AP's Free Speech Problem

Someone at the AP's throwing a hissy fit.

The Associated Press, one of the nation’s largest news organizations, said that it will, for the first time, attempt to define clear standards as to how much of its articles and broadcasts bloggers and Web sites can excerpt without infringing on The A.P.’s copyright.

Sounds reasonable, right?

Well, not so much.

Last week, The A.P. took an unusually strict position against quotation of its work, sending a letter to the Drudge Retort asking it to remove seven items that contained quotations from A.P. articles ranging from 39 to 79 words.

Basically, there was so much negative feedback, that the AP later issued a statement backtracking, saying it was "heavy-handed" and that it was going to "rethink its policies toward bloggers." Except, well, it hasn't. They're still demanding Drudge Retort - which, correct me if I'm wrong - is all user-submitted content (in other words, very hard to control) - takes down the 39-79 word content. What BS!

Look, no bloggers should be completely ripping content off newspapers and newswires. That's unacceptable. However, newspapers can't suddenly expect bloggers to not use block quotes in their writing - which is pretty much the AP's intent. There's plenty room for give and take, as both sources help each other: newspapers helps bloggers with content, while bloggers help newspapers build readership and reputation. Newspapers must stop viewing blogs as competition and should start looking at us like the bacteria-sucking fish that are any shark's best friend. We'll make sure they don't get sick, as long as they don't eat us.

So, what should the standards for using newspaper content in blogs be? It would be nice to have a Old School/New School Media Convention, inviting all kinds of bloggers, journalists and editors to come together to the table, so we could hammer some of these things away. But I'm not that naive as to think newspapers would embrace it this soon. So, en lieu of that, why should the standards for using newspaper quotes in blogs be any different than using them in academic papers? At UMASS Dartmouth, using the national political science standard (which is fairly similar to other models), students could quote up to three paragraphs in aggregate from a newspaper. That's an eminently fair compromise, allowing bloggers to liberally quote from articles and make sure they get it right, while it isn't quoting so much that it's just stealing the article. That's the standard I've used on this blog since nearly the beginning; it would behoove the AP to adopt something like it, lest they just want their policy to be ignored.

Where Blogging Goes Astray

I'm sure all of us can remember back to a time when we defended a friend - who we knew to be in the wrong - simply because they were your friend. Maybe, in public, that's often a good thing - but it's always a disservice to our friend if, after the dispute, we don't take them aside and tell them to stop being an idiot. It's no different in the blogosphere: we don't always appreciate criticism directed toward us, but that doesn't mean the criticism always comes without merit. Every once in a while, the media or a politician will criticize 'the blogs' and usually have no idea what they're talking about, but that's not always the case. In the rare instances when our critics have a point, we can't allow our personal feelings to get in the way of constructive criticism.

Bloggers generally cringe when we're told that we live in our mothers' basements, or that we don't know what we're talking about, or that we're just a bunch of trash talkers with nothing positive to say and nothing to contribute. The progressive blogosphere is mostly middle-aged, middle-income and is comprised of experts writing about what they do and care about every day. In essence, the naysayers are almost always wrong. Yet, with so few people actually taking part in blogs - all the while hearing about them daily on TV or at work - there's a lot of confusion going on and we're doing nothing to prevent it. That could be our biggest sin to date.

While we're not a bunch of trash-talking kids, consumed with spreading baseless rumors and a festering anger - safely behind our masks of anonymity - it's certainly out there. It may not be the progressive blogosphere, but it is the progressive blogosphere's problem. The worst criticisms - being unaccountable, uneducated, mean spirited and counterproductive - isn't completely without merit when we're doing little prevent it. Anonymous posters, mostly at online newspapers and local Internet forums, are ruining the fun for everyone. The worst offender, locally, is WickedLocal - and, unfortunately, townies across the state think it's the 'blogs.'

Making matters worse is the fact that some bloggers are rushing to defend it. Now, of course, any time someone criticizes the blogosphere, bloggers and readers will be quick to react - often zealously. Diarist Sean Roche unfortunately missed the point, blowing aside sage advice, in a diary over at BlueMassGroup. Lincoln-Sudbury's Superintendent used part of his commencement speech at their school's graduation to courageously tackle the anonymous postings of adults in the community, imploring his students never to stoop to their level. Here's more of what he had to say.

Here's my advice: if you ever find yourself in a position where you are writing things for public consumption that have no intent other than to cause pain or cast aspersions on people, call people's character into question, question their ethics or honesty - and you're afraid to sign your name because if anyone ever knew it was you writing it, you'd be ashamed and embarrassed, you're on the wrong track.

