Did The AP Violate CNN's 'Hot News' Rights, Under The AP's Own Definition Of Hot News?

from the questions,-questions,-questions dept

In an otherwise silly article about CNN and the Associated Press sniping back and forth at each other over who properly broke the news of George Steinbrenner's death (the sniping is, in part, due to CNN's decision to dump its AP deal), there is one interesting tidbit. CNN's spokesperson admits that AP's mocking of CNN is silly, and notes that the AP quotes people from CNN all the time:

Pritchard noted that the AP has quoted CNN in its stories since the two parted ways, such as in a report about Virgin Airways stranding passengers on the airport tarmac in Hartford, Conn. Citations of other news organizations aren't uncommon, he notes. "We quote them, they quote us -- it happens."

Indeed. It does happen. But this is the AP that we're talking about, and they insist that blindly quoting someone else can violate the "hot news" doctrine. So, let's take a look at the Virgin Airways story. It appears that CNN kicked it off with this bit of coverage of passengers being stranded on the airplane, including quotes from the passengers.

Now, since the AP constantly changes its articles with no explanation or notice (and regularly takes down articles -- again, with no explanation or notice), it's a little difficult to track what the AP did or did not do in covering this story. However, there are some AP reports that appear to just repeat the CNN report without any additional reporting by the AP. However, the report linked above kicks off with crediting CNN, quoting CNN and then adding some AP reporting with quotes from the airlines. But all the passenger quotes are from CNN. While it's great that the AP did some additional reporting by getting quotes from the airline, it seems that the CNN quotes clearly violate the AP's own definition of hot news.

And it appears the AP recognizes that. That's because later that day, it sent out an updated version of the story that removes the CNN quotes. In other words, those quotes by CNN were considered so crucial to the AP story that it opened its original reporting by quoting them. Thus, under the AP's own definition of hot news, those quotes were clearly key to the story, and the AP simply "appropriated" them. Later on, when the story was no longer "hot" it removed those quotes.

We've been saying ever since news organizations like the AP started pushing "hot news" around again that it was going to come back to bite them. One of these days, maybe they'll realize it.

Now, I should be clear: I don't see anything, whatsoever, wrong with what the AP did in quoting CNN. As the CNN person notes, they quote each other all the time, and it adds relevant, factual information to the story. I do think it's a little sleazy of the AP to later remove those quotes and pretend they never happened, but whatever. What I have a problem with is the AP going around acting all high and mighty about its "hot news" rights, but apparently applying a huge double standard to itself.

Filed Under: hot news, journalism, reporting
Companies: ap, cnn

Newspapers Having Trouble Reporting On Their Own Paywalls

from the lock-'em-up dept

It appears that newspaper giant Gannett, owner of USA Today and a bunch of regional newspapers, is beginning to experiment with putting up some paywalls on many of its regional newspapers. Jeff Sonderman has been pointing out, on his Twitter feed, that many of the newspaper's announcements about their own paywalls are really bad reporting. Now it looks like Steve Buttry has written up a blog post pointing out just how bad these newspapers are at announcing their own paywalls.

They give misleading headlines, they pretend that paywalls are some huge journalistic advance (rather than just a business model choice -- and one that's been tried and failed a bunch), and most importantly, they all totally bury the lede, and don't bring up the paywall until many paragraphs into the article. In the online announcements from The Tallahassee Democrat, the Greenville News and the St. George Spectrum, the paywall isn't even mentioned on the first page of each of those articles. Instead, you have to click through to the later pages to even find out what the announcements are about! Talk about burying the lede...

All three waste the beginning of their articles talking up how great they are and how important they are, as newspapers, to their community. But it's all just a way to try to butter people up before hitting them with "so now we're charging for access to our web content." They're acting as if they think their readers are stupid -- which isn't exactly a strong selling point for getting people to pay you money.

Buttry points to other failings in these announcements that any business journalist would have certainly covered if doing the same story about another business:

The editors and publishers who signed the Gannett announcements boast of the resources they commit to covering local news, without acknowledging they have cut those resources severely in companywide staff cuts in recent years. The Tallahassee and Greenville announcements prattle on at length about their newspapers' history (appropriate, I guess, since they are clinging to a strategy rooted in the past).

None of the three announcements discloses that the papers are conducting an experiment for Gannett (in fact, none of the announcements even mentions Gannett). I'm pretty sure that the editors of those papers would expect their business writers to note such a fact in stories about any other business in town.

