New York Times, CNN And Associated Press Heads Refuse To Meet With Eric Holder 'Off-The-Record'

By Susan Duclos

Attorney General Eric Holder wants to meet with Washington bureau chiefs of several major media outlets in an off-the-record powwow on Thursday and Friday, to discuss guidelines into how the Department of Justice handles news leaks and the media organizations that report them.

This follows the major scandal rocking Washington that has seen calls from both sides of the political spectrum calling for Holder's dismissal or resignation after phone records from the Associated Press were seized, then a Fox News reporters tracked with his emails monitored and multiple phone records obtained with warrant to do so, personally signed by Eric Holder.

A number of media organizations are refusing to attend the meeting as long as it is off-the-record.

The Associated Press issued a statement Wednesday objecting to plans for the meetings to be off the record. "If it is not on the record, AP will not attend and instead will offer our views on how the regulations should be updated in an open letter," said Erin Madigan White, the AP's media relations manager.

The New York Times is taking the same position. "It isn't appropriate for us to attend an off-the-record meeting with the attorney general," executive editor Jill Abramson said in a statement.

Like the New York Times and the Associated Press, CNN will decline the invitation for an off-the-record meeting. A CNN spokesperson says if the meeting with the attorney general is on the record, CNN would plan to participate.

The Huffington Post's Washington bureau chief, Ryan Grim, also said he will not attend unless the meeting is on the record. "A conversation specifically about the freedom of the press should be an open one. We have a responsibility not to betray that," Grim told CNN.

Unsurprisingly, the liberal leaning Politico has agreed to attend. Fox News has not decided whether to attend Friday's session which they were invited to.

Via TV Newswer: DNC spokesman Brad Woodhouse lashed out against that trend on Twitter, saying that refusing to meet with Holder "kind of forfeits your right to gripe," drawing incredulous reactions from reporters; Dylan Byers from Politico just responded, "Jesus, Brad."

Don Surber from Charleston Daily Mail responds to Woodhouse's ridiculous assertion with "@woodhouseb "forfeits your right" -- the motto of this administration."

John Podhoretz from Commentary Magazine tweets his answer to the DNC spokesman"Your literacy incredible. Your lack of verbs wonderful. Your position untenable. Your self-awareness negligible."

BuzzFeed's Andrew Kaczynski tweets "I suppose they can just find how they feel via subpoenaed email and phone records.... ... .. ."

Reactions to Woodhouse continue to pour in, they can all be seen here.

Journalists meet and have off the record discussions all the time, but in a case dealing with an all out attack on the media and freedom of the press, the last thing any decent journalist wants is have their readers see them allow the Obama administration to muzzle them on that very issue.

[Update] Huffington Post has the tally so far on who is in and who is out.

Not going: New York Times, AP, Huffington Post, McClatchy, CNN, CBS News, Fox News and Reuters.

Going: The Washington Post, Politico, and ABC News.

Undecided: NBC News.

Eric Holder's Fake 'Remorse' And Why Shield Law Wouldn't Have Prevented DOJ Attack On Free Press

By Susan Duclos

Cartoon by Chip Bok, via Towhall

According to The Daily Beast, unnamed aides claim that Attorney General Eric Holder started feeling "a creeping sense of personal remorse," as he read a Washington Post article detailing the exact nature of the DOJ's role in attacking the free press, reporting on the affidavit which Holder himself signed off on and approved, calling a Fox News reporter " at the very least ... an aider, abettor and/or co-conspirator" in the crime, for doing nothing more than his job.

DOJ officials, realizing the issue could turn into a press feeding frenzy, went into damage-control mode. Over the weekend they scrambled to prepare their response, including readying a press statement assuring that Justice had no plans to indict Rosen.

But for Attorney General Eric Holder, the gravity of the situation didn’t fully sink in until Monday morning when he read the Post’s front-page story, sitting at his kitchen table. Quoting from the affidavit, the story detailed how agents had tracked Rosen’s movements in and out of the State Department, perused his private emails, and traced the timing of his calls to the State Department security adviser suspected of leaking to him. Then the story, quoting the stark, clinical language of the affidavit, described Rosen as “at the very least ... an aider, abettor and/or co-conspirator” in the crime. Holder knew that Justice would be besieged by the twin leak probes; but, according to aides, he was also beginning to feel a creeping sense of personal remorse.

The sweeping seizure of the AP phone records had thrown Justice on the defensive. But at least in that case Holder had some personal insulation; having been interviewed by the FBI, he’d recused himself from the investigation and, thus, had not personally signed off on the subpoenas. In the Fox case, however, Holder knew he bore a direct measure of responsibility. He had approved a search-warrant application that equated a reporter’s newsgathering activities with criminal conduct. That put Holder at the center of the brewing controversy, all while the Obama administration was being buffeted over allegations that the IRS had targeted conservative groups and by the continuing Benghazi tempest.

That is when Holder and even Barack Obama started pushing the red herring of the "Shield Law."

By week’s end, Holder knew he had to be proactive in stemming the criticism and restoring the department’s credibility with the press. He and his advisers began exploring ways to reform the Justice Department’s internal guidelines for investigating leaks to safeguard the media against overly intrusive tactics. (Obama announced a review of the guidelines during a major speech on counterterrorism last Thursday.) Meanwhile, on Friday, Holder made a round of calls to Capitol Hill in an attempt to mollify concerned lawmakers. In calls to Sens. Charles Schumer (D-NY), Dick Durbin (D-Ill.), and Lindsey Graham (R-SC), Holder said he understood why there had been such an outcry over his department’s actions. As one of Holder’s advisers put it, the message was: “Look we get it. We understand why this is so controversial, and we’re ready to make changes to find the right balance.” At the same time, Holder enlisted their help to get a media-shield law passed in Congress. (On Sunday, Schumer announced the formation of a bipartisan “gang of eight” to press for the legislation.)

Yes, about that Shield Law......

Perhaps the most significant structural flaw in the current system, however, is that the fox is guarding the henhouse. Prosecutors whose main interest is catching and convicting leakers call the shots on how aggressively to pursue reporters as part of their investigations. That is why, Holder believes, there is ultimately no better solution than passing a media-shield law that would place those decisions in the hands of an independent federal judge......

Would a Shield Law have prevented the Obama Department of Justice from zealously attacking the Associated Press by seizing their phone records without notification? Or protected James Rosen at Fox News from the being monitored and having his phone records and email account secretly monitored?

Washington Post reports the answer... no.

Under the shield legislation, the DOJ could still delay notification of a covered journalist of a subpoena — but only if a judge, not the administration, decided that disclosure would pose a substantial threat.