His only problem, in fact, was calling these postings a "blog," when it's really the anonymous comments over at his town's Wickedlocal online newspaper. His point is sound and we'd all do well to take it and repeat it to others. Yet, it's becoming all too common for people in towns to refer to the comment sections of online newspapers as "the blogs." It's a dangerous precedent that must be kept in check, immediately. Unfortunately people like me - who have vast experience in the medium - just haven't been quick enough to correct people.

It's easy to see where the confusion grows: most of the population's never been to a blog; people just think any online commentary is simply 'blogging.' It would be nice if we could chalk this up to one big confusion, but by allowing this misunderstanding to take place, the reputation of blogs as useful tools is being sullied, all the while the real culprits are free from actually fixing the problem.

Let's reiterate the point: if the problem is confused, the solution isn't going to be any clearer. Just like you can't cure the cold with antibiotics, we can't cure the problem of unaccountable commenters at newspapers if people think it's 'the blogs.' So, unfortunately, this big misunderstanding in labels is only exacerbating the problem: while people are calling for a fix in 'the blogs,' newspapers have no real incentive to fix it, because they aren't 'the blogs.' Many local editors and the people above their heads probably aren't sophisticated enough to realize they're the ones propagating this problem to begin with.

The few savvy enough to comprehend this certainly aren't going to be the ones quick to fix it; it's a misunderstanding they're only happy to reinforce. Quite inappropriately, the media views blogging as the competition. Many journalists view bloggers as 'bad.' All that, while the vast majority of the population doesn't even know what blogging is. The combination results in the majority of the public missing out on a real societal asset.

So, what the heck are we going to do about it? First, let's analyze the problems and possible solutions.

What are the problems?

• Anonymity.
• Unaccountability.
  
• A general ignorance about the web 2.0.
  

What are the solutions?

• Solving anonymity: the universal acceptance of 'signing in.'
  
• Solving the accountability gap: the universal promotion of online meritocracy; making newspapers buy into the importance of building user-name reputation.
  
• Solving Web ignorance: education. Everyone should know what a blog is versus a comment versus a forum.
  

Bloggers, commenters and internet-savvy people need to become involved; we need to recognize there's a real problem here - and take ownership of it. We can't be so naive as to think that anything on the Internet is a good thing, because the bad elements threaten to ruin the potential of what we can truly accomplish.

If the vast majority of the population doesn't value the medium of blogging, it's only going to be that much harder to gain traction and sustain progress. Everyone needs to know the difference between a blog, an Internet forum and comments - whether people use them or not. That's the only way to make sure the media holds local papers accountable when their comment sections run amok. Newspapers make accountability in letters and opinions paramount; online comments shouldn't be any different. In both cases people are using the brand of a newspaper to give their opinions greater weight, so newspapers should have an interest in stake here. Most importantly, when it comes to being online, while being anonymous can be a good thing, being unaccountable is never acceptable. The progressive blogosphere is built around that premise, but we can't rest until it's a universal standard all across the Internet.

Teaching Blogging to Democrats!

Hey everyone, I'm just following up on a diary I wrote last week. As a direct result of BlogLeft Mass's meeting in Lowell, our group is now co-hosting a Democratic State Convention workshop on the Netroots and Blogging. The point of the workshop will be to teach people how to blog, or how to become more effective bloggers and online activists. I know there's a lot of interest in this, because we had more than 20 people show up all the way in Lowell, squeezing in a small sun room with not an inch to spare. So here's the direct ways people could get involved, in bold:

1. Help us set it up. There are power point slides to create and ideas to foster. It's a lot of work, but someone's gotta do it. What exactly can you do?

A. Create slides for how to use Digg, Technorati, stat counter, social networking sites, rss feeds, blogging platforms, etc. Basically, anything I listed here. If you're willing, pick something in the comments and email me your slides.

B. Edit what we have. We're certainly going to want to have a few people take a look at what we're going to present ahead of time, so if anyone's willing to be a guinea pig, let me know.

2. Come to the convention! We're trying to incorporate as many bloggers, commenters and netroot activists as possible. As such, the first section of the presentation will be various presentations on what is the netroots, blogging, the different kinds, etc.

Then, there will be three break-out sessions:

A. Netroots 101: teaching people the basics (ex. how to create a username and post at Bluemassgroup or Blogger.com). If this sounds like something that interests you, please make a note of it in the comments - or email me.

