Miami Herald bullies Florida blogger

Remember a year or so ago when the Associated Press went after the guy who runs the parody news aggregator, the Drudge Retort, and threatened to sue him for linking to excerpts from AP articles on his website (and in at least one instance, for use of an AP excerpt by a commenter)? There was a bit of hubbub for a short time, but eventually the AP figured out that they had a complete loser of an argument, in light of the Fair Use doctrine (as cited in the disclaimer at the bottom of this very blog), and the controversy went away quietly.

You'd think that mainstream corporate media organizations would learn from the AP's experience and therefore refrain from threatening bloggers with frivolous litigation, wouldn't you? Well, you would be wrong ... and, as it turns out, the Next Big Scary Newspaper Threats are happening right here in America's Wang™.

There's one executive at the [Miami] Herald who's apparently so satisfied that everything is running smoothly that she took some time out of her busy day to fire off a threatening email to Random Pixels over a few Miami Herald photos I posted yesterday.

Suzanne Levinson, whose title is Director of Site Operations for the Miami Herald, sent me an email this morning with the ominous subject line, "Use of Miami Herald photos on your blog‏."

Here's part of her email:

It has been brought to our attention that the web page located at http://randompixels.blogspot.com/2009/08/random-pixels-recognizes.html has content reproduced from The Miami Herald and MiamiHerald.com.

Please remove these photos and any other Miami Herald content present on your site immediately.
[...]
[We] do not allow reproduction of complete stories or full-sized photos.
[...]
Please reply with confirmation of action taken within 5 business days or this matter will be forwarded to the McClatchy Company's legal department for further action.

My first reaction was "what took you so long?" My second was to ignore her.

But after thinking about it a bit more I responded that I didn't use full-sized photos; rather I resized them. I also pointed out that because the post was meant as a parody, it was in my opinion, protected under the fair use doctrine, an area of the law that many lawyers can't agree upon.

I also pointed out that my blog is a non-commercial blog with a limited audience and I didn't see how posting a few small photos posed a threat to the business interests of the Herald.

This is exactly the kind of dick-swinging tactics that the AP tried -- unsuccessfully -- last year, and it's not going to work this time, either. The big papers -- which are barely keeping their collective heads above water because most of them can't report the news for shit anymore -- get angry because we bloggers call them on their shit far too often for their liking, and they look bad in the process. So they throw around a few Latin phrases and get an executive or one of their high-powered (and expensive) lawyers to write a strongly worded email and think that we'll just back down and say "Thank you, sir, may I have another?" like ... well, like Democrats in Congress when challenged by the minority party.

But short of out-and-out plagiarism, like taking someone else's work and reproducing it as one's own without attribution, the papers don't have a legal leg to stand on. Bloggers -- at least the ones I know -- are scrupulous about linking and citing and attributing properly -- to my mind, if I make an assertion on this sucky blog, I want to back it up with whatever support I can in order to bolster my credibility*. So I link and I cite and so do most of us ... and that's why the Herald's legal position is dead in the water.

Simply put, "fair use" means that we can quote and excerpt and cite to our heart's content -- with proper attribution, of course -- so long as we do so "in an effort to advance understanding of environmental, political, human rights, economic, democracy, scientific, and social justice issues, etc.," as the disclaimer below explains. Fair use, in short, is a settled aspect of U.S. copyright law, and unless media bullies like the Herald can show that a blogger has used an outrageous amount of their material, or has done so for commercial purposes, or has caused egregious damage to the value of that material to the original source, they are, in layman's terms, fucked.

Blast Off! fully supports Random Pixels in fighting back against the Herald and its lawyers and, provided I passed the Florida Bar exam (I find out a month from today; I'm already licensed in two other states), I'll be happy to provide legal counsel as appropriate (pro bono, naturally) to defend against any potential litigation. In the meantime, I encourage media outlets whose material is used or linked or cited here to send me a threatening email ... just so I can have the immense pleasure of telling you where to stick it.

(h/t South Florida Daily Blog)

---

* I feel compelled to note that right-wing blogs are far less likely to provide attribution, given their notorious aversion to facts, but that is well beyond the scope of this particular post.

Mixed message

You know, it's funny: as much as the Right squawks about the "liberal media," it's always the conservative side of every issue that gets the most media attention. Cases in point: the president's interaction with Hugo Chavez ("OMG, Obama shook his hand and smiled!!!1!!eleven!"), which compared with Drunky McStagger laying a big ol' kiss on a Saudi prince and Donald Rumsfeld's handshake with Saddam Hussein is pretty much a tempest in a tea bag ... I mean, pot; and the Teabaggers' Balls last week, which garnered an impressive but wholly disproportionate share of media attention.