“The difference is that instead of DOJ unilaterally making that determination,” the department would “have to convince a judge that this was the case,” said University of Minnesota Law Professor Jane Kirtley.

The reason the "Shield Law" is a red herring, specifically being used right now as a way mitigate the damage, look no further than some of the original reporting by The New Yorker's Ryan Lizza, who clearly outlines how Obama's DOJ shopped around for a judge that would give them what they wanted after two judges had already denied them.

The new documents show that two judges separately declared that the Justice Department was required to notify Rosen of the search warrant, even if the notification came after a delay. Otherwise: “The subscriber therefore will never know, by being provided a copy of the warrant, for example, that the government secured a warrant and searched the contents of her e-mail account,” Judge John M. Facciola wrote in an opinion rejecting the Obama Administration’s argument.

Machen appealed that decision, and in September, 2010, Royce C. Lamberth, the chief judge in the Federal District Court for the District of Columbia, granted Machen’s request to overturn the order of the two judges.

All the Shield Law would have done is give the Obama administration and Eric Holder someone else to throw under the bus when their antics became public.

Then we have the matter of the "exception" in the Shield Law, which Obama himself pushed for in 2009, again it would have prevented the law from protecting the media:

The bill contains a large exception for national security, a compromise Obama pushed for back in 2009. In classified leak cases, a subpoena could not be quashed if the information would help prevent or mitigate an act of terrorism or other harm to national security. In a non-classified case, the reporter is not protected in those cases and if the information could help identify the perpetrator of an act of terrorism.

No doubt a federal media Shield Law would be a good thing, but it would not have prevented the abuses perpetrated against the media, by the Obama administration, in these two cases. It is more of a "look something shiny over that way," red herring, to distract from the very nature of those abuses.

Far Left, Far Right Finally Agree- AG Eric Holder Must Go

By Susan Duclos

With the breaking news that Attorney General Eric Holder personally signed off on the warrant that allowed the Justice Department to search Fox News reporter James Rosen's personal email, the far left and the far right and pretty much everyone in between, finally found an issue they can all agree on..... Attorney General Eric Holder must go.

Sarah Palin certainly qualifies as the far right and she asks on Twitter "Where is the apology and resignation of your attorney general, Mr. President? http://fb.me/MZDSVlXQ

Huffington Post, who qualifies as the far left, headlines with "Time To Go: Holder Ok'd Press Probe"

 

Even before this latest revelation, far lefties like Daily Kos and Esquire were calling for Holder's resignation and/or his firing.

Then you have the whole lying to Congress thing going on and it is pretty clear Holder has got to go, but as of May 16, 2013, Barack Obama was still saying "I have complete confidence in Eric Holder as attorney general. He does his job with integrity and I expect he will continue to do so."

Duuuuuude, there is thing called a dictionary, which states clearly that "integrity" includes "soundness of moral character and honesty"...Look. It. Up. 

Then again on Thursday, May 23, 2013, Barack Obama says:

Journalists should not be at legal risk for doing their jobs. Our focus must be on those who break the law. That is why I have called on Congress to pass a media shield law to guard against government over-reach. I have raised these issues with the Attorney General, who shares my concern. So he has agreed to review existing Department of Justice guidelines governing investigations that involve reporters, and will convene a group of media organizations to hear their concerns as part of that review. And I have directed the Attorney General to report back to me by July 12th.

Are you kidding me? That is like asking a pedophile to babysit your children. (It is analogy, not saying Holder is a pedophile)

I suppose like the Benghazi attack, the AP phone records seizure, the IRS targeting conservatives scandals, Fast and Furious, and Solyndra, etc....Obama will again claim he knew nothing about it, until he read the NBC report about Holder personally signing off on the warrant against Rosen?

Note to Obama- Plausible deniability only works when it is, you know, plausible!

Video- Obama's DOJ Goes After Reporter's Parents!!!

By Susan Duclos

I said last night Obama's DOJ is completely out of control in their attacks against free press in what is being dubbed the "Obama's war on journalism."

Reports on the Obama administrations attack on the free press just keeps on coming, as The New Yorker's Ryan Lizza obtains documents showing that the Justice Department went further than reports showed yesterday in tracking and obtaining the personal emails of Fox News reporter James Rosen, then the update that up to three Fox News staffers were targeted, but now, "lawyers for Justice Department seized phone records from two staffers at the White House and five Fox News reporters, bringing the total to 30 people overall."

But this...... truly is over the top.

Bret Baier reveals Obama's DOJ phone records seizure includes the parents of Fox News reporter James Rosen.

[WATCH]



As I pointed out last night: This is on top of the AP phone record seizure scandal already rocking the Obama administration, where 21 phone lines, in five different offices were covered by the overly broad Department of Justice subpoenas. Four of those offices held a total of 100 reporters.

 Bonus video- National Public Radio’s Cokie Roberts, on MSNBC's Morning Joe, blasts the Obama administration calling the whole thing "an attack on the American press... big time."

[WATCH]



Related:

DOJ Out Of Control Attacking Freedom Of Press!! Targeted 30 WH, Fox News Reporters' Phone Records 

Was CBS News Reporter Sharyl Attkisson Targeted By Obama's DOJ Too?

AP Phone Record Seizure Scandal: DOJ Subpoena Covered Phone Lines Where 100 Reporters Worked

Obama's DOJ Tracks Reporters Movements, Obtains Personal Emails; Journalists Unite Against DOJ

  

Pew: Plurality Believe Obama Administration Involved In IRS Decision To Target Conservatives

By Susan Duclos

Pew Research polled the different controversies rocking the Obama administration, including the AP phone record seizure and the Benghazi investigation, but the numbers on the IRS scandal where IRS officials deliberately and systematically targeted conservatives groups like the Tea Party, Patriot groups and 9/12 groups, among others,  show that a plurality of those paying attention to the scandal, believe the Obama administration was "involved in the decision to target conservative groups."

Overall, 42% say the Obama administration was involved in the decision to target conservative groups. Fewer (31%) say that the decision to target conservative groups was made by IRS employees without administration involvement, while 27% offer no opinion.

Not surprisingly, opinions about this are highly partisan. Nearly seven-in-ten Republicans (69%) say the administration was involved in the IRS’s decision to target conservative groups, compared with just 12% who say the decision was made by IRS employees. By contrast, just 21% of Democrats say the administration was involved, while 54% say IRS employees made the decision to target conservative groups. By a 44% to 28% margin, more independents say the administration was involved in the IRS decision than say it was not.