B. Netroots 201: technical tools to help your blogging and online activism - such as video blogging, podcasting, blog tools such as Digg, etc. If this sounds like something that interests you, please make a note of it in the comments - or email me.

C. Netroots Roundtable. We're going to need a number of bloggers and netroots activists on a panel for discussion, but it's also just as important to have veterans in the audience to make sure it's a real give and take. Consider this less a panel where people talk down to others, and more a round table like that of the Arthurian Legends (which, I guess, makes the Internet our Excalibur). If this sounds like something that interests you, please make a note of it in the comments - or email me.

3. Other ways to help.

A. Start blogging about this! We should try to build excitement because an event like this could lead to dozens of new political bloggers and diarists in this state.

B. Come and critique the panel. We need to learn what we did good and what we could improve on. Did we miss anything? Could anything be skipped? The presentation at the DSC Convention is the beginning, not the end, so it's important to that BlogLeft take something away from it beyond recruiting new talent.

C. Take the presentation on tour. Ultimately, a personal goal for this entire project is to create a major blogger workshop pilot so we can form the basis of something that bloggers can take on the road. There are Town Committees, League of Women Voters and Progressive Democrat chapters that need to see this presentation, because they need to be blogging about the things they're already doing everyday in their community anyway, in order to maximize their effectiveness and increase the information available to the community beyond the shoddy reporting at local weeklies. This is the best, grassroots shot at growing the netroots movement in Massachusetts - and this is the best way anyone here can do their part to expand it. I hope we'll eventually have dozens of people involved in this aspect.

FYI: the Convention will be at the Tsongas arena in Lowell on June 7th. However, our workshop will actually be at Lowell High School. It's cosponsored by both BlogLeft Mass and the DSC Subcommittee on Communications. The workshop will begin at approx. 3pm.

BlogLeft's Next Big Action

First, I wanted to issue a big thank you to everyone who came to last Saturday's event - and all those who were in there in spirit. We definitely represent some of the most active, hardcore citizens in the state - and it's that 20 person dinner and a discussion in life that so often is the catalyst for change. I apologize that it's taken me a few days to get this info and wrap-up out, but I've been waiting to hear about exciting news that I'll detail below.

First, however, let's give a brief wrap-up for those who were there in spirit only, or who had to leave early. It was big (22 people!), it was messy and it was fun. It couldn't have turned out better, from my view, because it accomplished all of Lynne and I's goals: it was a great opportunity to match names (and screen names) to faces, meet up with old friends in the community and, most importantly, to see where we're all at. Now we know what people are interested in doing both short term, medium, and maybe even long.

Saturday was step one in reaching our community's promise in the effort to create a better Massachusetts, and since then step two is well on its way. The basic gist of what most people were interested in last week was creating more events across the state that would expand and empower the grassroots and netroots to those who'd like to be involved, but aren't. Specifically, most people were interested holding forums that would teach people the blog and netroot ropes. To that end, many of us who attended the meeting have been very busy since: last Saturday, it was the group's wish to hold its first such forum at the State's Democratic Party Convention. It's not official yet, but it's looking like that's going to happen (still ironing out some details).

So that's the short term goal. The medium term goal would be to take the first forums we hold at the convention as a concept test run and create a version meant specifically for local communities, where any blogger would be able to host a small group and show them the ropes. For example, if there aren't any blogs in your community - and you think that's a bad thing (it is) - why not talk with the Town or Ward Democratic Committee, or another local activist group, and see if they'd be interested in a how-to-blog event? It may be enough to kick start a new town blog, or to bring that citizen base and grassroots talent to already-existing local community blogs like Below Boston.

If anyone is interested in this, please let me know. We're still looking for a few volunteers to give the group input and insight on exactly what to talk about - both in terms of blogging in general, as well as the technical side of blogging - and there's still talk about whether or not to hold a booth at the convention, which would take even more volunteers as well as a small fundraising effort, since booths do cost money (not too much though). I hope people enjoyed themselves last Saturday, will be looking forward to our future meet-up events and, most importantly, are excited for all the focused, organized, efficient and effective work ahead - I know I am.

Sustaining the Blogosphere

The Road to Joy

As anyone who reads this blog probably knows by now, bloggers and those who read them are about as far removed from the description of D.C.'s pundits as P-Town is from San Diego. The closest connection between the set of two is the fact that Route Six links both places - and I am the rare exception of a video-game playing, twenty-something blogger living with his mother. The reality is I'm about ten years younger than the next youngest Bay State blogger that I know of - though you'd never know that by looking at her pretty complexion, completely devoid of the typical signs of aging that comes with one's 30s.

