I seem to recall the 'Media Bloggers Association' from 2006, when it was being used to screen the 'undesirables' (read: liberal blogs) during election coverage. Clearly it hasn't made inroads abong bloggers since then.

Posted June 18, 2008 11:09 AM by P J Evans

This is an old ploy. It's the old 'house union' given new form. The big boys create the 'token opposition' negotiate with them to create the form of negotiation, tell the 'opposition' what to say, announce a 'deal'. And the naïve may be taken in.

Posted June 18, 2008 11:11 AM by Fragano Ledgister

Still to come: The Adoration of the Credentials, a bad Wikipedia entry, an interesting tidbit in a Salon letter column, writing Firedoglake out and Robert Cox in, the Newsweek connection, Oliver Willis held blameless, the MBA's hastily rejiggered Membership page, the quest for a membership list, the case of the Maine Blogger, revelations of the Wayback Machine, and Walt Willis and Bob Shaw.

Posted June 18, 2008 11:16 AM by Teresa Nielsen Hayden

P J Evans, you do indeed remember that.

Fragano, I think the Associated Press knows that that's what's going on, but I'm not sure Robert Cox knows it.

Posted June 18, 2008 11:17 AM by Teresa Nielsen Hayden

I once elevated myself to Cardinal of the Washington Archdiocese of the Church of Secular Humanism.

But nobody noticed.

Posted June 18, 2008 11:22 AM by theophylact

I'm backing the Great Orange Satan on this one.

Posted June 18, 2008 11:35 AM by Lizzy L

It looks like Robert Cox is getting snippy about people questioning his group's authority.

Posted June 18, 2008 11:38 AM by Jason Pitzl-Waters

First time tragedy, second time farce?

Posted June 18, 2008 11:43 AM by Michael Roberts

For more information about his blog, you should CALL HIM. Because that's how bloggers trade information - via long-distance telephone call.

Posted June 18, 2008 11:44 AM by CB

I first heard of the MBA during the Libby trial, when they pulled the same ploy of claiming they represent "the bloggers" and tried to be the gatekeepers for who got press credentials. Fortunately, the judge didn't buy it, and more fortunately, the judge did accept the idea that bloggers were worthy of press credentials. The MBA got one set of credentials, which they shared between a set of bloggers who produced nothing particularly noteworthy, Firedoglake got their own, and produced groundbreaking liveblogging and other coverage that even the mainstream media used as a go-to reference. And we all lived happily ever after. (Well, we're still working on that.)

(Full disclosure: I've been part of the Firedoglake community from near the beginning, so my view of the MBA may be a little biased. But not much. ;-)

Posted June 18, 2008 11:45 AM by Redshift

Hey, how do you find AP stories on Google, anyway? AP doesn't appear on their front page -- just reputable newswires.

Posted June 18, 2008 11:45 AM by Michael Roberts

I like how the MBA site's "Membership" link tells you that sure, we've got members, but we're currently not taking any new ones (haven't, in fact, for nearly a year now) while trying to automate the approval process.

What a load of tripe; there are thousands of blogs that you can subscribe to electronically, and this guy's saying it's taking him a YEAR to figure out how to do it?

For that matter, where's the list of members? Could it be the list is so pitifully small that he's embarrassed to show it? Zero is a pitifully small number too...

Posted June 18, 2008 11:47 AM by John L

Hi, Redshift! Long time not read!

Posted June 18, 2008 11:49 AM by P J Evans

John L@12 Zero is a pitifully small number too

No, no. I'm sure there's at least one name on the membership list.

Possibly even two... :-)

Posted June 18, 2008 11:53 AM by Michael I

Michael #11,

When I use Google, I see the AP heading that you can use under the title of the various news articles.

As my wife has pointed out, AP articles tend to get carried by newspapers all over the nation; if someone linked and quoted excerpts from one of those, does that mean AP could demand the payment or cease and desist for them too?

Posted June 18, 2008 11:53 AM by John L

How long before my favorite cover band, Robert Cox and His Invisible Lawyers, takes the Making Light stage?

Posted June 18, 2008 11:57 AM by ethan

Can I be a member of the Media Bloggers' Association?

Do I need to put a banner on my blog or something?

I need to feel important. It's really all I have. I want to make policy for everyone in spite of all those pesky established laws and stuff. Mostly, though...

