Sinclair Pays Tribune $60 Million To Settle Lawsuit Over Dodgy Merger

from the shell-games dept

Last year when Sinclair attempted acquire Tribune Broadcasting for a cool $3.9 billion, you might recall the company was accused of some highly unethical behavior in order to get the deal done. Despite the FCC doing its best to neuter most media consolidation protections to help move the deal forward, the union would have still resulted in the merged company violating media ownership limits and dominating local broadcasting in a huge number of new markets.

To get around those limits, Sinclair allegedly got, uh, creative. Consumer groups accused Sinclair of trying to offload several of its companies to Sinclair-owned shell companies to pretend the deal would remain under the government's ownership cap. The company also tried something similar in trying to offload some stations to friends and other partner companies at highly discounted rates, allowing it to technically not "own" -- but still control -- those stations.

It was all so dodgy that even the Ajit Pai FCC, which had initially been doing cartwheels to clear the way for the merger, had to back away from its support of the deal, shoveling deal approval off to an administrative law judge for review (aka the "kiss of death"). Tribune was then forced to kill the merger, and quickly thereafter filed a lawsuit against Sinclair for monumentally flubbing the deal.

Fast forward to this week. A Sinclair filing with the SEC indicates the company has paid Nexstar (which bought Tribune last year) a cool $60 million and a few local broadcast stations to "avoid the costs, distraction, and uncertainties of continued litigation" with neither company admitting they ever did anything wrong:

"Neither party has admitted any liability or wrongdoing in connection with the terminated merger; both parties have settled the lawsuit to avoid the costs, distraction, and uncertainties of continued litigation."

Granted so far, nobody at the FCC (or anywhere else) has actually punished Sinclair for allegedly misleading regulators. And all of the FCC's efforts to effectively obliterate decades-old media consolidation restrictions (you know, the ones keeping giant monopolies from crushing local, diverse news and media outlets) remain intact, paving the way for the next massive consolidation push in the sector nobody really asked for.

Filed Under: fcc, media ownership, merger
Companies: nexstar, sinclair broadcasting, tribune company

Matthew Keys Gets 2 Years In Jail For 40 Minute Web Defacement He Didn't Even Commit

from the punishment-fitting-the-crime? dept

The latest in the Matthe Keys case is that Keys has been sentenced to two years in federal prison for his involvement in a minor incomprehensible web defacement of an LA Times story that lasted for all of about 40 minutes. The prosecution was asking for 5 years, while Keys' lawyers asked for nothing more than probation. As we noted, the whole thing seems fairly crazy. It is entirely possible that Keys acted like an immature jackass regarding his former employer, but the actual case revolved around a single action: the claimed sharing of login credentials for the content management system of the Tribune Company, which another person (who is apparently known to law enforcement, but has never been charged with anything) used to do a minor defacement of a single story to have the headline read: Pressure builds in House to elect CHIPPY 1337.

This minor defacement was up for about 40 minutes before being taken down. When the government tried to add up the damages, the Tribune Company at first admitted that there were basically none. After being pushed, they "found" more damages and somehow it turned into nearly a million dollars, by making emails that "cost" $225 and talking about something totally unrelated to this hack -- some alleged harassment Key did by emailing people in a database from his former employer. If he actually did this (he denies it), it was a really shitty thing to do, but it also was not what he was on trial for.

Either way, the government needed the number to be at least $5000 so it could use the CFAA (Computer Fraud and Abuse Act) against Keys. From the sound of things at the sentencing hearing (mainly via reporter Sarah Jeong's excellent tweets), the judge initially did sound fairly skeptical about the government's arguments, but eventually went with 24 months in prison. Somewhat incredibly, someone from the LA Times even presented that this minor bit of digital vandalism was "an attack" on the entire journalism field, and since there's already difficulty in figuring out what news is real, this was a true threat to credibility for journalism as a whole. Really, now?

The prosecution also apparently whined to the judge that Keys has been talking publicly about his case, which, last I checked, is protected free speech:

Prosecutor does not like that Keys has been tweeting and giving interviews as follows pic.twitter.com/jdG5eUHkC2

— sarah jeong (@sarahjeong) April 13, 2016

While the judge at least indicated she didn't care about all that -- she still sentenced him to two years in prison.