In fact, Lynne is the inspiring force of this particular blog about blogging. Despite her foray into the world of blogging, where she spends so much time, and the fact that the incentives for bloggers are paltry at best (an audience of some, civic pride?), she's in the process of putting on the finishing touches to a house she just bought with Mr. Lynne. The important point is the funds that went into buying that house certainly didn't come from LeftinLowell, despite its success as a local blog and the time Lynne puts into it daily, which is very indicative of the precarious nature of being a regular person in the blogosphere: it's accessible only to some and doesn't lend itself well to people who'd like to be committed to its success as a newly developing institution in America, imperative to our society today - yet have other, even more important, time constraints.

One of the reasons why most pundits are wrong and bloggers (and those who read them) tend to be in their 30s to 50s is the fact that it takes so much time and energy to participate that younger people - living on raman and college loans - can't join in the fun. Heck, as Jane Hamsher notes, that's one reason why less women engage in the blogosphere than men - after they get home from work, women often end up doing a majority of the house work and tending to the tykes. It's no different for twenty somethings: they're either poor-as-all-hell college students, trying to finish their papers, or they're even poorer, trying to pay off their college loans, credit card debts they were undoubtedly preyed into spending while desperately broke in college - and the thousands a year it costs to rent on a pay check that looks more like a stipend than respectable salary for a hard day's work. The things this society asks certain groups of people to do makes it almost impossible for them to be fully engaged citizens - participating in the netroots or otherwise.

For the netroots to ever become a sustainable institution, where people can work on issues long enough to develop the respect necessary to make an impact, blogs have to become a place where everyone is truly welcome. It has to become a place where people are beckoned by more than their own pride and desire to be active Americans, because if the blogs don't become that place eventually the economic realities of society will take over for almost every person - meaning we'll lose our most talented writers and thinkers and the trust they've accumulated. That could come in the form of a local Lowell blogger who may eventually find an expensive need for one of those empty rooms in her new house, or a 20 something blogger who just got a new job and doesn't have the same kind of time to invest on the important issues facing his home state. Both, for all we know, could happen sooner rather than later.

There are a lot of forms such beckoning could take. In fact, we've already seen a few either in blogging or similar areas: think tanks, more mainstream journalism, funds from advertisements or employment in the same sector of the actual blog (creating additional incentive to write daily). Time Magazine's hiring of Ms. Wonkette was an early signal of how a popular blogger could enter into the realm where she could actually continue to blog as a profession. Illustrative of how important her continued voice is, she was one of the key people to spread Mitt's dog story beyond the pages of the Boston Globe. Campaigns can become another source for bloggers to branch out; many have already hired bloggers in various roles - from consultants to organizers to actual campaign bloggers. There's employment opportunities to allow the blogosphere's best to stay in the community, but not nearly enough.

The hiring of Ms.-Wonkette-calibre bloggers is only going to become more common, but what about bloggers who, instead of writing about the inanity that goes on, are more focused on actual issues (and probably less frequently read)? To get more serious analysis and less Daily-Show-esque blogs, the netroots needs to develop institutions that are like think tanks. We're going to have to create nonprofits that raise funds through private contributors interested in developing important thought in those particular areas. There could be think tank blogs that focus on media criticism, or important state blogs focusing on issues that not even local papers tend to work on. The think tanks could extend beyond blogging, too, becoming a place to link what's written online with active community engagement - sort of like Moveon.org, but local.

This kind of effort would be crucial to society all over, but wouldn't be profitable enough for newspapers and magazines to take a leap of faith. Yet, the fact that certain issues aren't profitable doesn't mean they're any less imperative for society than the money-sucking public infrastructure we all gladly use every day (wait a minute, we're neglecting that, too). What bloggers unearth reverberates throughout society, changing the discourse on everything from the Bush administration's shenanigans to conventional wisdom. Subsequently, without institutions to provide funding for serious research and journalistic integrity that rarely exists at the New York Times today, the blogosphere will never reach its crescendo.

Sadly, knowing how to maintain the netroots hasn't brought us any closer to actually doing it. It's a matter of organizing and developing the will, something we're not experts at yet. It's also a matter of depending on activists that don't write every day; writing sucks away the time that's necessary to fundraise and creatively create. Yet, it's no small order to organize and still participate in some form, making that a full time job in and of itself. Certainly, the answer isn't in online advertising: despite the fact that tens of thousands of people have viewed Ryan's Take, Google Ads has generated $99.80 since I joined up late in 2006. It may just pay for all the gas I've spent covering events across the state, but not much else. Online ads fostered the biggest blogs, fully establishing our community, but it will never bring issue-oriented and local blogs to a place of sustainability (unless there's significant change that's unlikely to come from the likes of Google). Private institutions and campaigns help, but aren't the answer either. They filter out what makes the blogosphere unique: the abrasiveness that's engaged a nation and unearthed untold numbers of important stories isn't welcome in Conventional Wisdom Land.