Those who followed the IRS story at least fairly closely (50% of the public) express similar views about the administration’s involvement: 49% say the administration was involved while 35% say it was not. But partisan differences are wider among this attentive segment of the population; fully 78% of Republicans who have followed the story believe the administration was involved in the decision to target conservative groups, while 63% of attentive Democrats say the decision came from IRS employees.

One would expect the level of distrust for the Obama administration by Republicans to be as high as it is, as they would also expect the level to be as low from Obama's own party, the Democrats.

The level of distrust by Independents who believe the Obama administration was involved in the decision to target conservatives, 44 percent overall and 48 percent among Independents following the story very or fairly closely, is quite high.

While some recent polls show the same type of distrust, they assert that Obama's overall approval rating hasn't suffered, but since the IRS and AP scandals were brought to light just a couple weeks ago and there have been continuous new revelations each week, sometimes daily revelations, that approval will undoubtedly start dwindling when the public becomes more aware of  those newly revealed details.

Was CBS News Reporter Sharyl Attkisson Targeted By Obama's DOJ Too?

By Susan Duclos

Considering what has been revealed so far with the Obama Department of Justice (DOJ) seizing the Associated Press' (AP) phone records and their secret subpoena of 21 phone lines, covering five offices where 100 reporters work and the recent news that a Fox News reporter was tracked and his personal email account obtained by the DOJ, the timing of the computer breaches of Emmy-award winning CBS News investigative reporter, Sharyl Attkisson, is suspicious, to say the least.

Attkisson told WPHT that irregular activity on her computer was first identified in Feb. 2011, when she was reporting on the Fast and Furious gun-walking scandal and on the Obama administration's green energy spending, which she said "the administration was very sensitive about." Attkisson has also been a persistent investigator of the events surrounding last year's attack in Benghazi, and its aftermath.

Attkisson, nor CBS News, is accusing the DOJ of this breach of her personal and work computers, but are diligently investigating to determine who is behind them.

"I can confirm that an intrusion of my computers has been under some investigation on my end for some months but I'm not prepared to make an allegation against a specific entity today as I've been patient and methodical about this matter," Attkisson told POLITICO on Tuesday. "I need to check with my attorney and CBS to get their recommendations on info we make public."

In an earlier interview with WPHT Philadelphia, Attkisson said that though she did not know the full details of the intrustion, "there could be some relationship between these things and what's happened to James [Rosen]," the Fox News reporter who became the subject of a Justice Dept. investigation after reporting on CIA intelligence about North Korea in 2009.

The timing of her Fast and furious reports, along with White House officials screaming and cursing at her for exclusive, damning reports about the gun-walking operation, along with the recent attack on the freedom of press by the Obama administration, makes the headlined question valid and appropriate.

 "Was CBS News Reporter Sharyl Attkisson Targeted By Obama's DOJ Too?"

IRS and AP Phone Scandals: Video - Piers Morgan Admits Obama Admin Showing Tyrannical Behavior

By Susan Duclos

I am a little late posting this video but after watching the 3:12 minute clip there are a few points made that are noteworthy.

First Morgan admits that despite his laughing at Second Amendment supporters when they say the right to bear arms is inherent to the ability to protect against governmental tyranny, because he used to think that was a "ridiculous" argument, the IRS scandal where the agency deliberately targeted conservatives (the list is still growing) and the AP phone scandal where the DOJ seized reporters' phone records, is "vaguely" and "bordering" on tyranny.

There is more, like the discussion on how liberals say "the Republicans are going to be all over this," then admitting they should be as should every Democrat.

[WATCH]



Makes you wonder if Morgan has the integrity to call each and every one of those people he "laughed at" and called "ridiculous" when they spoke of protection against tyranny, and apologize for his arrogant dismissal of their very real points.

Maybe making a public apology for comparing Tea Party supporters to "Hitler and Mussolini" followers?

Heh, yeah, those were rhetorical questions because that would take some kind of honor.

AP Phone Record Seizure Scandal: DOJ Subpoena Covered Phone Lines Where 100 Reporters Worked

By Susan Duclos

You know journalists are outraged when you see liberal media outlets rallying around Fox News as evidenced in my previous piece and they were already annoyed, to put it mildly, before that, when the mainstream media became aware that the DOJ had secretly seized some Associated Press phone records.

Well these next two little tidbits should make their heads explode.

First, Open Channel at NBC News reports that the initial reports of the DOJ seizing the phone records of a few reporters, severely understated the scope of the DOJ seizure and in reality 21 phone lines, in five different offices were covered by the overly broad Department of Justice subpoenas. Four of those offices held a total of 100 reporters.

The Justice Department’s secret subpoena for AP phone records included the seizure of records for five reporters' cellphones and three home phones as well as two fax lines, a lawyer for the news organization tells NBC News.

David Schulz, the chief lawyer for the AP, said the subpoenas also covered the records for 21 phone lines in five AP office lines -- including one for a dead phone line at  office in Washington that had been shut down six years ago. The phone lines at four other offices – where  100 reporters worked — were also covered by the subpoenas, Schulz said.

Although AP had given general information about the subpoenas last week, it provided new details Monday about the number of cell and home phone records as it considers possible legal action against the Justice Department.

The next tidbit updates the news that set journalists off this morning about the DOJ tracking the movements of a FOX News reporter, James Rosen as well as obtaining his personal email account, with a breaking report that in reality, three news staffers, two reporters and one producer all had their emails show up in a IG report regarding Fast and Furious.

Fox News reports that three Fox staffers, two reporters and one producer, were targeted by Barack Obama's Justice Department. Fox doesn't have all the details yet on reporter William La Jeunesse and producer Mike Levine, but their emails showed up in a IG report regarding Fast and Furious. Either their emails were leaked by the Justice Department officials they were sent to, or the email accounts of both were subpoenaed and invaded by government investigators.

The IG report does say that subpoenas were issued to obtain emails. Whose email was targeted is not yet known.

 Fox News and Associated Press...... reporters from every news outlet have to wondering about now if any of their sources are safe, if their privacy was invaded and if they too will become a target of the Obama administration.

Hell of a thanks for all they have done for Obama, huh?

Prominent Liberal Radio Host Calls For Attorney General Eric Holder's Dismissal

By Susan Duclos

Liberal talk radio host, Bill Press, described by The Hill as a "prominent" liberal voice, is calling for the ouster of Attorney General Eric Holder, over the AP phone record scandal, just one of the scandals that seems to be rocking Washington DC this month.

What "breach of national security" are we talking about re the AP story? It's BS and Holder should be fired.
— Bill Press (@bpshow) May 16, 2013

With his tweets, Press becomes one of the first prominent liberal voices to call for the dismissal of Holder over the records seizure.