And, really, that's the crux of the issue here. For everything that Matthew Keys was accused of doing -- and some of it was undoubtedly obnoxious -- the single thing he was charged with was violating the CFAA by distributing a username and password. And he's now been sentenced to two whole years in jail for that. How in the world does the punishment here fit the crime? As David Graham noted, this is basically the same sentence (actually slightly longer) that the "affluenza teen" received on the same day for killing four people while driving drunk. Or, as Adam Steinbaugh notes, Keys will end up spending about 18 days in prison for every minute that the LA Times defacement (which, again, he didn't actually do) remained online.

Matthew Keys will spend ~18 days in prison for every sixty seconds that the LA Times said Chippy 1337 might pass in the House.

— Adam Steinbaugh (@adamsteinbaugh) April 13, 2016

And while Keys still maintains his overall innocence, even if he did exactly what he's accused of doing this sentence is absolutely insane and highlights just how ridiculous the CFAA is as a law -- and why it's so beloved by prosecutors who can use it to go after lots of people for doing really small things.

Filed Under: cfaa, cfaa reform, defacement, doj, jail, matthew keys, vandalism
Companies: tribune company

Feds Ask For 5 Years In Jail For Matthew Keys Giving Up Tribune Account Password; Still Don't Care About Actual Hacker

from the something-seems-off-here dept

We've written a few times now about the somewhat bizarre Matthew Keys case. While he still denies having done anything, he has been found guilty under the CFAA for sharing the login information to the Tribune Company's computer systems, which apparently resulted in someone hacking a story on the LA Times website. The hack was nonsensical and lasted for all of about 40 minutes. There's no indication that this bit of vandalism did any actual harm -- or even that very many people saw it. And yet... the Feds had to work overtime to figure out how to turn this minor bit of vandalism (which everyone agrees Keys did not actually do directly) into nearly $1 million in damages (thanks to emails that the Tribune Company says were worth $200+ each, and random claims about "ratings declines" due to a separate incident involving Keys and the Tribune-owned TV station Keys used to work for).

When he was found guilty, the prosecutors told the press that they would likely ask for "less than five years" at sentencing, but apparently that's been turned into asking for exactly five years. You can read the full filing here:

The United States recommends that the Court impose a sentence of sixty months imprisonment. The Probation Department’s recommendation of eighty-seven months is reasonable and the best way to promote sentencing uniformity. But this prosecutor has been with this case since its inception in 2010 and submits that a five-year sentence as sufficient, but not greater than necessary, to comply with the purposes of sentencing. A sentence of five years imprisonment reflects Keys’s culpability and places his case appropriately among those of other white collar criminals who do not accept responsibility for their crimes.

Even assuming that the DOJ's claims about what Keys did are entirely accurate, Keys comes off as an immature jackass, rather than some sort of criminal hacking mastermind. It's difficult to see how that is worth five years in jail. Much of the DOJ's reasoning is because Keys has continued to assert his innocence. And while the DOJ does seem to have a fair amount of evidence that Keys did some fairly stupid and immature stuff, insisting he is innocent shouldn't be a reason to lock him up longer. The DOJ keeps going back to some stupid stuff Keys was accused of doing with a database of information he apparently had access to from the TV station -- including emailing people in the TV station's database with misleading messages -- but even the DOJ admits that this wasn't what the trial was about, and much of the evidence related to it was "redacted before it went to the jury" because it "created a substantial risk that the jury might read it and return a verdict based on something other than the elements of the offense."

So the DOJ recognizes that... but still argues he should be sentenced for those very same things that are not elements of the offense he's been charged with.

“Worried” would be an understatement for the emotions of at least one Fox 40 viewer. The Court will recall that Mercer told “Cancer Man” that Mercer had just talked down a tearful elderly woman who had been having a “panic attack” over the emails while her husband was in kidney failure. The Court ordered this and Keys’s reaction redacted before it went to the jury. The Rule 403 exclusion meant that the Court thought the unredacted email would have created a substantial risk that the jury might read it and return a verdict based on something other than the elements of the offense. The Government respects the Court’s ruling. The way Keys reacted shows he is a different and worse kind of person. Keys ridiculed the station for “reporting to the old folks home” and casually passed judgment on the poor woman for having her priorities “in the wrong place there.” ... Keys’s haughty, cold reaction to that woman’s suffering was the other reason that Mercer said he came to take a personal interest in the outcome of this case.... The Court should sentence to reflect the characteristics of the Defendant.... Keys’s characteristics include narcissism and an arrogant indifference to the suffering of innocent and vulnerable people.