Clearly, developing netroot think tanks is the only way to sustain research on specific topics, especially at state levels, and to push our goals from sea to shining sea. It's the only way to allow activists and bloggers alike to reach for the top and truly make the most of our potential, creating a better America from the ground up. All of these tools, especially additional organizations, can allow the netroots to grow and truly change the country. Otherwise, the constraints of real life will eventually force people to give up on the netroots - stunting a budding movement in its tracks.

Blue Mass Group

Let me preface this with the fact that I never wanted to write a blog about this. David, Charley and Bob have created a great website that has been an asset for a very long time now. It isn't a big blog in Massachusetts; it's the blog in Massachusetts. Sadly, that isn't a good thing. It's been the epicenter of a lot of new traffic that old users aren't exactly thrilled about - and not everyone is so good at ignoring those voices as I am (if anyone could call me good at doing that). A lot of people have been complaining about it to me lately - almost imploring me to do or say something about it. I guess it's time that I do - so here's Ryan's Take:

I recently read that two of my favorite commenters over at BMG have left - apparently forever. Some have applauded their decision; some understand, while others disagree profusely. Here's Bob's take, an Editor of Blue Mass Group:

People shouldn't be so tender they can't bear to listen to opposing arguments.

In a way, he's actually right. People should be a little more thick-skinned in life. It's so very easy to offend anyone and everyone that suddenly we have to be careful about what we say, for example, calling someone an ass (even if they are). However, even though we don't want people to be too tender, calling someone an "ass" is not okay. Swearing is wrong. The very next line of Bob's reply:

They also shouldn't resort to swearing and name-calling.

Is name calling childish and sophomoric? Sure, but sometimes that's the best way to greet certain trollish posts - after all, trolls only troll to get people to waste their time and piss 'em off. That's the nature of a troll. So, if two of my favorite commenters occasionally dabbled in flinging an ass across the table (and let's not forget, they're both probably registered Democrats), is it really all that bad?

Certainly, BMG has been seeing a few trolls around these days - often under the guise of serious thinkers (/sarcasm off). Sometimes, they're a bit more obvious. A troll here and there wouldn't be a problem - but suddenly, these trolls are having their dairies on the recommended list and a third or more of replies of some posts are far more offensive to many people than name-calling. After all, what's worse - being called an ass or being told you're a fornicating homo who shouldn't be allowed to have children - and should be subject to citizen's arrest if and when marriage equality is repealed.

Which leads me to my next point: the intentions of the website. David, Charley and Bob never intended Blue Mass Group to be a "progressive website." In other words, they've always sought out the thoughts and opinions of people of all stripes. Finally, after a lot of hard work, their efforts have paid off: Republican Rock Radio Machine has 129 comments since the beginning of February. Sadly, that's not necessarily a bad thing. How can the editors of BMG avoid the Rock Radios, when they say they want people of all stripes? Certainly, there's room in the blogosphere for "reality-based commentary" that has fantastical replies and isn't always progressive in nature - which gets me to my final point, the last snippet of that Bob reply reads thusly,

How seriously can one take someone who won't engage in debate and spikes their comments with invective? Not very.

True enough, but like I say, some people have confused the purpose of Blue Mass Group, in a way that doesn't line up with the editors' intentions. Many progressive, liberal and moderate readers coming to Blue Mass Group have come with the intentions of developing progressive ideas and strategies - BMG has benefited tremendously from their presence, especially when these people were the bulk of who comprised Blue Mass Group from the beginning through recent days.

However, a certain frustration has brewed under the pretenses that BMG is a progressive website when it clearly is not. Even well-intentioned conservative commenters (who I personally like), such as Peter Porcupine, piss off those people - especially when their dairies are being promoted and the editors routinely praise their contributions.

Finally, a lot of people have had it - and we've seen that in several ways. People have stopped commenting at BMG. People have come to Ryan's Take to frequently complain about BMG, even when the specific blog isn't about anything related to BMG at all. Still, I know of two efforts to create unified websites that would - in some way - serve as an alternative to Blue Mass Group.