I just want the AP to love me.

Posted June 18, 2008 12:00 PM by Dan

The Media Bloggers Association is aware of all internet traditions.

Posted June 18, 2008 12:02 PM by Eric Scharf

Jason@7: I especially like this bit on the "Self-Appointed" page: So let me be clear. The MBA is not a "self-appointed" group seeking to "represent" the blogosphere.

Okay, fine, so you (Robert Cox) won't mind standing down then? You'll tell the AP that a lot of bloggers would actually be pissed about the idea of you speaking for them?

CB@9: Haha...yes. Exactly.

Posted June 18, 2008 12:06 PM by PixelFish

Ya know it seems that the AP is trying to make money to save themselves.

But they are still idiots...and have been for a long time.

Posted June 18, 2008 12:06 PM by Michelle

Michael, #14: One is the loneliest number...

Posted June 18, 2008 12:07 PM by Lee

I had a peek on LinkedIn and found his profile. The "Media Bloggers Association" group shows that it has 171 members (linkedin members, that is, not Association members) but I can't see them without joining the group.

It seems that maybe the MBA helps bloggers defend their rights the way SFWA helps SF writers defend theirs: helping out the people who have asked them, to the detriment of everyone who hasn't.

Posted June 18, 2008 12:16 PM by Mary Dell

Astroturfers and their associates....

Cry "Cheeble" and let loose....

==================

Hmm. A website claiming Authority, which seems to have nothing of any sort regarding material citing achievements and background of key personnel, no history/information about the inception and antecedents and whys and wherefores of the organization, no information about officers.... compare that to e.g. Making Light which on the front page includes,
"Making Light: a weblog by Teresa & Patrick Nielsen Hayden and their many commenters and sometime guests. Because “a better future isn't going to happen by itself.” (Thank you, Kevin Maroney.) More below." with link to who Teresa & Patrick Nielsen Hayden are, and some why/wherefore about Making Light.

Hmm, perhaps I should contemplate starting a site rating service, with such things as ratings for providing information about who is behind the site and why, how comprehensible such information is, how up to date the site is, if the links are working or not and how comprehensive and userfule they are compared to how comprehensive and useful the site says it is.... (That is, a site which says, "here are a few of my favorite links" that has a four or five links, the hype and the reality match assuming that the person actually likes the sites linked go (that involves an assumption which I accept as true unless demonstrated otherwise). A site which claims to list all SF publishers which include paranormal romance epublishers but not Baen, Tor, DAW, Ace, Eos, etc., gets a zero... a site which links to the epublishers and says it's linking to paranormal epublishers, however, is being accurate if/when it links to them). Etc.)

Posted June 18, 2008 12:27 PM by Paula Lieberman

You know, I don't think I've ever mentioned here that I'm the Pope. I have a card and everything. But since titles, organization, and credentials are clearly Very Important in the Modern World, I feel I should let you know.

Posted June 18, 2008 12:27 PM by Clifton Royston

Clifton, I happen to be Prime Minister of the Internet. I just don't like to brag in public. But since you're the Pope, I feel as though I can confide in you.

Posted June 18, 2008 12:35 PM by Michael Roberts

Eric Scharf's #18 made me laugh so hard I spit out my tea. Then again, I knew the inadvertent originator of that meme back when he was a left-of-center blowhard.

Posted June 18, 2008 12:36 PM by Patrick Nielsen Hayden

I note that Mr. Cox responded to a blog comment on another site. In doing so, he quoted a commenter. His quote contained 16 (!!) words. Tsk, tsk, tsk.

I will also be fascinated to hear details about the "hundreds of cases" he alleges to have assisted in. No, actually, he said "we." Royal? Inclusive? Imagined?

Posted June 18, 2008 12:36 PM by Debbie

Cox also doesn't seem to quite understand the issues:

I pointed out to AP that the crux of the problem is that AP has never articulated what exactly it wants from bloggers.

Posted June 18, 2008 12:47 PM by Avram

He isn't really self-appointed. One other blogger asked him for help. (Or maybe even three other bloggers.)

Anybody who claims there's any possible way to represent the blogosphere is either just plain nuts or dishonest.