The Justice Department said in a letter to The Associated Press on Friday that it had gathered records on at least 20 office, cell phone, and home phone numbers — including the AP's desk in the House of Representatives press gallery

This puts Mr. Press in the same boat as Republican National Committee Chairman Reince Priebus, who also called for Holder's dismissal.

“Attorney General Eric Holder, in permitting the Justice Department to issue secret subpoenas to spy on Associated Press reporters, has trampled on the First Amendment and failed in his sworn duty to uphold the Constitution," said Priebus in a statement.

"Because Attorney General Holder has so egregiously violated the public trust, the president should ask for his immediate resignation. If President Obama does not, the message will be unmistakable: The President of the United States believes his administration is above the Constitution and does not respect the role of a free press,” he added.

According to Michael Sneed, at Chicago Sun-Times, plans to oust Holder in a way that leaves his "reputation intact," is already being discussed at the White House and Massachusetts Governor Deval Patrick's name is being bandied about as a possible replacement for Holder.

As evidenced by the recent headlines and the shredding of White House spokesman Jay Carney at Tuesday's White House press briefing, the media has abandoned their "circle the Obama wagon" mentality, for now, and another article from The Hill reports that Barack Obama is attempting to "win back" the press by "wooing" them.

To bolster President Obama’s free-press credentials, the White House announced Wednesday it had asked Sen. Charles Schumer (D-N.Y.) to reintroduce a press shield law that would allow media organizations to challenge subpoenas of phone records and offer legal protections for protecting confidential sources.

Will it work or is it too little, too late?

More importantly, why did it take going after one of their own, the AP, for the mainstream media to start doing their job?

The IRS, AP Phone Scandals Show The Bigger Government Gets, The More Tyrannical it Becomes

By Susan Duclos

Tyranny- Oppressive power exerted by government--- Merriam Webster dictionary.

It has been a very, very bad month for Barack Obama and his big government ideology as scandal upon scandal pile upon each other in fast succession, two of which clearly provide ample evidence of what conservatives have been attempting to communicate to voters for decades.

The bigger government gets, the more tyrannical it gets.

Even before the release of the Treasury Inspector General for Tax Administration report, segments of the report were being doled out, and with each new revelation, the scope of the IRS targeting of conservatives grew bigger and bigger.

It isn't paranoia if they really are after you.........and liberals can no longer claim that the specific targeting of conservative groups by the IRS, while fast tracking approval for liberal groups, is all in the minds of those paranoid conservatives.

Right smack dab in the middle of the leaked information about the IRS targeting, before the actual investigative report was released, came another shocking revelation.

Obama's Department of Justice had seized a broad swath of Associated Press phone records, which many consider a massive violation of the First Amendment right to free press.

Before both these events blew up into the scandals they are becoming with each new revelation, the Benghazi hearings provided live coverage of whistle-blowers, and their testimony about failures on the part of the Obama administration before and during the 911/12 terrorist attack in Benghazi, Libya, which resulted in death of four Americans.

Making it worse, their testimony and leaked talking points emails, shows that Obama and his officials lied to the American public about the attack, to which Obama, according to Washington Post's The Fact Checker, is still lying to the American people about.

All this is happening at the same time that Barack Obama and liberals are trying to convince the American public that government should also be in control of their healthcare, as the roll out of Obamacare marches along.

Oh and let's not forget how entwined Obamacare is with the IRS, as the irony of the next headline shows "Obamacare: Taxpayers Must Report Personal Health ID Info to IRS."

Politico, in a four-page article, manages to capture this perfect storm and how Barack Oama is standng right in the middle of it:

The narrative is personal. The uproars over alleged politicization of the IRS and far-reaching attempts to monitor journalists and their sources have not been linked directly to Obama. But it does not strain credulity to suggest that Obama’s well-known intolerance for leaks, and his regular condemnations of conservative dark-money groups, could have filtered down to subordinates.

The narrative is ideological. For five years, this president has been making the case that a growing and activist government has good intentions and can carry these intentions out with competence. Conservatives have warned that government is dangerous, and even good intentions get bungled in the execution. In different ways, the IRS uproar, the Justice Department leak investigations, the Benghazi tragedy and the misleading attempts to explain it, and the growing problems with implementation of health care reform all bolster the conservative worldview.

Not only is scandal roiling through the Obama administration, but the mainstream media who insulated him and protected him when Solyndra and Fast and Furious became front page news, do not seem so inclined to protect him now that Obama's DOJ has attacked one of their own.

Take a look at some of the headlines coming from the media now.

New York Times- "Spying on The Associated Press"

Politico- "Obama's dangerous new narrative"

The Hill- "Rangel: Obama hasn't fully explained DOJ phone records seizure"

Washington Post- "Obama, the uninterested president"

USA Today- "IRS approved liberal groups while Tea Party in limbo "

ABC News- "IRS Asks for Reading List, Tea Party Group Sends Constitution"

That is just a small sample from Memeorandum.

The media isn't the only entity distancing themselves, for the moment, from Barack Obama.

Seems establishment Democrats, not to be mistaken with progressive liberal Democrats, are also turning against him as Politico points out with the headline "D.C. Turns On Obama"

The town is turning on President Obama — and this is very bad news for this White House.

Republicans have waited five years for the moment to put the screws to Obama — and they have one-third of all congressional committees on the case now. Establishment Democrats, never big fans of this president to begin with, are starting to speak out. And reporters are tripping over themselves to condemn lies, bullying and shadiness in the Obama administration.

Flashback- "Oh I think that, you know, as president I bear responsibility for everything--to some degree. "--- Barack Obama, 60 Minutes

[Update] Townhall has the video of Obama, last week, telling The Ohio State University graduating students:

"Unfortunately you've grown up hearing voices that incessantly warn of government as nothing more than some separate, sinister entity that's at the root of all of our problems. Some of these same voices do their best to gum up the works. They'll warn that tyranny is always lurking just around the corner. You should reject these voices. Because what they suggest is that our brave and creative and unique experiment in self rule is somehow just a sham with which we can't be trusted."

You think he might have had an inkling of the firestorm that was about to hit his administration?

Obama Administration Secretly Seizes Phone Records of Associated Press Reporters

By Susan Duclos

Obama's Justice Department secretly seized "two months of telephone records of reporters and editors for The Associated Press in what the news cooperative's top executive called a "massive and unprecedented intrusion" into how news organizations gather the news," according to an AP report.

The records obtained by the Justice Department listed outgoing calls for the work and personal phone numbers of individual reporters, for general AP office numbers in New York, Washington and Hartford, Conn., and for the main number for the AP in the House of Representatives press gallery, according to attorneys for the AP. It was not clear if the records also included incoming calls or the duration of the calls.

