Gawker Makes Shit Up About AP, Criticizes Them for It
Gawker. Gaaawker. Ugh. For every really good John Cook post that makes me think “the site’s heart is in the right place they’re just page-view whores like everyone else” there’s a post like today’s Associated Press Wants Your Plane Crash Porn.
Ostensibly about how an Associated Press editor is looking for photos of Hudson River’s helicopter-plane joust, the post begins “Ardent defender of their words and content, the Associated Press is now taking their talk to the streets! Where are their photo editors are trolling for pictures of today’s crash these days?”
Project much? Fuck me, Foster. Sure. the douchebags at AP have been a bit ridiculous in their copyright claims against epic douchebag Shepard Fairey but this is actually a case where they seem to be backing their words and want to pay people for their work (or luck). Damn.
Also, since we’re being petty bitches: In your speed to make a (not even relevant) funny about the AP you made an editorial mistake that assures you’ll probably never write copy for the AP. So quickly it seems that you did it twice: “Do you have good plane crash porn? Hit the AP up! They want to buy it and you make you a stah.” (Nice quick correct. BUT!: see screengrabs.)
Again, what’s the point here? The AP wants to pay people for their work instead of, you know, stealing it like most bloggers? How TERRIBLE of them.
Gawker also is quick to call the photos that the AP is looking for “crash porn,” while at the same time running (amateur photos of a picture on a TV!) of the crash taking place in the air. What’s more pornographic than that? In the comments Foster defends himself:
“ I thought the picture was important and great, and not “Crash Porn” on your part of documenting the incident. It became “porn” when the AP was so desperate for something, they hit you up for rights to it, getting ready to shill for cash.”
Mmmmmmm, yeah. Shill for cash? You mean “engage in a normal journalistic transaction that happens all the time with amateur pics and videos and news organizations?” Dos that mean Gawker “shills” for un-photoshopped mag cobers? And if that’s just a “shill,” what special word needs to be used for Denton’s own addmittance that he’d pay for sources: “I’d love to have [TMZ’s] reputation–as the place you go if you want to make a buck.”