Posted June 18, 2008 12:49 PM by Seth Breidbart

The more I poke around the less I think they're a sham, actually--"Media Bloggers Association" appears to means "association of people who write blogs on behalf of traditional media companies." So they're in bed with the AP and its membership up to their duodenae, but in a genuine way. Here's their website (as opposed to their blog): http://www.mediabloggers.org/.

For example, check out this bit from Newsweek's in-house political blog.

Newsweek and the Media Bloggers Association (MBA) have launched "The Ruckus," a new group blog about politics for Newsweek.com. The blog will feature posts from nine MBA-member bloggers about the presidential campaign on a single page, giving Newsweek.com readers a convenient sampling of some of the best political blogging from across the country and from key primary states.

" 'The Ruckus' will be a key part of our 2008 campaign coverage," said Deidre Depke, editor of Newsweek.com. "We want to expose Newsweek readers to all the exciting discourse and discussion that is taking place on political blogs today. We think 'The Ruckus' will help introduce readers to a new array of voices and will encourage enlightened political discourse as the '08 race steps into high gear."

But we don't want Newsweek readers to go all crazy and actually read real political blogs; they can play dress-up over here with us instead.

The Media Bloggers Association is a nonpartisan organization dedicated to promoting, protecting and educating its members; supporting the development of "blogging" or "citizen journalism" as a distinct form of media; and helping to extend the power of the press, with all the rights and responsibilities that entails, to every citizen.

MBA Members support the freewheeling expression of ideas and strong personal opinions inherent to blogging but are equally committed to commonly accepted journalistic standards of fairness, accuracy, transparency and accountability in expressing those ideas and opinions.

I guess that's why all of the blog posts on The Ruckus are by "Anonymous."

Posted June 18, 2008 12:50 PM by Mary Dell

Reading the membership page, it looks like a scam. He's offering great discounts on liability insurance, and giving seminars on how bloggers need legal advice and liability insurance. The news articles similarly focus on why bloggers should be afraid and need to get training and insurance before posting.

It's also like a vanity press, where he provides an imprint of (dubious) credibility, for a fee. Members also get a feeling of belonging to a community of like-minded (as in similarly duped) souls. But I bet it's mostly about selling insurance. Follow the money. AP is not just using him. He's using them.

Posted June 18, 2008 12:54 PM by TomB

Can I represent all of the internet? I mean, I'm qualified, obviously. All you have to do is call me, and I'll explain it to you.

It has something to do with marbles, and how I saved them from extinction. Really, as a blogger, it's better if you just call rather than make me, you know, blog about it.

Posted June 18, 2008 1:00 PM by Dan

The web site's front page was last updated in 2007. If it's an association of actual bloggers, even in-house bloggers, it's not a very active one.

Posted June 18, 2008 1:04 PM by TomB

I really couldn't get past this paragraph:

Some kid named Ryan Tate has a snarky little post about our efforts to help a blogger facing a legal threat over at Gawker. He claims to have tried to find out about the MBA by reading our site and searching the web. Here's a thought, kid. Pick up the phone and call us - our phone number and email is on the same site you claimed to have read.

Posted June 18, 2008 1:10 PM by Claude Muncey

Oh, dear, this is very childish but I have to share it. Go to the "News" page on the MBA site and scroll down to the bottom, where it excerpts the beginning of the "Live Blogging" story. Or you can view my screen cap over here.

Apparently their excerpting widget doesn't mind stopping in the middle of a word. Maybe that's all the letters their content license allows?

Posted June 18, 2008 1:12 PM by Mary Dell

So, I've managed to maintain a blog for 5 years and never once hear of this Cox guy, his blog or the MBA. Grant it, I'm no bog fish or anything but for someone so conspicuously intent on representing me, he keeps a low profile.

Posted June 18, 2008 1:18 PM by Keith

Mary Dell @35 -- That's weird. The text is cut off at 229 characters, so if it's a programming error, it's not integer truncation.

Posted June 18, 2008 1:19 PM by TomB

And somehow in his rush to diss the "snarky kid" Ryan Tate, Cox at least appears to have missed that Tate is one of the editors at Gawker. Of course, that information was cleverly hidden by placing it right there at the upper right of the page that Cox linked to. Another fiendish tactic was to conceal the information in the 50,000+ hits on Google linking Ryan Tate and Gawker.