In all, the government seized the records for more than 20 separate telephone lines assigned to AP and its journalists in April and May of 2012. The exact number of journalists who used the phone lines during that period is unknown, but more than 100 journalists work in the offices where phone records were targeted, on a wide array of stories about government and other matters.

In a letter of protest sent to Attorney General Eric Holder on Monday, AP President and Chief Executive Officer Gary Pruitt said the government sought and obtained information far beyond anything that could be justified by any specific investigation. He demanded the return of the phone records and destruction of all copies.

"There can be no possible justification for such an overbroad collection of the telephone communications of The Associated Press and its reporters. These records potentially reveal communications with confidential sources across all of the newsgathering activities undertaken by the AP during a two-month period, provide a road map to AP's newsgathering operations and disclose information about AP's activities and operations that the government has no conceivable right to know," Pruitt said.

Between outright lying to the American people about Benghazi, using IRS to specifically target conservative groups and now this unprecedented intrusion into a media that is supposedly free, the Obama administration is completely out of control.

AP President and Chief Executive Officer Gary Pruitt's letter to Eric Holder embedded below:

Letter to Eric Holder Tcm28 12896 uploaded by Susan Duclos

Instapundit Busts AP Changing News Article To Protect Obama

(Quote in question found at the 3:55 mark in the video above)

“Obama needled one questioner who asked about gas prices, now averaging close to $3.70 a gallon nationwide, and suggested that the gentleman consider getting rid of his gas-guzzling vehicle.”-- AP quote, then removed to protect Obama.

The Associated Press is up to their antics again, writing an article then rewriting the article and removing a quote by Barack Obama that makes him seem callous in the face of a concerned citizen over gas prices.

Luckily, Instapundit's Glenn Reynolds saved a screen shot of the original article before it fell through the memory hole.

Obama's exact wording from the original article was "If you're complaining about the price of gas and you're only getting 8 miles a gallon, you know, you might want to think about a trade-in".

Not only did the AP rewrite the article, but they changed the headline from "Obama says little short-term help for gas prices" to "Obama seeks re-election help from Sharpton's group."

They didn't cover their tracks well though because the actual URL reflects the original tittle. (http://finance.yahoo.com/news/Obama-says-little-shortterm-apf-1680912387.html?x=0&.v=4 )

.

Serious Ethical Journalistic Misconduct by Wapo/AP

Patterico's Pontifications has the details, a complete revision of an original story published at WAPO by the AP without any corrections noted.. they just changed the story after publishing lies.

Teaser:

How much did the left show its keister on O’Donnell’s alleged gaffe? So much so that the AP/WaPo story on the subject was almost completely rewritten last night, and without an official correction. After the break I will have screen caps and a cut and paste of the text of the article, but let’s start with just the first paragraph.

The piece at Patterico's Pontifications has complete screen shots of the original story and then the revisionist version, word counts on how much of the story was changed...not corrected, but completely altered without offering explanations or corrections.

Read it in it's entirety to see the documented proven misconduct and direct lies offered by Washington Post/AP.

Then head over to read Ace who gives those "Suckers of Cock" a piece of his mind and adds his take to this scandal in traditional Ace of Spades style.

I keep getting into this fight with readers.

Readers tell me, "The media lies; don't trust them." My response is usually "Well, they spin, they suppress, they distort, but they usually don't lie per se. A reporter who directly lies would be disciplined. Their own reputations mean too much to them to just flat-out lie."

I, the hyperpartisan crazy conservative blogger, keep taking the media's side on this point, of outright lying.

I keep being proved wrong by the Suckers of Cock I am defending.

Language warning but you know, it kinda flows when Ace does it...so what the hell.

.

Feisal Abdul Rauf, Imam Chief Promoter Labeled Controversial Mosque "Ground Zero Mosque' : AP Wrong

Big Peace fact checks the AP, who recently instructed their writers to not refer to the controversial mosque proposed to be built two blocks from Ground Zero as the "Ground Zero Mosque".

They ignore the very fact that Feisal Abdul Rauf, Imam chief promoter of the mosque, labeled that very way.

AP’s Deputy Managing Editor for Standards and Production, Tom Kent, sent this “guidance” out to his colleagues yesterday, with inputs from Chad Roedemeier in the New York bureau and Terry Hunt in Washington: “We should continue to avoid the phrase ‘Ground Zero mosque’ or ‘mosque at Ground Zero’ on all platforms. (We’ve very rarely used this wording, except in slugs, though we sometimes see other news sources using the term.) The site of the proposed Islamic center and mosque is not at Ground Zero, but two blocks away in a busy commercial area. We should continue to say it’s “near” Ground Zero, or two blocks away.”

Interestingly, among those who formerly used the now-proscribed descriptor “Ground Zero mosque” is none other than Feisal Abdul Rauf, its imam and chief promoter. He called it that even though the proposed venue has always been two blocks away from the World Trade Center site.

Big Peace continues on to fact check the rest of the AP claims and provides links showing their attempt to rewrite the facts to match their own agenda.

Read it all.

AP gets a failing grade.

.

First CNN And Now AP Blow The Media Stereotyping Of Tea Party Movement

I am beginning to wonder if I woke up this morning in the twilight zone, but sure enough as I am going through political news I have found two major news outlets, CNN (previous post) and now the Associated Press, with stories that blow to hell the typical stereotyping that has been done regarding the Tea Party and those that support it.

AP: "Black conservative tea party backers take heat"

They've been called Oreos, traitors and Uncle Toms, and are used to having to defend their values. Now black conservatives are really taking heat for their involvement in the mostly white tea party movement—and for having the audacity to oppose the policies of the nation's first black president.

"I've been told I hate myself. I've been called an Uncle Tom. I've been told I'm a spook at the door," said Timothy F. Johnson, chairman of the Frederick Douglass Foundation, a group of black conservatives who support free market principles and limited government.

"Black Republicans find themselves always having to prove who they are. Because the assumption is the Republican Party is for whites and the Democratic Party is for blacks," he said.

Johnson and other black conservatives say they were drawn to the tea party movement because of what they consider its commonsense fiscal values of controlled spending, less taxes and smaller government. The fact that they're black—or that most tea partyers are white—should have nothing to do with it, they say.

"You have to be honest and true to yourself. What am I supposed to do, vote Democratic just to be popular? Just to fit in?" asked Clifton Bazar, a 45-year-old New Jersey freelance photographer and conservative blogger.

You can go read the whole thing and see from witness accounts how horribly these people are being treated simply because they dare to not agree with the liberal policies being forced on America from Washington right now.