What we're seeing is the implicit realization that these newspapers know a paywall won't work. If it was something their audience wanted, they would be upfront and honest about it. Or if they had a good rationale for the decision they would be upfront and honest about it. Instead they have to be misleading, defensive and hide the important point. Quite an "experiment" by Gannett...

Filed Under: newspapers, paywalls, reporting
Companies: gannett

Google And Twitter Tell Appeals Court That 'Hot News' Doctrine Is Obsolete

from the and-don't-repeat-that-without-paying-up dept

It looks like Google and Twitter have decided to weigh in on the closely watched lawsuit between TheFlyOnTheWall.com and Barclays, which has helped bring back the hot news doctrine, which creates an monopoly right on news reporting. This is quite worrisome for a whole variety of reasons, and as the appeals court considers the case, Google and Twitter have filed an amicus brief worrying about the implications of allowing the hot news doctrine to stand:

"News reporting always has been a complex ecosystem, where what is 'news' is often driven by certain influential news organizations, with others republishing or broadcasting those facts -- all to the benefit of the public," the companies said in the filing.

Google and Twitter argued that upholding the district court's decision would give those who obtained the news first strong incentives to block others from obtaining the same information.

Hoping to show how silly the concept is, they argue:

"How, for example, would a court pick a time period during which facts about the recent Times Square bombing attempt would be non-reportable by others?"

While I do worry about courts when it comes to copyright cases, the "hot news" doctrine is so far out there that I'll be surprised if the courts don't put it to rest for good. It's difficult to see how anyone can defend the hot news doctrine, and I'm hopeful that the courts will recognize that it has no place in the law.

Filed Under: copyright, facts, first amendment, hot news, reporting
Companies: barclays, google, theflyonthewall.com, twitter

Judge Says Commerce Outweighs Free Speech Issues When It Comes To Reporting On High School Football

from the say-what-now? dept

Last year, we wrote about how a high school sports association in Wisconsin had sued some newspapers for their reporting on various high school football games, because that reporting included some broadcasting of video during the games. As we noted, in this day and age, when more and more smartphones are able to live broadcast anything the idea of "exclusive broadcasting rights" for any kind of event becomes increasingly ridiculous -- especially when you're talking about the freedom of the press to report on anything news worthy. The league had apparently even gone so far as to send invoices to media organizations that were live-blogging games.

Unfortunately, however, it looks like the judge has ruled against the newspapers, saying that their right to free speech does not trump the league's attempt to make money:

"Ultimately, this is a case about commerce, not the right to a free press," Conley wrote. "WIAA has made a business decision that it will be more lucrative to give one company the rights to broadcast its tournament games, a decision that does not stifle speech or discriminate on the basis of viewpoint."

Now, I can understand the basic thinking behind the ruling, and it is true that the high schools can make decisions on who they let in to games and who they keep out. But it goes a step further to then say that if you did get in and you did record video, that you can't post that video. There's no issue with the high schools or the sports association denying press credentials to future games, or asking the reporters filming the game to leave the premises. But I can't see how they have any right to sue or demand that existing video be taken down.

Furthermore, this is an issue that's only going to become a bigger and more important deal very, very quickly, as smartphones get better and better at broadcasting live video feeds. How long will it be until some enterprising folks send a team of smartphone-equipped "cameramen" to various live sporting events, and do live broadcasts from the stands? I can't wait for the legal fight over that one...

Filed Under: free speech, live broadcasting, reporting, sports

Convicted Serial Rapist Goes To Court To Forbid Newspapers From Reporting On His Whereabouts

from the news-is-news... dept

You may recall that last year we wrote about a convicted murderer in Germany who was going to court to try to get a injunction against Wikipedia, banning people from mentioning his conviction and role in the murder, under some notion of trying to get his life back. Damian Byrne points us to a slightly similar situation in Ireland, which is a bit more complex. Apparently there's a guy named Michael Murray who was convicted of multiple rapes -- including a string of four rapes (and two additional sexual assaults) in a period of six days -- as well as for exposing himself to children (as young as three years old). To say he's a serial offender seems like an understatement. Back in 1996 he was convicted (again) and given 18 years in jail, but was released last summer (after serving just 13 years).

Since then, various newspapers have been reporting regularly on his whereabouts. Here's an example: Serial rapist Murray is spotted in popular seaside resort. However, Murray is annoyed by this. So he's gone to court to ask that newspapers not be allowed to report on his whereabouts:

[Murray] says he cannot live anywhere because as soon as he moves, newspapers reveal his address and print pictures of him....