Of course he could have found by phone or email, but did not bother. How like one of those careless bloggers. . .

Posted June 18, 2008 1:20 PM by Claude Muncey

Pardon me if I don't click over to anything at the MBA site. I try not to look delusional thinkers in the eye.

Posted June 18, 2008 1:21 PM by John

Excuse me, please read "upper left" for "upper right" on my previous post. Thanks.

Posted June 18, 2008 1:22 PM by Claude Muncey

I get the idea, so you don't have to add any more examples.

Posted June 18, 2008 1:23 PM by Jason B

While I am no bog fish, I am also no big fish. I guess that's what a day and a half of reading tiny print on the spines of library books does to my proof reading skills...

Posted June 18, 2008 1:24 PM by Keith

My favorite response to the AP demand is currently S.L. Veihl's. I'd quote some of it, but I can't afford dinner at a good french restaurant, I'm afraid.

Posted June 18, 2008 1:28 PM by Hugh

Mary Dell (30), the Newsweek thing will probably be in the next installment.

That glitch on his website (35) is typical -- he's terrible at doing maintenance on it. Half his entries have gibberish in place of quotation marks. At least one entry that's been up for a long time has "placeholder" as its entry text. Whenever his site indicates there are comments on an entry, the number of comments ranges from the hundreds to the tens of thousands, but I can't find a single comment in any of them.

Really, it's more a Potemkin weblog than the real thing. Technorati lists it as having a grand total of two inbound links.

Hugh (43), my favorite comment so far was posted in the Boing Boing comment thread of Cory's first entry on the subject:

#19 posted by Elfwreck, June 17, 2008 8:03 AM

Definitely time to write some AP/RIAA slashfic. With extensive use of AP quotes.

Posted June 18, 2008 1:46 PM by Teresa Nielsen Hayden

Shockingly, now that someone with Cox's political views is involved (and likely as a result of Kos being involved as well), folks like instapundit seem to be backing down from attacking the A.P.

Posted June 18, 2008 1:51 PM by Adam Lipkin

After watching that video, I'm thinking Cox is yet another self-important Conservative gasbag with a rather dull axe to grind.

Really. He isn't going to be speaking for me so long as I can speak for myself. The service he claims to provide is as irrelevant as he is, and his true motive may, in fact, be to scam folks into buying an unnecessary form of insurance as TomB pointed out in comment #31 and as stated on the MBA Membership page:

"A major benefit of our requiring media law training for our members is that Media Pro Insurance, a leading provider of media liability coverage to newspapers, TV networks, film companies and others, was willing to create a special insurance program to offer our members a significant discount off this type of insurance, making it affordable for many bloggers who need this type of insurance..."

But wait! There's more! Act now and receive a free set of Bob Cox Endorsed Ginsu steak knives. They slice! They dice!

Really. The only interests these jokers seem to be serving are their own, and it's distressing that the AP would even approach this guy to speak on anyone's behalf.

Posted June 18, 2008 1:51 PM by Dan

To me, the idea of forming an organization such as the MBA is a simply fabulous one; I hereby announce my intention to form the Writers of Letters to Editorial Pages Association (WLEPA) and the Street-Corner Soapbox Orators Association (SCSOA) in order to bring a much-needed public face to these two sadly under-represented groups.

Posted June 18, 2008 1:57 PM by Evan Simpson

Non-cold-polar-hell hath frozen over.... Mchll Mlkn has come out excoriating AP....

http://michellemalkin.com/2008/06/17/hey-associated-press-you-owe-me-at-least-132125/

There I was, all ready to write some satiritic slash involving MPAA, RIAA, AP, Mchll Mlkin, Rsh Lmbgh, Eln Dnnlly, etc., and I discover that Mchll Mlkn is excoriating AP in this?! Yipes!

Posted June 18, 2008 1:58 PM by Paula Lieberman

Adam Lipkin, if Instapundit takes Robert Cox's word, we'll at least find out whether he's capable of being embarrassed.

Posted June 18, 2008 1:59 PM by Teresa Nielsen Hayden

Teresa Nielsen Hayden @#44: The substance of this particular glitch is what makes me so happy. Real Media Bloggers aren't satisfied with merely talking out of their asses; they've got outta-their-ass credentials!