It's at this time I'm reminded that "preaching to the choir is wrong." I'm reminded of an acquaintance of mine, a fellow UMASS Dartmouth student who also writes at BMG, JoeTS. He wrote an important dairy about why he writes at Blue Mass Group - when he's an active College Republican and conservative in nature. Essentially, if all he did was go to Hub Politics - scary red territory if there was any - then he'd be doing himself a disservice. He wouldn't be pushing his ideas on the most hostile minds, who would poke every conceivable hole. He wouldn't be listening to people with alternative viewpoints. Truly, he's one of the good-guy conservatives I typically get along with.

However, there are many reasons to write at a particular website. We all have different purposes. Sometimes, an insulated environment can be a bonus - fully develop your idea before a million people come to try to rip it to shreds. Alternately, it can be about organizing and building a movement locally. Or, seeking out the opinions of progressives who may not necessarily agree with an idea - when people like Sens. Jon Tester and Jim Webb are considered part of the movement, clearly we don't all think alike. A progressive website, geared toward the progressive movement, may well be better served by catering to a progressive audience. It's not being soft-skinned, unwilling to debate or even preaching to the choir; it's developing your ideas and building your movement.

BMG isn't that website and isn't that movement. It's editors may be a part of that movement, but their website is all-encompassing and different. Ultimately, there's room for more active websites in Massachusetts like Blue Mass Group, but obviously different in its intentions. Clearly, Blue Mass Group - as it's become more and more successful - is becoming the general Massachusetts blog. Progressive people have come to find out that it isn't a progressive website - a fact I learned at least as early as this past summer, when David told me that directly. It's not a bad thing, it's just different than what some people have come to expect. Other websites - communities - will emerge and the Massachusetts section of the blogosphere will become a more diverse, better place. Until then, I leave my Final Take: I understand - and share - in the frustrations of certain readers and commenters, but sadly Blue Mass Group has become the place its editors always wanted it to be.

Meeting Mr. Patrick

Governor Patrick's having a little blogger conference this coming Saturday and he's encouraged invited bloggers to bring questions from our readers. I haven't thought of exactly what I want to talk about, so reader input is appreciated.

Questions you won't hear coming out of my mouth include, but are not limited to,

"What's your favorite kind of Cadillac?"

"I need a reference, could you make a phone call?"

"Do you recommend Ethan Allen as a furniture company?"

In fact, I'm not asking anything about any of these manufactured stories... I'm much more interested in his intentions for the new people-powered campaign to fix Massachusetts. I'm much more interested in his plans to bring the Bay State into the 21st Century. There's some exciting things going on in the Patrick Administration and, after this Saturday, I hope I can tell readers about a few of them.

Google Asked for It; the Blogosphere is Paying for It

It had to happen sooner or later: Youtube is being hit for a billion dollars by Viacomm in a nasty lawsuit, money Viacomm is probably more than happy to pry from Google's hands. More importantly, it's the media's message to the internet: stop the copyright infringements or else. In some ways, it's just like what happened to Napster and other internet music (stealing) software, except for the fact that youtube - in large part - has an almost altruistic sense: catching a moment of truth on film. Obviously, the potential loss of youtube has serious implications for bloggers (and readers) everywhere. Expect a lot of deleted content, which sucks not only for blogging, but also the truth.

This battle isn't new. The blogosphere recently fought a huge campaign against C-SPAN - and largely won. C-SPAN was trying to claim that it owned the rights to congressional floor debates, despite the fact that government cameras were used to film the speeches. However, C-SPAN largely caved into the blogosphere (and Nancy Pelosi) because they had no legal leg to stand on, since the government truly owned the rights to those videos. The fight didn't really clear up any standard practices of acceptable internet video usage, so here we are with a much bigger challenge to online videos.

The question of standards is still there, practically omnipresent as almost every blogger has violated copyrights at some point or another (basically everyone that's posted a youtube, for starters). Obviously, something is wrong here and things need to change: the copyright policies of old just don't mix with internet reality. Since it's in the public's best interest to allow some content to be posted online, we may need to go back and take a look at copyright policies.

Do bloggers go too far? Certainly, many of them do. Way too many blogs print paragraphs and paragraphs from newspapers - or even the entire story. Posting 10 or 20 minute videos (since they truly aren't clips at that point) is equally offensive. However, more and more bloggers are realizing that hypocrisy and have changed suit. You don't see any gigantic postings from columns on Kos, BMG or any other respectable blogs nowadays (including mine).

