet, among the "ecology of the links"?
Posted by: Torbj�rn Larsson, OM | July 9, 2008 4:18 PM
You could just do what I've done and agree with them.
Or alternatively, you could just quote the people who pick up their stories. Though I don't know if all their stories are picked up by other media.
Posted by: The Chemist | July 9, 2008 4:27 PM
What about using Reuters?
Posted by: Cory Albrecht | July 9, 2008 5:40 PM
That is an interesting stance The Chemist, and I find myself agreeing with several your points, though being a late comer to this all (missed paying attention when it all happened) I'm finding myself lacking the information to truly weigh in on this matter.
Would anyone happen to have links to the original articles in question, as well as the postings (archived somewhere if the DMCA take downs were successful)?
At the least I can say that the zombie bloggers who copy stuff wholesale and think a little note giving credit at the bottom pardons them is at best, completely deplorable and at worst illegal. I really don't think that sort of copying is at all protected by fair use myself, but I suppose for the official verdict we'll need to wait for a case involving them to make it through the court system.
Posted by: Felstatsu | July 9, 2008 5:48 PM
Oh NOOOoooooo...!!! What will we do???
Posted by: S.Scott | July 9, 2008 7:51 PM
An even bigger reason for going without AP is their recent virtual endorsement of McCain. http://talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/202828.php
As far as getting the "important" news like the story linked above, you should give Reuters' "Oddly Enough" section a try. http://news.yahoo.com/i/583
Posted by: chezjake | July 9, 2008 9:06 PM
Sorry to differ, but you must realize what the AP is. In many ways its an early form of blogging or web carnival. There are AP (associated press) "reporters" all over the country in every little local newspaper and radio station and in some cases even non-affiliated with a standard news outlet. If they see something they think worthwhile, they post it "on the wires" (of course it use to be a teletype). If others felt it was newsworthy, then subscribers to AP (larger newspapers and broadcast networks) would publish it. Thus,the idea was flood the wires with info from many "associated" sources, and let the most important/provocative/quirky rise to the top. The example linked here is the fault of MSNBC choosing crap, not the local AP person in their basement tossing an observation onto the wire.
Posted by: homer | July 9, 2008 10:22 PM
Use the BBC?
Oh, no, wait...
Posted by: VWXYNot? | July 10, 2008 5:43 PM
Posted by: llewelly | July 11, 2008 3:30 AM