Posted June 18, 2008 2:01 PM by Mary Dell

Oooh, look what I found!

http://watchingolbermannwatch.blogspot.com/2007/02/robert-cox-attempting-to.html

Posted June 18, 2008 2:10 PM by Teresa Nielsen Hayden

I, myself, would like to announce that I am the Rabbi of the Internet.

Posted June 18, 2008 2:11 PM by Chryss

Clifton Royston writes: "You know, I don't think I've ever mentioned here that I'm the Pope. I have a card and everything."

I'll vouch for that.

Posted June 18, 2008 2:17 PM by j h woodyatt

Is Lord High Everything Else still available?

Posted June 18, 2008 2:26 PM by Lila

Hate to tell everyone, but I've always been the Senior Grand High Poobah of the Internet. I just kept it secret all this time. Expect my High Pronouncements soon....

Or not.

Posted June 18, 2008 2:33 PM by John L

Working on transcribing that video clip for those who, like myself, are lazy-of-hearing, but god damn it, he's so fatuous.

Posted June 18, 2008 2:33 PM by Tlönista

Cox's website and self-styled representation of the Internet looks a lot like a Solution in search of a Problem, and he's decided to create the Problem too.

Posted June 18, 2008 2:41 PM by John L

The Register reports from the UK, with some info in differences between US and UK law in this area.

Yes, that comment is me.

Posted June 18, 2008 2:45 PM by Dave Bell

Mary Dell, #30: I just want to express my admiration for the phrase "up to their duodenae"!

Lila, #54: That's it! Cox is just providing corroborative detail, intended to lend artistic verisimilitude to an otherwise bald and unconvincing narrative.

Posted June 18, 2008 2:45 PM by Lee

The more I think about this, the more it seems that - setting aside the Richard Cox ego campaign - the "company-owned union" concept is exactly right.

Let's trace the command-and-money flows around a little: the MBA is proclaimed to be an organization to supposedly represent bloggers who are employed by (old) media, many of which are the member/owners of AP. So this group will collect dues from and, in theory, be responsible to people who get their paychecks from media companies, who are the customers and members of the Associated Press, which this group will be negotiating with to supposedly determine the rights of those people. (Oh, and incidentally all the other bloggers, too. You know, the little people.)

Thus, should the MBA unexpectedly develop some kind of spine, the AP simply tells its organizations "tell them to stop that", the organizations tell their employees, "you cut that out", the employees tell the MBA "hey, what's with this independence stuff", and the MBA can quickly resume its proper subservient posture. Maybe they'll announce the concession that you can have up to 10 words for free!

What's particularly great is this: It sounds like he's tried to set it up as a traditional membership organization with board, etc., so Cox doesn't even have to be aware that this is how it works. If the media companies sign up enough of their house bloggers as members, he can preen and posture to his heart's content, and at his first sign of independence, the members can vote in a new board and kick him out the door. Of course, if this doesn't work, the AP still takes no damage; they just announce that they've realized the MBA does not really represent bloggers (the shock!) and goes shopping around for a fresh set of stooges.

I can admire its elegance, in a kind of twisty Machiavellian Pohl and Kornbluth way.

Posted June 18, 2008 2:49 PM by Clifton Royston

Thought I should chime in here that Bob Cox is not a racist. He put together MBA to be an advocate for bloggers and when it first opened membership was open, and I believe it will be open again. He is a conservative and while I find his personal opinions to be stupid, he has repeatedly bent over backwards to bring both sides in and provide access where an individual blog may be left out in the cold. Because of MBA many of us were able to cover events like the Scooter Libby Trial, this past year's debates, etc. Every time one of these issues pops up and MBA helps someone (who asks for their help), people bitch about it and then never form a counter organization and then the cycle repeats itself again.

Posted June 18, 2008 2:49 PM by Oliver Willis

Oliver, I respect your opinions, but Robert Cox's opinions on Arabs are something I can do without.

A general note: segment #3 is up. If you can't see it, empty your cache and reload.