Again, from all of this, Keys clearly comes off as an immature jackass -- but that's not necessarily a reason to lock someone up.

Meanwhile, Keys' lawyer has filed a much longer sentencing memorandum arguing for no jail time at all for Keys, still arguing that Keys' actions were all part of an investigative reporting effort. Considering that the court has pretty much already rejected this line of thinking, I'm not sure it's going to be very effective here either. There's a huge section in the memorandum about Keys' history working in journalism (going back to school), most of which I'm guessing the court will ignore as well -- though the detailed explanations of his more recent investigative reporting does act as something of a counterbalance to the DOJ presenting him as nothing more than a petty internet vandal, annoyed at his former employer.

Despite his indictment, Matthew continued to report on matters of crucial public interest, bringing to light important facts on critical matters that, without his reporting, may never have seen the light of day. Taken as a whole, his commitment to journalism also demonstrates a commitment to public service. At a time when other journalists concern themselves with which burrito restaurant a presidential candidate patrons or the numerous antics of a real estate mogul-turned-politician, it someone who has dedicated serious personal and professional effort, sometimes at his own considerable expense, to research and publish impactful stories on topics that matter to the public, should not be incarcerated. If he were to be sentenced to any prison term, people in positions of authority who will go unchecked and stories of public importance that will go untold.

Frankly, I find this stuff to be about as relevant as the stuff about Keys being kind of a jerk to his former employer. Neither thing is at issue in this case. So it shouldn't be reflected in the sentencing either.

What seems much more relevant is discussions about people who actually were breaking into computers and doing forms of computer vandalism... and who weren't penalized nearly as much as the DOJ is seeking for Keys, who is charged with just handing over a login and encouraging people to hack stuff (which only resulted in very minor vandalism).

But the biggest issue of all is the fact that, despite all of this, no one has ever gone after the actual hacker who did the vandalism, who goes by the name "sharpie." UK officials apparently know who sharpie is and told the FBI (it's someone in Scotland), and yet, still, no one has done anything about it If what Keys did is deserving of five years in jail, why does no one even think about going after the person who actually made the edits to the Tribune website?

George David “Sharpie”. Sharpie was the individual who actually accessed the Tribune Companies CMS and caused the damage Matthew was convicted for. Sharpe was never charged on either side of the Atlantic. He was visited once at his home in Scotland by the FBI and Scotland Yard. He spoke to them and that was the last of his contact with this case.

Either way, this case, yet again, demonstrates the ridiculousness of the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act (CFAA). Even if we accept that Keys did some immature things, this case is about a minor vandalism of a website. Hell, many years back, someone hacked into Techdirt and did much more serious vandalism (deleting the most recent 10 stories and all the comments), and if whoever did that was ever found, I wouldn't even want them sent to jail at all. That seems like a pretty extreme punishment for what honestly amounts to little more than internet graffiti.

If I had to guess, I'd predict that the judge will side with the DOJ, because that's what judges quite frequently do. The DOJ has done a good job distracting from the actual issues involved in this case and focusing it on other, unrelated issues, while painting Keys as something of a jerk. But on the actual issue of the CFAA, the whole thing seems like a massive stretch. Unfortunately, I think Keys' lawyers own filing is somewhat weak. It should have focused much more clearly on a few issues, rather than overloading it with what feels like a rambling attempt to throw every possible idea at the wall to reduce the jail term. His lawyer correctly notes that if the DOJ's focus is on "deterrence" that has already happened. Keys was fired from his job at Reuters, and no major news organization will hire him these days. That seems like plenty of deterrence for his activities. What, exactly, is five years in jail going to do at this point?

Filed Under: cfaa, cfaa reform, doj, hacking, matthew keys
Companies: tribune company

How The Tribune Company And The DOJ Turned A 40 Minute Web Defacement Into $1 Million In 'Damages'

from the fudging-the-numbers dept

Last week we wrote about Matthew Keys being found guilty of three CFAA charges which will likely lead to some amount of jailtime for him (the prosecution has suggested it will ask for less than 5 years). While Keys still denies he did anything he's accused of, the prosecution argues that he took a login to the Tribune Company's content management system, handed it off to some hackers in an internet forum and told them to mess stuff up. And... so they made some minor vandalism changes to an LA Times article. It took the LA Times all of 40 minutes to fix it. Even if we assume that Keys did do this, we still have trouble seeing how it was any more than a bit of vandalism that deserves, at best, a slap on the wrist. Its ridiculous to say that it's a form of felony hacking that requires a prison sentence. As we noted in our original article, the Tribune Company and the feds argued that the damage cost the company $929,977 in damage, well above the $5,000 threshold for the CFAA to apply. We still have trouble seeing how the $5,000 could make sense, let alone nearly a million dollars. And it's important to note that the sentencing guidelines match up with the dollar amount of the "damages" so this actually matters quite a bit for Keys.