Well, here's another example from that bastion of wingnuttery, the Associated Press. You know, I'm old enough to remember when they were a legitimate news organization ...

Anyway, they reported today on a new poll showing that a solid majority of Americans approves of the work done by President Obama thus far, as he approaches that 100-day milestone in his administration next week. But get a load of the tone of the article:

For the first time in years, more Americans than not say the country is headed in the right direction, a sign that Barack Obama has used the first 100 days of his presidency to lift the public's mood and inspire hopes for a brighter future.

Intensely worried about their personal finances and medical expenses, Americans nonetheless appear realistic about the time Obama might need to turn things around, according to an Associated Press-GfK poll. It shows most Americans consider their new president to be a strong, ethical and empathetic leader who is working to change Washington.

Nobody knows how long the honeymoon will last, but Obama has clearly transformed the yes-we-can spirit of his candidacy into a tool of governance. His ability to inspire confidence — Obama's second book is titled "The Audacity of Hope" — has thus far buffered the president against the harsh political realities of two wars, a global economic meltdown and countless domestic challenges.

"He presents a very positive outlook," said Cheryl Wetherington, 35, an independent voter who runs a chocolate shop in Gardner, Kan. "He's very well-spoken and very vocal about what direction should be taken."

Other AP-GfK findings could signal trouble for Obama as he approaches his 100th day in office, April 29:

_While there is evidence that people feel more optimistic about the economy, 65 percent said it's difficult for them and their families to get ahead. More than one-third know of a family member who recently lost a job.

_More than 90 percent of Americans consider the economy an important issue, the highest ever in AP polling.

_Nearly 80 percent believe that the rising federal debt will hurt future generations, and Obama is getting mixed reviews at best for his handling of the issue.

And yet, the percentage of Americans saying the country is headed in the right direction rose to 48 percent, up from 40 percent in February. Forty-four percent say the nation is on the wrong track.

Not since January 2004, shortly after the capture of former Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein, has an AP survey found more "right direction" than "wrong direction" respondents. The burst of optimism didn't last long in 2004.

Did you catch that? I searched for some indication of the actual poll numbers, but you don't get it until the article is more than halfway done, when we learn that "64 percent of the public approves of Obama's job performance." But what kills me is that the first four paragraphs, essentially favorable to the president, give way quickly to the tired old clichés: Obama's not experienced enough, he's going to face problems, he's not doing enough ....

Yes, I know the country's in a bit of a mess. But despite what those teabaggers will tell you, it's not President Obama's fault. Maybe a year from now you can say that, but for now, AP, why don't you report the news that's actually happening and leave speculation to the pundits and editorial columnists? Thanks in advance.

In the meantime, would everyone kindly shut the fuck up about the "liberal media?" There is no such thing and, in fact, with few exceptions, it's pretty much a conservative media today across the board. Might as well get used to it, folks -- it's been this way for a while now.

P.S. Oh, AP, since you're going after bloggers who use your stuff -- Bring. It. On. First, though, you might want to read the disclaimer at the bottom of the page here ... and bone up a bit on the Fair Use Doctrine. Just saying ...

Checking the fact-checkers: FAIL

There was a time when the Associated Press was a respected news organization. You could rely on them to report, accurately and impartially, what was going on and leave opinion to the editorial pages. Obviously, the current, insidious rightward tilt of the AP proves that those days are gone.

Calvin Woodward of the AP steps to the plate and lines one sharply to deep right field today with his so-called "fact check" of the president's news conference last night. The thing is, Woodward's "claims" and "facts" have, well, no fucking connection whatsoever.

I don't want to reproduce the entire article here (of course you get linky goodness instead), but I'll try to summarize the salient points. That is, I would, if the points Woodward tries to make pertained in any substantive way to what the president actually said. But I'll give it a shot anyway ...

First, the president's quote:

"We will recover from this recession. But it will take time, it will take patience, and it will take an understanding that when we all work together, when each of us looks beyond our own short-term interests to the wider set of obligations we have to each other, that's when we succeed."

Now an excerpt of Woodward's allegedly responsive "facts:"

No one really knows when the recession will end. But Obama's own budget forecasts the recession will continue through this year but with a relatively shallow 1.2 percent decline in the gross domestic product.