The more interesting aspect to me is how all of a sudden, major media outlets have decided to stop reporting rumor and half-truths, but have decided to take a deeper look into the Tea Party movement and the people involved with it.

Perhaps the latest polls and surveys done by multiple organizations showing that the Tea Partiers are, in fact, representative of America demographically, might have something to do with the sudden interest in the truth and the news instead of the rhetoric and attempts to discredit the Tea Party supporters.

Reminder:

Gallup- 43 percent of Tea Party supporters are Independent

Rasmussen- 50 percent of voters more aligned with the views of Tea Party than with Obama.

Winston- Tea Party composition "28 percent Independent and 13 percent Democratic"

.

Questioning Obama's Ties To William Ayers Is Racist?

The latest argument by the Associated Press is laughable at best and downright predictable at worse.

When you cannot dispute the facts, simply scream racism loud enough and pray people will ignore the facts and focus on the bogus charge of racism.

Sarah Palin's words:

"Our opponent ... is someone who sees America, it seems, as being so imperfect, imperfect enough, that he's palling around with terrorists who would target their own country," Palin told a group of donors in Englewood, Colo. A deliberate attempt to smear Obama, McCain's ticket-mate echoed the line at three separate events Saturday.

"This is not a man who sees America like you and I see America," she said. "We see America as a force of good in this world. We see an America of exceptionalism."

AP's laughable analysis trying to link racism to legitimate questions about Obama's ties to admitted Domestic terrorist Willaim Ayers.

Palin's words avoid repulsing voters with overt racism. But is there another subtext for creating the false image of a black presidential nominee "palling around" with terrorists while assuring a predominantly white audience that he doesn't see their America?

In a post-Sept. 11 America, terrorists are envisioned as dark-skinned radical Muslims, not the homegrown anarchists of Ayers' day 40 years ago. With Obama a relative unknown when he began his campaign, the Internet hummed with false e-mails about ties to radical Islam of a foreign-born candidate.

Whether intended or not by the McCain campaign, portraying Obama as "not like us" is another potential appeal to racism. It suggests that the Hawaiian-born Christian is, at heart, un-American.

The AP has become a joke and their pathetic attempt to distract from the issue by playing the race card yet again, shows how "in the tank" for Obama they truly are.

More on the relationship between Barack Obama and William Ayers found here.

The Wall Street Journal did an in-depth piece about the Barack Obama, William Ayers and the Chicago Annenberg Challenge (CAC)connections, titled "Obama and Ayers Pushed Radicalism On Schools."

Despite having authored two autobiographies, Barack Obama has never written about his most important executive experience. From 1995 to 1999, he led an education foundation called the Chicago Annenberg Challenge (CAC), and remained on the board until 2001. The group poured more than $100 million into the hands of community organizers and radical education activists.

The CAC was the brainchild of Bill Ayers, a founder of the Weather Underground in the 1960s. Among other feats, Mr. Ayers and his cohorts bombed the Pentagon, and he has never expressed regret for his actions. Barack Obama's first run for the Illinois State Senate was launched at a 1995 gathering at Mr. Ayers's home.

The Obama campaign has struggled to downplay that association. Last April, Sen. Obama dismissed Mr. Ayers as just "a guy who lives in my neighborhood," and "not somebody who I exchange ideas with on a regular basis." Yet documents in the CAC archives make clear that Mr. Ayers and Mr. Obama were partners in the CAC. Those archives are housed in the Richard J. Daley Library at the University of Illinois at Chicago and I've recently spent days looking through them.

Read the rest.

A quick search of Obama and Chicago Annenberg Challenge brings a wealth of information about the two and none of it involves racism, it involves whether we trust a man with this type of connection, as well as his dealings with convicted felon Tony Rezko, where Obama admitted to having "poor judgment," with the highest office in the land.

This is information voters need to know and the AP would rather they hear a racism charge than tell them of these and other Obama associations and ties.

.

Associated Press Finally Admits We Are Winning In Iraq

Hell froze over and pigs just flew by my window.


Bestill my heart.

You seriously have to read this for yourselves, the AP writers:

Robert Burns is AP's chief military reporter, and Robert Reid is AP's chief of bureau in Baghdad. Reid has covered the war from his post in Iraq since the U.S. invasion in March 2003. Burns, based in Washington, has made 21 reporting trips to Iraq; on his latest during July, Burns spent nearly three weeks in central and northern Iraq, observing military operations and interviewing both U.S. and Iraqi officers.

They have just figured out we are winning!

Better late than never I guess.

The AP editors must have had to go get very drunk after reading that.

.

Associated Press' and Yellow Journalistic Practices

This piece was written for Digital Journal by yours truly, hence the using of DJ as the example below in the piece.

The new boss at Associated Press thinks that a reporter's opinion is just as important as the news itself. Op-eds are old news and neutrality and equal treatment to all sides of an issue aren't what journalism should be about, AP believes.

The journalistic ethics of old do not apply to the new guidelines over at the Associated Press. The new ethics are called “accountability journalism,” and the new bureau chief, Ron Fournier, believes that the conventional press model, where both sides of an argument are entitled to equal weight, is exactly what journalists need to avoid.

Fournier believes those old journalistic ethics are what stops reporters from telling the truth as they see it.

The Society of Professional Journalists has the code of ethics here and the ones listed below are the ones that Fournier seems to take issue with.

**Diligently seek out subjects of news stories to give them the opportunity to respond to allegations of wrongdoing.

**Examine their own cultural values and avoid imposing those values on others.

**Support the open exchange of views, even views they find repugnant.

**Distinguish between advocacy and news reporting. Analysis and commentary should be labeled and not misrepresent fact or context.

Fournier's predecessor, Sandy Johnson, wonders if Fournier's new brand of journalism is going to help the AP or destroy it? Granted he replaced her what is described as a "hard-feelings shake-up" in May, but his own ideology on journalism gives credence to her question.

The new boss feels that first-person writing and emotive language is acceptable to news reporting instead of being reserved for opinion editorials, he calls it, "cutting through the clutter.”

So is scrapping the stone-faced approach to journalism that accepts politicians’ statements at face value and offers equal treatment to all sides of an argument. Instead, reporters are encouraged to throw away the weasel words and call it like they see it when they think public officials have revealed themselves as phonies or flip-floppers.

Before Fournier took over the job as bureau chief, he himself wrote pieces which are being referred to as a "model" of the new brand of journalism he is encouraging from the AP writers.

One piece was titled, "Obama is bordering on arrogance", and was written as straight news, not opinion, despite the opinion that is explicit in the headline itself.