Sarah Jeong, who's been doing an awesome job covering this for Motherboard, has a deep dive article looking at the case, which is totally worth reading. I wanted to dig in, though, just on the craziness of the $929,977 number and how that came about. First off, it appears that the feds pushed the Tribune Company to inflate the numbers. The original estimate from the Tribune Company turned out to be well below the $5,000 threshold, let alone the $900k+ number: That's obviously not going to cut it, so they had to ratchet things up a bit. For what it's worth, Brandon apparently said on the stand that he was just joking, and he realizes that's not the best thing to joke about, but who are we to say anything about jokes who miss their mark? What we can say, however, is that the final numbers look absolutely ludicrous:

Let's dig in a bit here, because suddenly I feel underpaid. Those emails are pricey! In case you're wondering the X Files references have to do with another thing that Keys apparently did: sending some nasty emails to people at the TV station after he left that job. From the look of it they were pretty obnoxious/childish behavior on the part of Keys (who eventually admitted to sending them), but they had absolutely nothing to do with the supposed CFAA violation. They were just nuisance emails, not any kind of hacking. However, to make the dollar value go up, the DOJ decided to lump this and some other incidents all together and asked the Tribune Company to add up all the time it was dealing with that issue, and so they did. Even to the point that they blamed ratings drops at the Fox channel that Keys used to work for on him as well, and put a dollar value on that.

Again, assuming Keys actually did all these things, it would make him something of an immature jerk. But it still seems like a huge stretch to turn that into nearly a million dollars in damages, directly due to a CFAA violation. Either way, it's yet another reminder that when the DOJ decides it wants to take you down, it can find almost anything to use against you.

Filed Under: cfaa, cfaa reform, damages, doj, matthew keys
Companies: tribune company

Matthew Keys Found Guilty Of Criminal 'Hacking' For Sharing News Company Login

from the seems-extreme dept

Two and a half years ago, we wrote about former Reuters editor Matthew Keys being indicted based on charges that he'd shared the login information for the content management system to his former employer, the Tribune Company, in an online forum and then encouraged members of Anonymous in that forum to mess things up. Some people used that access to change a story on the LA Times website. Keys insists that he didn't do this and the feds have no direct evidence linking him to whoever leaked the login (he also claims at the time of the leak he no longer had access to the Tribune Company's systems).

As we noted at the time, if we accept the DOJ's version of what happened, what Keys did definitely was the wrong thing to do. But the result was little more than annoying vandalism -- and nothing Keys did should qualify as "criminal hacking." The changes to the LA Times were up for less than an hour and quickly reverted. There was little evidence that it created any real damage, and certainly no lasting damage. And yet, because this is a "computer crime," the feds came down on Keys as if he was part of some massive criminal conspiracy. In order to use the already problematic CFAA, it needed to show more than $5,000 worth of damage, which is crazy. Even crazier... is that the feds argued $929,977 worth of damage, based on some ridiculously exaggerated estimates of the amount of time people had to work on this issue.

And now a jury has convicted Keys on all three counts. Sentencing will be in January, and while lots of people are throwing around the statutory maximum of 25 years in jail, prosecutors have said they'll likely ask for "less than 5 years" according to Motherboard's Sarah Jeong, who was at the courthouse.

I think it's clear that Keys was in the wrong in handing out the login to the Tribune's systems, if he actually did it. But should that equate to criminal hacking charges and jailtime, because it resulted in a bit of online vandalism and some annoyance for a sys admin somewhere? That seems doubtful. As Keys himself points out in a pinned tweet in his Twitter feed, if sharing logins is a criminal act, all of you who share your HBO Go or Netflix logins may want to be careful.

The problem, once again, comes back to the ridiculous CFAA and the bogeyman of "computer hackers." It was wrong to give out the login, but the idea that it did even $5,000 in damage (as required by the CFAA), let alone nearly a million in damages, is ludicrous. It's even more ludicrous that this should be a criminal offense with any jailtime at stake. Go after him in a civil case for actual damages (of which there would be very little) and move on. Keys, for his part, has said the verdict is "bullshit" and he's planning to appeal.