Then, the budget predicts solid 3.2 percent growth for 2010, followed by three years of more than 4 percent growth each year.

Christina Romer, head of the White House Council of Economic Advisers, said this week she was "incredibly confident" the U.S. economy will recover within a year.

Congressional Republicans and some Democratic budget hawks have suggested the Obama budget projections are unduly optimistic to make the math to pay for the president's programs work.

Did you catch that first sentence? "No one really knows when the recession will end." What did the president say? "We will recover ... but it will take time ..." Woodward clearly wants the reader to think that President Obama was misleading people, but of course the actual facts don't bear that out in any way. (And who are "some Democratic budget hawks" and how many are there? Per standard MSM procedure, Woodward doesn't say.)

Hold on ... it gets worse. Try this one on for size:

President Obama: "In this budget, we have made the tough choices necessary to cut our deficit in half by the end of my first term even under the most pessimistic estimates."

Woodward's "facts:" Not all credible estimates foresee a deficit halved in that time.

Obama's budget forecast a deficit of $530 billion by the end of 2013. That would cut by half the deficit he inherited at the start of his term. To succeed, Obama is counting on a recovered economy, a tax boost for the rich and success in easing foreign entanglements. But his assertion that he can accomplish that "even under the most pessimistic estimates" flies in the face of an answer he gave moments later.

Um, Cal, the president never said "all credible estimates," nor did he say the budget certainly would be halved. What he actually said (if you care) was that his administration had "made the tough choices necessary" to do so. Very different. But I'd expect that kind of half-assed reporting from the modern AP.

Oh, and that "answer he gave moments later" to which Woodward refers? Don't expect to find it in the article; Woodward never tells us what that is. Typical shoddy journalism ...

Here comes another head fake from Woodward:

Says Woodward: Obama repeated his assertion that his housing bailout will help "stabilize the housing market and help responsible homeowners stay in their homes."

Then "The Facts:" Even officials in his administration, many supporters of the plan in Congress and the Federal Reserve chairman have said some of the bailout money is bound to go to those who acted irresponsibly.

Cal, buddy ... that doesn't negate what the president said!! Indeed, your point is completely irrelevant to his quote! The bailout will, according to Obama, help responsible homeowners stay in their homes. The fact that some bailout money allegedly will "go to those who acted irresponsibly" isn't mutually exclusive to that! Money can go both to help responsible homeowners and (unfortunately) to those to acted irresponsibly! It's called "logic," Cal -- you might look into it sometime.

Finally, the coup de grâce:

THE CLAIM: Responding to Republican critics in Congress who say his proposed budget carries an irresponsible deficit, Obama said, "I suspect that some of those Republican critics have a short memory, because, as I recall, I'm inheriting a $1.3 trillion deficit, annual deficit, from them."

FACT: Obama inherited a whopper of a deficit, much of it due to policies and spending led by Republican President George W. Bush. But the Congress, which authorizes spending and is not blameless in driving up deficits, was controlled by Democrats in the last two years of Bush's presidency.

This is so idiotic, I'm tempted not to address it at all. Two years versus six years ... okay, sure, Congress isn't blameless. But let's not forget that congressional Democrats, "led" by Speaker Nancy Pelosi, regularly and almost enthusiastically bent over and let the GOP have their way with them for the two years they were in charge under the Bush crime syndicate.

It would be nice if a "fact check" used, you know, actual facts. But this is, after all, the Associated Press we're talking about: "Proudly and Shamelessly Kissing Republican Ass Since 2000."

Army suicide rate rising precipitously; wingnut blogger claims AP "crows" about it

These right-wing assholes will stop at nothing when it comes to spinning the news.

You've probably seen by now the report that suicides in the Army reached a record level in 2007. And yet, some twisted freak who runs a right-wing hatefest called "Sweetness & Light" (just bash us over the head with the irony, why don'tcha?) believes the Associated Press is "elated" about this news.

According to the AP article:

Army soldiers committed suicide in 2007 at the highest rate on record, and the toll is climbing ever higher this year as long war deployments stretch on. At least 115 soldiers killed themselves last year, up from 102 the previous year, the Army said Thursday.

Nearly a third of them died at the battlefront — 32 in Iraq and four in Afghanistan. But 26 percent had never deployed to either conflict.