He is claiming damages for for mental pain, distress and anguish caused by interference with his rights to privacy and to maintain a permanent dwelling as protected by the Constitution and the European Convention on Human Rights.

What amazes me is that the court is even considering this. Getting an injunction that prevents a newspaper from reporting on facts -- no matter how damaging those facts may be -- seems wrong. Yes, it may suck for Mr. Murray, but it's difficult to have sympathy for him. While I do have some concerns about the way certain sex offender list laws are structured, this is different. It seems like it is, in fact, newsworthy when someone with a record like Mr. Murray's moves into a certain area -- and barring publication of that fact seems like a dangerous precedent to set when it comes to press freedom.

Filed Under: free speech, journalism, reporting

Judge Tells Newspapers They Can't Report On News About College Trip Since It Might Impact College Funding

from the that-whole-first-amendment-thing dept

Via Romenesko we learn that a judge in Wyoming has issued a temporary restraining order against two local newspapers, barring them from reporting about a trip by the local community college's president to Costa Rica, saying that the report was stolen... and that publishing the info could cause the college to lose federal funding. At issue is the Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act, which prevents colleges from revealing private info about students (a good thing). But here it's clearly being misused. Yes, the report may include some student info, but that should not, in any way, bar publishing a story about what happened. Furthermore, that the document was leaked shouldn't bar publication either. If that were the case, there would never be any whistleblower stories out there, or stories like the one about the Pentagon Papers. Update: Well, that didn't last long. The original order has been dissolved, though this now has helped bring much more attention to the original story.

Filed Under: college, first amendment, free speech, journalism, privacy, reporting, whistleblowing, wyoming

Newspaper Edits Politicians Out Of Bill Signing Photograph; Doesn't Get Why People Think That's Bad

from the it's-news... dept

Romenesko points us to a story of a West Virginia newspaper that photoshopped three politicians out of a bill signing photo that ran with a story about the bill. Here's both the original image and the one that ran: Even the photographer was shocked that his image was modified in this manner. But what's stunning to me is that the newspaper appears to be defending the decision and not backing down:

[The] reason the delegates were removed was due to the newspaper's policy not to publish pictures of candidates running for re-election during the political season....

In the newspaper, the photo caption includes the term "photo illustration" to indicate the photo had been changed.

This is a newspaper that won't run photos of candidates running for election? It makes you wonder how they report on those elections. With illustrations? And then to claim that it's okay to edit a photograph by then calling it a "photo illustration" rather than a photo that's been edited seems a bit questionable no matter where you stand on the question of journalistic ethics.

Filed Under: ethics, newspapers, photographs, reporting

Chinese Gov't Gives Press Orders On How To Report On Google's China Decision

from the the-ministry-of-truth dept

It's no secret that the Chinese gov't issues "directives" on how the press ought to report on certain stories if they want to stay out of trouble, so it's interesting (found via the NY Times Bits Blog) that the orders that were sent around on how to report on the news of Google leaving China have leaked. The basic order notes that China switched its services to Hong Kong, says that reporters should use text from (state run) Xinhua, and says "don't play it up," in reference to the story. The more complete document is as follows:

All chief editors and managers:

Google has officially announced its withdrawal from the China market. This is a high-impact incident. It has triggered netizens' discussions which are not limited to a commercial level. Therefore please pay strict attention to the following content requirements during this period:

A. News Section

1. Only use Central Government main media (website) content; do not use content from other sources
2. Reposting must not change title
3. News recommendations should refer to Central government main media websites
4. Do not produce relevant topic pages; do not set discussion sessions; do not conduct related investigative reporting;
5. Online programs with experts and scholars on this matter must apply for permission ahead of time. This type of self-initiated program production is strictly forbidden.
6. Carefully manage the commentary posts under news items.

B. Forums, blogs and other interactive media sections:

1. It is not permitted to hold discussions or investigations on the Google topic
2. Interactive sections do not recommend this topic, do not place this topic and related comments at the top
3. All websites please clean up text, images and sound and videos which attack the Party, State, government agencies, Internet policies with the excuse of this event.
4. All websites please clean up text, images and sound and videos which support Google, dedicate flowers to Google, ask Google to stay, cheer for Google and others have a different tune from government policy
5. On topics related to Google, carefully manage the information in exchanges, comments and other interactive sessions
6. Chief managers in different regions please assign specific manpower to monitor Google-related information; if there is information about mass incidents, please report it in a timely manner.

We ask the Monitoring and Control Group to immediately follow up monitoring and control actions along the above directions; once any problems are discovered, please communicate with respected sessions in a timely manner.

