Is The AP Even Relevant Any More?
from the do-you-need-it? dept
The original purpose of the Associated Press was to pool together resources of various newspapers in order to be able to cover and share reporting on different events around the world. Otherwise, it simply wasn't practical for every local newspaper to have a Washington DC bureau or a London bureau or a Moscow bureau or whatever other location needed news reporting. And then, the idea was that by collectively teaming up, each of the local newspapers could reprint the works from others (and from the AP's own reporters) and have a complete newspaper on their own. But does that even make any sense in an internet era? The NewsFuturist blog notes that the internet has basically done away with the two key reasons that explain the AP's very existence, which probably explains why they're trying out questionable ideas designed to hold back the power of the internet, rather than embracing it. Could there be a place for a modern Associated Press? Absolutely. But its core purpose needs to be entirely different from what it's been for most of the AP's history. Each newspaper doesn't need to copy the same report from the White House briefing room. Everyone can just link to different reports (including more than just one to give multiple perspectives). The whole reason for the AP's very charter makes little sense these days, and it's time for the AP to come to terms with that, and adapt... or go away.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: internet, journalism, relevance
Companies: associated press
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Uhhh...no.
The article implies that readers will utilize other sources for news beyond the coverage sphere of the local paper, such as BBC, CNN, etc.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
And I disagree that either of these organizations have to "massively increase" anything. That's kinda the point the newsfuturist was making in the first place.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Quick Answer
A: no
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
So true
Ap's reports are so formulaic you have to wonder if anyone is actually out there in the field looking at reality.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Ummmmmm...
Go away now.
Go away hard.
Go away long.
And go away you -will-.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Evolution
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Evolution
> most intelligent, but the ones most responsive to
> change. (Charles Darwin)
It is interesting you bring up evolution. Most people think evolution is individual animals "changing" to suit their environments. But "evolution" and "adaption" refer to species, or groups of animals. Evolution works by *killing off* the weak animals, not having them "adapt" to their environment (which is very difficult and rare). Those animals that are left just happened to be more suited to the environment, and were *born* that way.
For example, say a bear was born with more fur than his peers and struggled for years until the global temperature dropped. That previous disadvantage became an advantage, and he (and his children) would have more offspring than his (less furry) peers.
So ... it is much more likely that the AP will just die off (or the leadership will "die off") and others will take their place, rather than the AP "adapting".
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
It's easy to dismiss AP as a dinosaur of the newspaper age, but since that isn't their only use, it would be a rush to damn a concept that in the end is needed in the future.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Actually, no, that's untrue. We saw that the BBC *copied* an AP report. Not that they use the AP. Quite different.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
I never said they stole the story. I said they rewrote it. And that's exactly what the AP is up in arms about with others, but they have not said anything about the BBC doing so.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Not there yet.
I live in a fairly rural and isolated area where there are still quite a substantial portion of the populace without a broadband connection. For those individuals, the national and international coverage that AP provides for the local paper is hardly irrelevant.
Having said that, I think our local daily (which I personally find to be a piece of garbage) would be better served by hiring a staff member or two to research the internet (and other sources) and find stories relevant to our community. A local reporter could then provide some contextualization to the big stories, while the 5 sentence digest stories could be be gleaned from just about anywhere. The AP in its current role is indeed unnecessary in such a model. See ya!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Not there yet.
The question is how to we improve the trust of the internet to people who are still not used to it?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Not there yet.
I'm over 35 and oh no, no, no - I do not trust the 'news' at all - it's owned by the same big corporate interests and elites that are in the back pocket of the Government - or wait, is that the government in the back pocket of the elites? :)
I'd trust half the blogs out there before Faux News, CNN, AP, etc. I know of those that own most of them and certainly wouldn't trust those entities.
Either way, I prefer new media and more objective sources that aren't so obsessed with dirty laundry and cash flow.
Funny when you take money out of the picture how much more 'sincere' things can be.
But I'm not so sure there's anything we could really do to improve people's trust of the internet - but I must admit, the lax reporting and agendas the 'mainstream' (for lack of a better word) news has will do that job with their spin, political agendas, catering to big business and government..
[ link to this | view in chronology ]