See what others have said

Note from Michelle: This section is for comments from michellemalkin.com's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that I agree with or endorse any particular comment just because I let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with my terms of use may lose his or her posting privilege.

Comments

1. #1
   On March 15th, 2008 at 10:29 pm, et said:

   Do as I say not as I do. Or it seems the AP has a little Spitzer in them too.

2. #2
   On March 15th, 2008 at 10:51 pm, Marshall Russ said:

   I’ve seen and heard enough of the poor little, rich, spoiled brat.

3. #3
   On March 15th, 2008 at 10:52 pm, ajmontana said:

   AarP
   Soon to be extinct.

4. #4
   On March 15th, 2008 at 11:20 pm, meatpieandtatters said:

   AP=Absolutely Pathetic

5. #5
   On March 15th, 2008 at 11:35 pm, beenthere said:

   I would hope that people would grasp the significance as a principle in what the AP is doing. Perhaps it is regrettable that the issue is being cast in terms of treatment of a blogger as compared to the treatment of Ms. Dupre’s pictures. It is a matter of principle and sometimes that is where it leads us.

   Let’s not be squeamish about this. As Mark Steyn states (and he ought to know), quoting from memory, “failure to support free speech you find objectionable is not to support freedom of speech at all.” Failure to denounce the blatant hypocrisy of what the AP has done with Ms. Dupre’s pictures — while they are simultaneously sending their jerk lawyers after a blogger for fair use — is failure to support fair use at all.

   Messy business, that freedom thing. Agreed?

6. #6
   On March 16th, 2008 at 12:39 am, meatpieandtatters said:

   AP=Annoying Putz’s

7. #7
   On March 16th, 2008 at 12:40 am, meatpieandtatters said:

   AP=Another Pimple

8. #8
   On March 16th, 2008 at 12:40 am, meatpieandtatters said:

   AP=Animal’s Pile

9. #9
   On March 16th, 2008 at 12:46 am, SHoward said:

   AP = All Pretend

10. #10
    On March 16th, 2008 at 1:05 am, allrsn said:

    It is a very simple concept: socialism at work.

11. #11
    On March 16th, 2008 at 2:14 am, puhiawa said:

    Strangely enough, I believe the MSM considers themselves not only above the law, and Congress is no help here with these silly exemptions from testimony bills, but a part of the government. Watching arrogant fools like John King make one think that these uneducated halfwits consider themselves as decision makers.

12. #12
    On March 16th, 2008 at 6:42 am, meatpieandtatters said:

    I think a lot of people don’t realize that all news-related entities are in business to make money. AP just like CNN or MSNBC create and sell copy. They’re profit-driven. This whole idea of objectivity and that journalists exist to keep politicians honest is pure crap. Because they write the stories they ignore their ethical conflicts. Only when it suits them do they eat their own.

    By the way, when was the last time you read about an important news person who was caught with a prostitute? Media and politics=the opposites ends of the same pile.

13. #13
    On March 16th, 2008 at 6:53 am, zorro said:

    Another death rattle of the main stream press (I hope).

    They’re profit-driven.

    Exactly right meatpie. There was a time when news divisions were not profit centers. It must have been the late 60′s when broadcast media decided that the news divisions had to carry their own weight. The focus immediately switched to the sensational for the purpose of selling more ads.

14. #14
    On March 16th, 2008 at 9:47 am, DBNinKY said:

    Patteric.com

    “And Instapundit agrees with me that Ledbetter has a better fair use argument than does the AP.”

    Ditto to the max! Also, Steyn’s “DuPre” remark was very funny!

15. #15
    On March 16th, 2008 at 9:51 am, meatpieandtatters said:

    How about former AP reporter Tony Loci who wrote about the government scientist accusing him of being behind the anthrax attacks? Without any evidence to speak of, she, using her sources, named him in her story forever associating him with the act. Whether or not he’s to blame, and thus far no evidence has shown he is, the fact that a media entity can blow jive across their considerable infrastructure and rope some poor bastar# into their reach, for me, this is a rather frightening power. The idea that they could moan about misuse of their images while simultaneously stealing someone else’s photos is ALL TOO BELIEVABLE from the clan who make situational ethics look like riding a children’s tricycle.

16. #16
    On March 16th, 2008 at 10:44 am, USMCgramma said:

    And the correction will appear where? In the want ads?

17. #17
    On March 16th, 2008 at 11:24 am, geminicontender said:

    ass-propos

18. #18
    On March 16th, 2008 at 6:37 pm, slp said:

    On March 16th, 2008 at 12:39 am, meatpieandtatters said:
    AP=Annoying Putz’s

    You need an editor [from AP]?

    ‘s is for possessive.

    s or es for plural.

    I am not expert enough to know whether putzs or putzes is correct.

19. #19
    On March 17th, 2008 at 9:25 am, JohnHolliday said:

    Without any evidence to speak of, she, using her sources, named him in her story forever associating him with the act…for me, this is a rather frightening power.

    You hit the nail on the head, meatpieandtatters.

    This always been a sticky point for me with the press vs. the police. When a police officer needs to get a warrant, first, he must get an affidavit swearing to the crime. If the officer uses a source as the claimant, he must produce that source if the defense requests. Officers I know will let the warrant fall because they don’t want to give up their source. So, a criminal gets away.

    With the press, the power is much more vast. They can fake a source and claim freedom of the press to not produce the source. So something even worse than an abuse of police power is at work; a person may lose their reputation. Read John Lott’s book, “Freedom-nomics” for the best discussion on the loss of reputations.

    So, the police can’t put you in jail, but the press can destroy your reputation with impunity. The main stream press is such scum.

20. #20
    On March 17th, 2008 at 9:44 am, Ocracoke said:

    I am not expert enough to know whether putzs or putzes is correct.

    Putzes–you need separation between the two similarly sounding consonants.

21. #21
    On June 20th, 2008 at 7:06 pm, bradley said:

    Ironically, copyright laws don’t protect people as much as they think. Unless you are suing in Federal Court (all copyright suits are Federal) for more than $150,000 in damages, they don’t want to hear from you. I had a copyright attorney tell me that my potential copyright suit, against a former client that used my work without paying for it in certain venues, wouldn’t be accepted in Federal Court in Chicago, since it would clog the courts. I was only suing for $50,000. In other words, as he said, I was doubly screwed-by my former client AND by the copyright court system.