Addition guidelines:

- Do not participate in and report Google’s information/press releases
- Do not report about Google exerting pressure on our country via people or events
- Related reports need to put [our story/perspective/information] in the center, do not provide materials for Google to attack relavent policies of our country
- Use talking points about Google withdrawing from China published by relevant departments

Separately, that site points to an amusing transcript of a reporter calling the Chinese gov't to get official comments on the news of Google leaving China.

Filed Under: china, ministry of truth, reporting
Companies: google

Hot News Is Back: Court Blocks Website From Reporting The News

from the first-amendment? dept

In the last few years, there's been a push by some companies to bring back the immensely troubling "hot news doctrine," that appears to violate everything we know about the First Amendment and copyright law. Basically, the "hot news doctrine" says that if someone reports on a story, others are not allowed to report on their reporting for some period of time -- on the theory that it somehow undermines the incentive to do that original reporting. Last year, we wrote about the very troubling implications of allowing the hot news concept to stand. Beyond the free speech implications, it also has the troubling quality of effectively creating a copyright on facts -- which are quite clearly not covered by copyright. On top of that, it's not necessary in the slightest. As anyone who is actually in the online news business knows, getting a scoop gets you traffic -- even if others report the same thing minutes later. Being first gets you the attention. You don't need to artificially block others from reporting the news.

Unfortunately, with various publications struggling, some have picked up on the hot news doctrine as a way to somehow block competition. Tragically, it looks like a court has now adopted the hot news doctrine in one case. Paul Alan Levy alerts us to the news that a judge issuing an injunction against TheFlyOnTheWall.com, a website that would publish summaries of Wall Street research. The Wall Street firms said this undermined their business model -- and the court agreed. It passed an injunction saying that TheFlyOnTheWall had to hold off publishing any news about any Wall Street research report until either 10am (if the report is released early in the morning) or for two hours after it's released if it comes out during the day.

These totally arbitrary restrictions are highly troubling from a free speech standpoint and seem effectively random. This seems like yet another case of a company being upset by interference with its business model, which should be a reason to change the business model -- not run to the courts.

But what's most troubling of all is that now all the publishers who have been salivating over the hot news doctrine have a legal ruling to point to. Can you imagine how the world would work if you couldn't blog about or mention a particular piece of news for a few hours because the Associated Press got to it first? It's hard to see how this could possibly stand up to a First Amendment analysis, and it's quite troubling that the judge found the way she did.

Filed Under: copyright, facts, first amendment, hot news, reporting
Companies: theflyonthewall

Reuters Social Media Policy Gets It Half Right, Half Wrong

from the scoop-de-what? dept

Just a couple of months ago, I wrote about something that I thought was really impressive by Thomson Reuters. A Reuters blogger wrote a blog post on his official Reuters blog questioning Reuters itself after rumors started spreading that the company had spiked an article after pressure from the article's subject. Now, the two stories might cancel each other out in some way. Spiking a story based on pressure from the subject is bad, but allowing an employee to publicly question the action on a company blog shows an openness that I thought was impressive.

However, with the release of Reuters' new social media policies, it looks like the blogger, Chris Clair, would have broken one of the new rules:

The advent of social media does not change your relationship with the company that employs you -- do not use social media to embarrass or disparage Thomson Reuters.

Then there's this:

We're in a competitive business and while the spirit of social media is collaborative we need to take care not to undermine the commercial basis of our company.

The thing is, since you are in a competitive business, it's worth noting that all of your competitors are trying to "undermine the basis" of your company -- and thus it tends to be better to undermine yourself before someone else undermines you. So, while I understand why Reuters would say the following about Twitter usage:

As with blogging within Reuters News, you should make sure that if you have hard news content that it is broken first via the wire. Don't scoop the wire.

It doesn't really make much sense. It also goes against what some at Reuters have successfully done. You can still "scoop the wire" and then publish a full report on the wire. In fact, if you use Twitter correctly, you can build a lot more interest in the upcoming full story.

While there are plenty of reasonable and useful suggestions in the Reuters social media policies, some of it seems to go against what Reuters own Editor in Chief, David Schlesinger, said just last year:

The old means of control don't work.
The old categories don't work.
The old ways of thinking won't work.
We all need to come to terms with that.

Fundamentally, the old media won't control news dissemination in the future. And organisations can't control access using old forms of accreditation any more.

Filed Under: disruption, journalism, policy, reporting, scooping, social media
Companies: reuters