I have a nagging doubt forming at the back of my mind over all of this. Thinking aloud here so please bear with me…
I mentioned somewhere, (here, bitsblog, Q&O, I forget where) within the last few days, that there was an effort afoot to bring back the ‘fairness doctrine’ by the leftists in Congress. I allowed at the time that radio… and specifically AM talk radio was a threat to heir power and that was the reason behind such a move. I suggested that once the lion was done eating there, he’d attack bloggers the next time he was hungry.
I have to wonder if that’s not already happening.
OK, more than granted… it’s a stretch, but it seems to me to make more sense than any other reason I can think of…and as James, everyone seems confused as to why AP would be pulling this now; their arguments make little if any sense, without some larger motivation, such as this… and I can hardly think of a more effective means of shutting down a goodly number of political bloggers.
And isn’t it curious that they do this on the cusp of a general eletion?
Final thought, here… Seems to me that Reuters was the one making a whole lot of noise last time out, when ‘fair use’ came out. I suppose my judgement of how correct my guesswork here is, will be how such sources as Reuters , the NYT and so on, follow suit.
That’s not the kind of comment I make lightly, folks. However, it seems to me that we’ve run out of logical reasoning to explain the AP’s actions, here. Thus does Holmes’ axiom apply:
… when all other contingencies fail, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth. …
Michelle Malkin proposes sending bills to the AP on a per word bases for the times they’ve quotes US… and there’s plenty of these. But more, since my ad campaigns are on a per click basis, I’m busy compiling the number of clickouts to AP sources. based on those clickouts, they’re getting exposure, and one suppsoes exposure to THEIR revenue sources as well. Perhaps I should start charging them for clickouts, like I ‘charge’ Adwords?
That’s not the kind of comment I make lightly, folks. However, it seems to me that we’ve run out of logical reasoning to explain the AP’s actions, here. Thus does Holmes’ axiom apply:
And me at Q&O: [2]