There aren't any easy answers. A lot of what exists currently is solid. For example, blogs are allowed to quote up to three paragraphs from any newspaper story. Three paragraphs is a lot, but not so much that it infringes on the media's investment in creating the story. Blogs can now post unlimited amounts of videos from C-SPAN's coverage of Senate and House floor debates . However, that leaves a gaping hole in ability to use print photos and clips from the telly. Currently, the only legal usage of clips have to be eight seconds or less. At best, eight seconds would make us no better than a CNN or Fox News - companies that use tiny quotes that take things out of context and don't really tell the story. Yet, extremely long clips are unfair for the businesses that actually pay for these operations. Furthermore, is there any fair way to use pictures at all?

I only see two ways out of this mess for both bloggers and the media - none of which help Google. The first is possibility is to create a fair compromise position. Leaders in the blogosphere and media could come together and develop a fair new practices, or perhaps the government could get involved. Surely, both sides can come up with some kind of compromise position: for example, maybe posted video clips could be limited to 2 minutes of total time from a single episode. A new policy could help all sides: bloggers could be allowed to tell their story without worry, while the media would benefit from online viral buzz - essentially free advertisement.

The only other way for companies to stop the rampant copyright infringement is for each company to create a service that could not only compete with youtube, but be even better. If Viacomm or Turner Broadcasting doesn't want people posting videos of their content online, they're going to have to provide new services for people to embed content directly to their own websites. However, the companies would have to offer almost the entire episode on TV and do it in a way that people could pick and choose what clips - from the entire episode - they could post. Otherwise, if companies only offer a few minutes here and a few minutes there, peopel will look to independent videos anyway. If people could go to ComedyCentral.com and pick any 2 minute clip from last night's Daily Show and post it on their websites, they would. While this option has a lot of potential for bloggers and companies (the one's with the best websites would get the most viewers), it would also be prohibitively expensive to create that kind of a website.

Sadly, for youtube's case, none of these solutions could ever come in place in time to save it from Viacomm. Youtube seems doomed to lose its dominance as the place to go for bloggers. While Google has no ability to prevent people from posting copyright material, that was by design. It's what made the website so great. However, when Google bought the company and suddenly a mega-corporation owned it, it almost assuredly became a target. It's one thing for a couple of geeks to run a website with vagrant violations; it's another for a huge company. Based on the fact that Napster's defense failed years ago, Viacomm is likely going to win this round. Google will probably settle out of court.

Once that happens - and other companies realize they can sue too - Google will almost surely change how youtube works or at the very least quickly delete videos almost as soon as their posted. In other words, youtube as a means to post important viral clips online to influence the news and politics seems poised to die. It's actually been dying for a while. However, if some kind of compromise or new use of technology isn't advanced, companies will never be able to stop new youtubes from emerging - there are already several companies on the rise. It's in the media's best interest to work with the blogosphere in creating a fair compromise on posting content online, because not even a billion-dollar lawsuit is going to scare people from reporting the truth.

The MSM/Blogger Divide

Recently, Joan Vennochi and I have been trading emails. I thought her web column was unfair, she thought my "Laziest Article Yet" blog was, well, equally unfair. Of course, the constant barrage of articles that have hurt Deval slightly, at least in the mean time, haven't put me in a good place of mind - and whenever that happens, we tend to retreat to what we know best. A lot of what I had to say in terms of media critique was true and I stick behind it; however, when Vennochi emailed me this afternoon she said something poignant that was sort of a small epiphany.

I realized that it's very easy to sit here at my computer, read an article and find 20 holes in it - just like it's easy to sit in the backseat of a car and tell the driver he or she is speeding, or should have stopped sooner. Does that mean the person wasn't speeding or shouldn't have stopped sooner? Of course not. The media has made some mistakes in these stories and, in large part, I've pointed them out. It's important to do that.

However, I should have done that with the same understanding that Vennochi mentioned. It's not easy to get a story exactly right as a singular writer or even organization, as we all live within a bubble. Furthermore, even with an editor, the same editors are the ones reading from the same authors, every day. The environment that's created is still insulated and incapable of thinking about all the different facets of the story. That's not a knock on the media or the Globe because, as I've indicated quite clearly on this post, I'm obviously suspectible to it too.

Joan Vennochi was sparked to send me an email today based on a comment I made on BMG. First, I should applaud any Globe writer who's spending that kind of time actually reading the comments on blogs - because, as any frequent comment-reader can attest, that takes dedication. In the comment (and on an earlier blog today), I criticized Lisa Wangsness for not interviewing bloggers - and instead ripping their quotes off a website. Doing so eliminates any chance for bloggers to qualify statements in a thoughtful manner, so I found it somewhat annoying. Yet, the way I expressed my annoyance almost automatically assumed Lisa was doing it to sensationalize the story, but Vennochi disagreed.