It's way past time that we fixed the CFAA, and the Matthew Keys verdict is just yet another reminder that Congress needs to do something.

Filed Under: anonymous, cfaa, defacement, hacking, login, matthew keys, vandalism
Companies: tribune company

Newspapers Gaming Google With Questionable Tactics

from the who's-stealing-from-whom-now? dept

There was some hubbub earlier this month when sex columnist Violet Blue discovered that one of her old columns for the SF Chronicle had been altered by the Chronicle's online site, SFGate.com. She was upset that the changes implied the article said the opposite of what it actually said -- and found it odd that, beyond that, all the links and comments were missing, and the story was now spread out over several pages. This resulted in some investigations, with venture capitalist Tim Oren pointing out that this appeared to be the work of a company called Perfect Market, a well-funded startup (funded, in part, by the Tribune Company), who had partnered with various newspaper sites to game Google's search results. As Oren notes:

The keyword and ad-stuffed dead end pages apparently produced by Perfect Markets's technology are isomorphic, from a search company's point of view, to those created by more questionable tactics such as scraping. The intent is the same: to spam the index. This is the behavior that routinely gets questionable sites shoved to Google's back pages, or banished altogether. One has to wonder just how long this type of abuse will be tolerated, simply because it's being practiced by a recognized media outlet.

GigaOm also picked up on this story and in the comments to that article Ben Metcalfe did some sleuthing and revealed a bunch of newspapers all using this same highly questionable tactic.

Now, there are a few ironies here. First, with so many newspaper people (misleadingly) claiming that Google "steals" from them with Google News, to then find out that many of those same newspaper are trying to game Google with highly questionable tactics -- basically proves that the newspapers are lying. They clearly want more Google traffic, and they're willing to go to ridiculous lengths to get it.

Second, for all the talk of how no one can do investigative reporting without newspapers being around, it's fascinating to see this story broken open by some bloggers and commenters -- rather than any newspaper. That says something, doesn't it?

In the meantime, it appears that Perfect Market is going into damage control mode, contacting GigaOm, and trying to spin the whole thing, by insisting that it's really just trying to "delight our customers and users with innovative new content experiences." The company also claims that it's not "spamming" search engines but that it provides "contextual navigation to relevant related content and topics so the user can browse the publishers vast content library rather than creating dead ends." Except, in this case, the "innovative new content experience" actually did lead to a "dead end," rather than pointing to the original article, which included the proper details, links to other sources, and the comments and discussion that happened with the article.

While it's certainly not as nasty as typical search engine spammers, it's difficult to see this as anything other than an attempt to game Google by questionable means. Google has had no qualms about pulling high profile companies like BMW from its index in the past. It will be interesting to see if it will do the same with some of these newspapers who appear to be pushing the boundaries.

Filed Under: newspapers, search, seo
Companies: google, perfect market, sf chronicle, tribune company

Chicago Tribune Tries An Experiment: Life Without The AP

from the who-needs-it? dept

Via Jeff Sonderman we find out that the Tribune Company wants to experiment next week and see how far it can get without content from the Associated Press. Last year, we noted that various newspapers were beginning to drop their AP membership as they were concerned about a new pricing structure, as well as the fact that the AP seemed unable to keep up with the modern world, and seemed increasingly less relevant. Worst of all, some of its moves actually appeared to position the non-profit organization as a competitor to its own member newspapers.

The Tribune was one of the larger publishers to indicate that it was sick of the AP, giving the organization two years notice (as required) that it didn't plan to renew its contract at the end of October, 2010. For this experiment, the Tribune wants to see how far it can get without AP material (though it will use it if there's nothing else). Still, the newspaper giant notes that it has plenty of other wire options: "Reuters, the Washington Post, New York Times, Agence France Presse, Cable News Network, Global Post, Bloomberg and McClatchy newspapers." Some of those are "new," but should make it clear to the AP that it doesn't quite have the monopoly it seems to think it has.

Filed Under: newspapers, wire stories
Companies: associated press, tribune company

Why Was It Bad For The Chicago Tribune To Find Out What Readers Wanted?

from the i'm-confused dept

There was a recent dustup in Chicago as news came out that the Chicago Tribune had been running reader surveys on certain news stories before they were published. This has upset a bunch of folks at the Tribune who claim that it somehow "breaks the bond between reporters and editors in a fundamental way." The Tribune has apologized and claimed the whole program was a mistake. But, for the life of me, I'm having trouble figuring out what's the problem. Actually finding out what your community wants? Getting feedback? Being more interactive and engaged with the community? Listening to them? Being open and recognizing a story is a living document? These are all things that any newspaper should be doing these days.