A frequent critic of AP and especially this new brand of “accountability journalism", is James Taranto, the Wall Street Journal’s Best of the Web columnist, who says, "The problem is that while you can do opinion journalism and incorporate reporting into it, you can’t say you’re doing straight reporting, and then add opinion to that.”

In an AP internal newsletter dated June 1, 2007, Jim Romenesko wrote, "It's AP's goal this year (and henceforth) to make this accountability journalism a consistent theme in our coverage of public affairs, politics and government."

In that newsletter he supplied an essay written by Ron Fournier, who would later become the new bureau chief, for "expert advice on accountability journalism".

In that essay, a portion sticks out where it says:

Don't give equal weight to spin. Just because a public official says it doesn't mean you need to put it in your story or give his claim equal billing to what you know to be true. We have an obligation to write factual and fair stories, but we are not obliged to print attacks, spin or distortion under the cover of "fair comment."

This brings up the question of who determines what "spin", "distortion" and "fair comment" is?

Using Digital Journal.com and the writers and editorial staff as an example, would this mean that if the title of this piece had an opinion in the headline, such as "AP's dangerous practice of rewriting the Journalism code of ethics", naturally and the DJ staff can correct this analysis if it is wrong, but in all probability by using the word dangerous in the title, which would be an "opinion", they would agree with my labeling this piece as opinion had I done so.

Taking it a step further, if the DJ staff agreed that it was a dangerous practice, then according to the AP's "accountability journalism", then an explanation of why the AP officials considers it a good practice would not be needed for the sake of fairness and balance in the article itself and the article would not need the label opinion if the word "dangerous" were used in the headline.

Is this a slippery slope where journalism becomes not an outlet for news, but becomes an interpretation of said news?

“I think there’s mixed feelings — there’s reluctance,” said an AP staffer. “The AP has always been a just-the-facts type of organization,” the staffer added, where even star political reporters typically play a more behind-the-scenes role than those at other papers. And it was Johnson who hired the majority of reporters in Washington, meaning they’re now following not just a new leader but a new agenda.

This has also brought up issues for other news outlets that use the AP's stories, such as Arkansas Democrat-Gazette, where Fournier worked as a reporter in the 1980s, and according to managing editor , David Bailey, he says the AP tries "to do more with dazzle and footwork these days than [stories] with real substance", and continues on to explain why his paper has an active wire desk to vet and edit the copy, and he continues with, "We almost never run an AP story as we get it on the front of the paper."

Still, he concludes by showing support for Fournier, by stating, "if the AP is smart enough to listen to what Ron will say, the AP will improve dramatically.”

Some of the examples listed using Fournier's "“accountability journalism" being used by the AP, includes one article that Beth Fouhy wrote, where she used the first-person style of writing and started with her opinion, saying "I miss Hillary".

Another example listed at the end of the piece where a reporter, Liz Sidoti, wrote a piece on June 19, 2008, and titled it, "Barack Obama chose winning over his word".

Fournier comments on that piece, not labeled opinion by saying, "But boy, when we can cut through the clutter, and we can say ‘Barack Obama put politics over his word' which he did — that’s a fact. He did. He may not like the way Liz wrote it, but it is a statement of fact.”


In reading many opinion editorials, (Examples of those articles at the link provided)labeled as such, many people agreed with Sidoti's title and her piece, but those other editorials made it very clear that was their opinion by publishing their pieces as opinion editorials, unlike the AP did with Sidoti's piece.

Another potential problem stemming from this new brand of journalistic ethics, is how to report on a story that the Associated Press originally wrote using Fournier's new style.

If the AP headlines with a opinion driven title, does that automatically make it acceptable for those using the AP as a source to use that opinion in their headlines without qualifying the piece as an Op-Ed?

.

Bloggers Fight Back Over The Associated Press 'Fair Use' Policy

Recently the Associated Press (AP) went after a blog called the Drudge Retort, forcing them to remove articles which included short quotes from AP reports. Some bloggers decided to boycott the AP, other bloggers are fighting back differently.

Background.

In a battle of wills between Internet bloggers and a major media outlet, the Associated Press filed six Digital Millenium Copyright Act takedown requests against the Drudge Retort claiming that the users linking to its stories are violating its copyright and committing "'hot news' misappropriation under New York state law.

Immediately bloggers from all over the web started boycotting the AP, with some top names, such as TechCrunch, deciding that until the AP backed down from their "ridiculous attempts to stop the spread of information around the Internet", they just did not exist anymore.

The owner/founder of TechCrunch's point is that there are already laws on the books determining fair use and the AP doesn't get to decide how content is used if their rules are stricter than the law itself.

Bloggers Fight Back.

The Associated press now has a "user agreement', which shows that for as little as 5 words used from an AP article, they want to charge $12.50, and it scales up for the more words being used.

(CLICK IMAGE TO ENLARGE)

This set off a firestorm of criticism as well as larger, more prominent bloggers, to actively fight back against the AP, each using their own methods and style.

For example, Markos Moulitsas, founder of one of the largest liberal websites online called the Daily Kos, is going head to head with them hoping they will take this to court. Kos as he is known, quoted 120 words from an AP article and then states, "Hey AP -- that's 120 words. Have your lawyers call my lawyers."

Lots of blogs are calling for boycotts of AP content. Not me. I'm going to keep using it. I will copy and paste as many words as I feel necessary to make my points and that I feel are within bounds of copyright law (and remember, I've got a JD and specialized in media law, so I know the rules pretty well). And I will keep doing so if I get an AP takedown notice (which I will make a big public show of ignoring). And then, either the AP -- an organization famous for taking its members work without credit -- will either back down and shut the hell up, or we'll have a judge resolve the easiest question of law in the history of copyright jurisprudence.

The gauntlet is thrown down by Kos.

Kos mentioned something in the above quote which is the basis of the next example.

The bloggers that use AP excerpts, especially the examples shown by the original Drudge Retort pieces, that the AP forced them to remove, always linked to the originating AP article, which is something that the AP itself does not do.

Enter Michelle Malkin, a popular conservative website, has been quoted extensively by the AP, who never bothered to link to her original pieces, nor paid her a dime for the usage.

Malkin shows the exact examples of when the AP used her content, then calculated, using the AP's own user agreement scale for web excerpt usage, how much money the AP owes her for using direct quotes from her site without credit nor payment and determined the AP owes her $132,125.

Malkin also tallies up what the AP would owe other bloggers that they have quoted without credit or payment and says, "If your blog content/comment threads have been quoted by the AP, let me know what your bill would be."

The examples go on and on, but only one more is needed to show what is representative of what is going on around the blogosphere about this issue.

Patterico's Pontifications has been quoted extensively by the AP as of late.... with no payment and in another post he gives people one more option for fighting back against the AP, to use their quotes, within the bounds of the law's fair use policy, and just do not link to them at all, he says.