"We see a lot of things that are going on in the war which do contribute — mainly the longtime and multiple deployments away from home, exposure to really terrifying and horrifying things, the easy availability of loaded weapons and a force that's very, very busy right now," said Col. Elspeth Ritchie psychiatric consultant to the Army surgeon general.

So, by the Army's own admission, the multiple and lengthy deployments made necessary by Drunky McStagger's dick-swinging illegal "war" are contributing factors in the suicide rate increase. Yet one brownshirted douchebag blogger actually accuses the AP of celebrating said rate increase.

At long last, some news the Associated Press will be only too glad to report about our military.

(Never mind their successes in Iraq.)

Two defense officials said Thursday that 108 troops committed suicide in 2007, six more than the previous year. The officials spoke on condition of anonymity because the full report on the deaths wasn’t being released until later Thursday.

Note that they couldn’t wait to get out this his historically important information. They had to post a leak from anonymous sources.

And speaking of information, we will again point out that according to an August 16, 2007 MSNBC article:

In a half million-person Army, the [latest suicide] toll translated to a rate of 17.3 per 100,000…

But what both the AP and MSNBC neglect to report this niggling detail from an April 15, 2004 report from the Defense Department:

[T]he national average of 21.5 [suicides] per 100,000 for males ages 20 to 34 the age span for most U.S. soldiers in Iraq.

So even this new higher rate is still much lower than the national average. But we can’t have context like that from the AP.

They have an agenda to push.

So what's your agenda, pal? Raising strawmen like the national average suicide rate so you can cheer for war and killing and destruction and, yes, suicide?

I'll say this slowly so even a moron like you can understand: the reason the AP didn't bring up the national average is because it has exactly nothing to do with the point of the story. The statistics are being presented to show a trend, not to be compared to any kind of national average. The only conclusion to be drawn is that there are more suicides because of the Bush crime syndicate. PERIOD.

And, by the way, exactly what successes in Iraq are you talking about? You mean the daily suicide bombings? Or the increased influence of Iran that is directly attributable to this mistake of a "war?" C'mon, let me know -- really, I'm curious.

Looks to me like the only "crowing" about Army suicides is coming from the Right ... which, for any sentient person, should come as no surprise.

McCain asks, Lieberman answers

McCain/Lieberman '08 -- Better Jowls For a Better America

That's probably Joe Lieberman's wet dream (ewwwwww), as the traitorous wretch from Connecticut endorsed John McCain (R-Ariz.) for president today.

Sen. Joseph Lieberman, the Democrats' 2000 vice presidential nominee, said he was intending to wait until after the primaries to make a choice for the 2008 presidential race. But McCain asked for his support and no Democrat did.

Lieberman, an independent who caucuses with the Democrats, said he chose his longtime Senate colleague because he has the best shot of breaking partisan gridlock in Washington. Both men also support the war in Iraq.

"On all the issues, you're never going to do anything about them unless you have a leader who can break through the partisan gridlock," Lieberman said. "The status quo in Washington is not working."

It's true, Joe. The status quo is not working. And a big reason for that is you, dumbass.

But wait a second. Can you spot what's wrong with the lede of this story?

Sen. John McCain, trying to keep momentum in this state's critical Republican primary race, brought in something unusual on Monday — an endorsement from the other party.

Sure ... I knew you could. "Other party?" You mean, as in Democrats? BZZZZZT! Ooh, sorry, try again.

I'll say it slowly for the Republicans and the media: Joe Lieberman is not a Democrat. He is an independent, formerly of the Connecticut for Lieberman party. But nice try, there, Jennifer Loven of the Associated Press, in trying to make Democrats look bad yet again. Believe me, Jen, the Democrats are doing just fine making themselves look bad without your help.

Why would any Democrat ask for Lieberman's support? He's politically (if not literally) toxic and a clown to boot; no Democrat takes him seriously, and the Republicans only listen to his deranged ranting because he protects them from losing every single meaningful vote in the Senate.

On the other hand, if all it takes is asking for Lieberman's support in order to get an endorsement, then everyone should get on the phone now, call Lieberman's office at (202) 224-4041, and ask for his support on, well, anything. You want support for your run for president of your local ACLU chapter? Call Joe. You want a new job or maybe a committee chair in some organization? Call Joe. How about getting your kids to like vegetables? Joe'll support you.

Seriously. He's waiting for your call right now. And obviously, all you have to do is ask.

UPDATE (11:01 am 12/17/07): Now I see the price that Lieberman exacted for his endorsement.