Filed Under: chicago tribune, journalism, marketing, surveys
Companies: tribune company

News Station Falls For April Fool's Prank, Turns to DMCA As Remedy

from the take-downs-don't-actually-make-things-go-away dept

Improv Everywhere, a comedic performance art group based in New York, has a history of pulling off hilarious and impressive "scenes of chaos and joy." Running "missions" such as the annual "No Pants Subway Ride," a food court musical, sending 80 people into Best Buy dressed as employees and getting 200 people to "freeze" during rush hour in Grand Central station, these guys are masters of the flash mob and the harmless prank. Last April, in a mission called "Best Game Ever," they showed up at a little league baseball game with signs, peanut vendors, programs and even an NBC sponsored jumbotron with live commentary and player stats to turn an ordinary event into something extraordinary.

Building on that theme, Improv Everywhere's latest mission was to create the "Best Funeral Ever," to pick a random funeral from the obituaries and show up to make it "truly awesome." It sounds terrible, and the video is pretty horrifying... until you realize it's from April 1^st. The next day, they confirmed it was an April Fool's joke and that it wasn't a real funeral -- all of the "family members" were actors. Lots of people fell for it (I definitely did at first), but best of all was the local CW 11 news team that covered the YouTube video as if it were a real funeral. Charlie Todd, founder of Improv Everywhere, uploaded a video of the newscast with the following commentary:

So basically the extent of their reporting is watching a video on YouTube and then describing it as fact on air. They didn't bother to email Improv Everywhere for comment, call the cemetery to verify, or try to get a quote from the"family." They just watched the video and threw it on TV. Great journalism!

The story was on the news channel's website too, but was later removed without any explanation or correction. Now, two weeks later, Todd has received a copyright notice from YouTube that his video of the newscast was removed due to a copyright claim from Tribune (the station's parent company). First of all, it's pretty silly to try to hide the mistake rather than owning up to it and posting a correction (Streisand Effect anyone?). But beyond that, it's pretty ironic and hypocritical that the news organization, which used the Improv Eveywhere video without permission or even proper attribution, would send a take-down notice to the owner of the that video who was commenting on their commentary. Todd writes,

It's OK for them to air content that we shot and own, but it's not OK for me to upload their footage of the content they took from me? It's "fair use" for the news to take a video off of YouTube and broadcast it, but it's not "fair use" for a citizen to expose their poor reporting on his own content?

Fair use or not, Tribune just found a great way to draw more attention to the fact that their "journalists" fell for the prank and seem to be pretty embarrassed about it.

Filed Under: april fool's, copyright, dmca, improv everywhere, prank
Companies: cw-11, tribune company

Tribune Company The Latest (And Biggest) In A Growing List To Drop Associated Press

from the ouch dept

While the Associated Press was wasting time stupidly threatening to sue bloggers for pointing people to AP stories without paying, perhaps the folks there should have been paying a bit more attention to actually making sure its business model worked. As we've been noting, over the past few years, its strategy has put it in pretty much direct competition with its members (the AP is made up of numerous member newspapers).

That's creating problems, as we've seen a variety of newspapers have recently been refusing to renew their contracts, notifying the AP that they don't want to participate anymore. There have been some notable names, from the Minneapolis Star-Tribune to the Cleveland Plain Dealer, but none of the "major" newspaper companies had bailed... until now. The Tribune Company, publishers of the Chicago Tribune, the LA Times, the Baltimore Sun and others has surprised many by telling the AP it's not renewing. That could be the big domino, as many other newspapers may follow suit. The article here notes even that some newspapers have been experimenting with picking days when they try to publish without a single AP story to see how it goes.

What's amazing is that, so far, it doesn't seem like the Associated Press recognizes that there's a real problem. They simply seem to shrug off each defection. At some point, the AP needs to realize that it needs to change, rather drastically, if it's going to survive. While the AP isn't like an ordinary company -- it's a non-profit cooperative made up of member news organizations -- that doesn't mean it doesn't need to have a working business model. Without that, and with big members dropping like flies, it won't be able to exist at all.

Filed Under: associated press, customers
Companies: associated press, tribune company