Don’t refuse to quote them.

Just don’t link them.

There’s no law that says you have to link what you quote. Just use a quote that fits within fair use, do your commentary, and deny them the link.

The Copyright Law of the United States of America can be found here and the pertinent area of concern is, 107. Limitations on exclusive rights: Fair use, where it states:

Notwithstanding the provisions of sections 106 and 106A, the fair use of a copyrighted work, including such use by reproduction in copies or phonorecords or by any other means specified by that section, for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching (including multiple copies for classroom use), scholarship, or research, is not an infringement of copyright. In determining whether the use made of a work in any particular case is a fair use the factors to be considered shall include —

(1) the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of a commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes;

(2) the nature of the copyrighted work;

(3) the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole; and

(4) the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work.

The fact that a work is unpublished shall not itself bar a finding of fair use if such finding is made upon consideration of all the above factors.

Whether they are boycotting the Associated Press, or billing them for their own use of other's work, using the AP's billing scale, or getting directly in their face as Kos is doing, bloggers are fighting back with a vengeance against the self admitted heavy handed tactics of the AP against a blogger that runs a one man operation instead of going after much more prominent bloggers, thereby earning themselves the title across the web of "bully".

The fight is on and legally, according to the laws already on the books, it may be a fight the AP cannot win.

.

The Associated Press, Bloggers, Boycotts, and Copyright Issues

The Associated Press filed six Digital Millenium Copyright Act takedown requests against the Drudge Retort claiming that the users linking to its stories are violating its copyright and committing "'hot news' misappropriation under New York state law.

The Drudge Retort has 8,500 users and is comparable in function with Digg, Reddit and Mixx and according to Rogers Cadenhead, the owner of the Drudge Retort, the site allows users to contribute blog entries that they write and links to interesting news articles on the web.

Many bloggers and citizen journalists will write articles, then use small quotes from the original source, where the original words need to be in context and exact so as to not misquote or misrepresent the story itself.

One example of the disputed entries on the Drudge Retort, to which the Associated Press sent the takedown request for, was a piece which included 18 words from an original Associated Press article, then a 32 word direct quote from Hillary Clinton. The disputed entry in question also linked to the original Associated press article.

Clinton Expects Race to End Next Week

Hillary Rodham Clinton says she expects her marathon Democratic race against Barack Obama to be resolved next week, as superdelegates decide who is the stronger candidate in the fall. "I think that after the final primaries, people are going to start making up their minds," she said. "I think that is the natural progression that one would expect."

The above quote is what the Associated Press claims is in violation of the Digital Millenium Copyright Act. (18 page PDF file)

As you can see, while the legal issues are getting worked out, the Drudge Retort has taken the original article offline and at the URL, they have this instead:

[The content of this blog entry has been removed in response to a DMCA Notice of Copyright Infringement filed by Associated Press]

In a letter dated June 3, 2008, from AP's Intellectual Property Governance Coordinator Irene Keselman, it said:

...you purport that the Drudge Retort's users reproduce and display AP headlines and leads under a fair use defense. Please note that contrary to your assertion, AP considers that the Drudge Retort users' use of AP content does not fall within the parameters of fair use. The use is not fair use simply because the work copied happened to be a news article and that the use is of the headline and the first few sentences only. This is a misunderstanding of the doctrine of "fair use." AP considers taking the headline and lede of a story without a proper license to be an infringement of its copyrights, and additionally constitutes "hot news" misappropriation.

The Owner/Founder of TechCrunch which is one of the most popular blogs on the Internet, covering new start-ups, partnerships and news affecting the blogosphere, writes in the Washington Post today, and says that the AP should consider the linking to their original articles as a favor and not be suing over it.

He also claims that the short snippets used definitely falls under the fair use and copyright law and states that the "A.P. doesn't get to make it's own rules around how its content is used, if those rules are stricter than the law allows."

He then announces TechCrunch's new policy:

So here's our new policy on A.P. stories: they don't exist. We don't see them, we don't quote them, we don't link to them. They're banned until they abandon this new strategy, and I encourage others to do the same until they back down from these ridiculous attempts to stop the spread of information around the Internet.

One of the items in dispute is also a user comment, in the comment section of one of the articles, where the person commenting used a small quote from a Fox News report, which was written by an AP writer.

This has started a whirlwind in the blogosphere and the media with prominent and lesser known bloggers determining to simply not use any AP articles, but instead use Reuters, Agence-France-Press, McClatchy or IPS to stop driving any traffic whatsoever to any AP articles. They even set up a petition to start implementing their boycott against the AP.

Bloggers have joined in for what NewsHoggers calls a bipartisan boycott of the Associated Press.

After the news spread along the blogosphere this weekend, evidently the Associated Press saw the firestorm it had created and in the New York Times today, they report that Jim Kennedy, vice president and strategy director of The A.P, said in an interview that the letter sent to the Drudge Retort had been "heavyhanded" and the AP was going to rethink it's policy toward bloggers.

The quick about-face came, he said, because a number of well-known bloggers started criticizing its policy, claiming it would undercut the active discussion of the news that rages on sites, big and small, across the Internet.

On Friday, before the blogosphere started storming it's way to an all out boycott of AP, the Associated Press issued a statement saying, "when we feel the use is more reproduction than reference, or when others are encouraged to cut and paste.”

The backlash started immediately and the AP convened a meeting of its executives where they decided to suspend its efforts to challenge blogs until it creates a clear set of guidelines.

How they will differ with the law on fair use already on the books is a question they will have to answer after they define what they consider fair use.

Kennedy said the AP was going to meet with the Media Bloggers Association to help establish a set of guidelines.

According to a professor at the Columbia Law School, Timothy Wu, the standard the AP would have to prove would be that using excerpts from their articles would cause financial harm to the Associated Press.

“The principal question is whether the excerpt is a substitute for the story, or some established adaptation of the story,” said Timothy Wu, a professor at the Columbia Law School. Mr. Wu said that the case is not clear-cut, but he believes that The A.P. is likely to lose a court case to assert a claim on that issue.

“It’s hard to see how the Drudge Retort ‘first few lines’ is a substitute for the story,” Mr. Wu said.

As of the writing of this article, the AP has not withdrawn the legal challenge they presented to the Drudge Retort.

[Update] Here is a list of blogs on the right and the left that have signed the petition.

[Update] Email from a reader reminds me that Canada is fighting copyright issues as well.

we're fighting the same fight for Freedom of Expression here in Canada.

www.appropriationart.ca
www.michaelgeist.ca
www.digital-copyright.ca/

.