Every day, bloggers comment on what journalists write, without ever calling the journalist in question to ask for additional perspective,explanation, etc.

Let's be honest, it would be nearly impossible to do that, be it because there are just so many bloggers, so few journalists or the fact that it's rare to see a full-time blogger - and they have to keep up their day jobs.

To further complicate the matter, while bloggers can write as much as they want and as frequently as they want, Vennochi made the equally poignant point in our emails that writers in the media have strict word limits in which to tell their stories. They can't get every viewpoint, factoid or side of the story in any article. It's as equally impossible as every blogger calling a particular journalist before they criticized their work.

So what do we all do? How do we bridge this MSM/Blogger Divide? For one thing, we need to develop better relationships. Vennochi obviously understands that; she's done quite a bit to reach out to bloggers in this situation. Furthermore, maybe when bloggers criticize the media - which is necessary - we need to focus more on being constructive and less on being snarky and personal. I'll readily admit: that's a hard sell. Half the reason people read blogs is to see what will slip by a blogger's fingers and for the giggles. Yet, it's a tight rope that must be crossed.

However, that's not where it should stop. Any blogger will admit this: bloggers need the media - and the media greatly benefits from bloggers. When I'm harsh on the Globe - or other media sources - it isn't because I hate the Globe or the media, it's because I love to hate it. In fact, I devour it like a vampire who loves humans. So it's important that the MSM and blogosphere develop a better relationship. Ultimately, most of us want the same thing.

Don't get me wrong; I don't think we should necessarily be "friends" - to see how bad that kind of relationship can be, ask Judy Miller. After all, she protected her "friends" even when they were lying to her about Iraq, without having to worry about any risks due to the anonymity Miller granted. No, we need a relationship that's more like a friendly rivalry - two groups of people who really like each other, yet always try to outdo one an other when it comes to the big game. They're the kind of people who are willing to work together in order to achieve success, even though they're on different teams and have different goals.

How do we get that to work? There are probably hundreds of things we should do, but today I'm going to offer one idea. Maybe what we need to do is further develop the concept of citizen-journalists. A lot of bloggers out there consider themselves citizen journalists: they're the type of people who write about stories that the media may not cover or cover well enough. Often, they break stories that the media covers later. They're the type of people who do a lot of good. In a day and age when one of the reasons why the media comes under more criticism than ever is, in great part, because they've had to cut back on real journalists due to a lack of resources, citizen journalists could be the cure.

With thousands of citizens out there who are already investigating, doing serious research and then blogging about it, it's time someone tap into their full potential. I don't think someone has to be a genius to figure out there's a mutual opportunity here: the media can both create, find, develop and publish important stories - with a cost-effective, outsider's perspective - and create a better, mutually beneficial relationship with the kinds of people who both blog and read blogs. Furthermore, writers and editors would be exposed to new people who would stop the stifling insulation. Bloggers, on the other hand, would benefit from creating relationships with real, professionally trained journalists. Both sides would work together and better understand each other, ultimately bridging the difficult gap Vennochi pointed out to me today, when I checked my email. Maybe then, stories in the media and bloggers would be better and finally settle into roles that befit this new generation of news.

Updates:

First, I probably should have mentioned one other thing Vennochi mentioned: the MSM has to deal with something that bloggers, largely, don't. Bloggers, including me, can be mean. Journalists and columnists are at a disadvantage - they're supposed to be unbiased (Howie Carr notwithstanding). From here on out, when it comes to dealing with the media, I'm going to try to be more constructive and less snarky. It pains me to say that, because I love the snark (and, indeed, the Globe has loved it too; when directed at politicians, I've been linked to Globe blogs multiple times when writing snarky posts about candidates), but the snark certainly will subvert any attempts at improving blogger-MSM relationships.

Second, the following only deals with the periphery of this post: My earlier subject title today, "Boston Globe: Laziest Article Ever" was, well, not accurate. If it would do any good to change it, I would, but the way blogger.com is set up makes changing titles almost useless - all it would serve to do is break links. Lisa Wangsness wasn't lazy and, in even bothering to read the blogosphere at all, showed at least curiosity that should be applauded. Her piece was still wrong in at least one key way: two bloggers from one site doth not equal the entire blogosphere, even if they are two of the most well-read bloggers. However, it was a mischaracterization to call that lazy. Poor word choice on my part.