The Associated Press have dug themselves a hole, which can be best described as their own grave. One would of thought that the Associated Press would of  not pissed off the bloggers of the world in their attempt to regenerate revenues that they themselves are losing. Here is the real scope on why AP is acting so erratic these past few weeks.

It seems that AP woke up one morning and took notice that when a story was run through Google, they were not coming up at the top of the list. It was also being noticed by some newspaper folks that they were getting better local news coverage from other internet sources and not from AP.  Yes, the bloggers were doing a better job that AP. So a number of newspapers apparently made mention of this:

A few weeks back the editor of the Cleveland Plain Dealer, on “On the Media”, talked about how newspapers in Ohio were reaping great benefits trading material, and linking and cross linking. More importantly, she said she was no longer reliant on The Associated Press for her stories from the region but instead was getting the original versions direct from other sources around the state rather than paying “a big chunk” of her budget, about $1 million, for rewritten AP stories. Picking up directly, on the Web, and putting other papers’ stories directly in the newspaper was also better quality, she said, and readers were noticing:

“I mean, we’ve always had access to news from all over the state. It was just, you know, it went through the AP mill. I frankly think we’re getting better, more distinctively written stories because they’re not going through the AP mill.”

If local papers skip the AP, that means the core constituency is in revolt. That will potentially be more corrosive than the fight with the blogosphere over fair use. “As long as there are are two papers to trade articles, the AP will exist,” one rake at the wire service — where I worked for seven years on the international desk and as a foreign correspondent — quipped to me once. But what if the members form their own cooperatives and cut out the AP as middleman?

So AP retaliated against the blogging community and decided to charge for their quotes, attack those who would quote them and also decided to have their own set of rules that they would have in place to circumvent the fair use policies.

Which comes to the title of this article. Why is Bloomberg and Reuters better than AP? Neither Bloomberg nor Reuters is supporting AP nor are they attacking the bloggers of the world. As of this moment, both are respecting fair use. With this in mind the blogging community should use Bloomberg and Reuter sources and not use any AP sources in any of their stories.

Comments welcome.