Posted June 18, 2008 3:03 PM by Teresa Nielsen Hayden

The event was four hours long, it was convened by Jeff Jarvis of Buzzmachine and Jon Klein of CNN. The moderator was former CBS News President Andrew Heyward. In particular, participants were Jim Brady, Executive Editor of the Washingtonpost.com, Aaron Brown ex-CNN'er, Lou Dobbs of CNN, Jeffrey Dvorkin, ombudsman of NPR, Tom Easton of The Economist magazine, Merrill Brown of MMB Media, Jonathan Landman, Deputy Managing Editor of The New York Times, Emily Lazar, producer of The Colbert Report, David Carr of The New York Times, Peter Hart of FAIR and "bloggers" Hugh Hewitt (author and radio show host), Jay Rosen (former reporter and journalism professor), Dan Gillmor (former reporter and newspaper columnist), Amanda Congdon (actress), Vaughn Ververs (former political reporter).

Vaughn Ververs describes the event as putting together newspaper editors, television executives, bloggers and critics as if this was a diverse group of people. Based on the names mentioned by Jarvis and Ververs there were 16 people at the event - all of them white, almost all of them men, almost all of them to the left politically

Oh, gosh, where to begin. Jeff Jarvis, Lou Dobbs, Vaughn Ververs, someone from FAIR, Jim Brady, Andrew Heyward and some guy from the Economist are half of a panel which was almost all to the left politically?

He was going to balance all this liberal white guyness by offering them John Amato?

Vaughn Ververs, the editor of CBS News' politics blog, is a scarequotes "blogger"?

LaShawn Barber is quite capable of providing valuable insight on the emerging media landscape as an alternative to Jay Rosen?

The mind reels.

Posted June 18, 2008 3:07 PM by julia

Given the sudden profusion of esteemed positions and titles in this post I have created an umbrella organization designed to coordinate and represent these august persons as they post their way through the blogosphere:

International Dispensary: Internets Official Titles

Membership in IDIOT is limited, act now!

Posted June 18, 2008 3:14 PM by Lance Weber

Lance Weber :::June 18, 2008, 03:14 PM:

Given the sudden profusion of esteemed positions and titles in this post I have created an umbrella organization designed to coordinate and represent these august persons as they post their way through the blogosphere:

International Dispensary: Internets Official Titles

Membership in IDIOT is limited, act now!

Do I get a sweet insurance deal?

Posted June 18, 2008 3:18 PM by Dan

TNH @ 62: A general note: segment #3 is up. If you can't see it, empty your cache and reload.

I think you've inspired a new phrase:

"Robert Cox...yeah his cache is a few reloads short of being full"

Posted June 18, 2008 3:19 PM by Lance Weber

"I've been monitoring reactions to the AP story. I haven't seen a single weblog indicate that it had heard of the Media Bloggers Association before this story broke."

Evidently you didn't read mine. The Media Bloggers Association became involved in this dispute because I asked them for help. I was told about them by Liza Sabater, a fellow liberal blogger who writes Culture Kitchen.

I wrote more about this today on my weblog.

You may now resume your ass-kicking.

Posted June 18, 2008 3:20 PM by Rogers Cadenhead

Fragano #2: The astroturf/internet world offers so much more flexibility, though. Somewhere, by now, there must be an example of conflicts in which both sides are represented by sham organizations.

"An historic agreement was reached today between the Sham Beer Drinkers' Organization and the Madeup Brewers and Bottlers Association...."

Posted June 18, 2008 3:35 PM by albatross

Dan @65: Do I get a sweet insurance deal?
I'm getting a bunch of mumbo-jumbo from the insurance agent about us having the largest pool with the highest risk rating ever calculated by their underwriters. I'm on the phone with my local Wal-Mart to see if they sell any low cost plans but they keep transferring me to other departments.

Rogers Cadenhead @67: Evidently you didn't read mine.
I just did a Google on +AP +"Media Bloggers Association" and gave up after scrolling through the first four pages of results. I'm sorry, but I hardly think anyone can be blamed for overlooking your post.

You may now resume your ass-kicking.
I'm not sure your implication that there's been any kind of interlude here is accurate :)

Posted June 18, 2008 3:36 PM by Lance Weber

RC, #67,

I beseech you, in the bowels of Christ, think it possible you may be mistaken.

Posted June 18, 2008 3:36 PM by Dave Bell

#67 Roger

Who are you and why should I care? Why should I be interested in reading your website content as opposed to any of the many millions of others available?

As for why I'm one of the habitues of Making Light, some of the factors involve having known Teresa and Patrick for three decades or so, in person, long before weblogs existed.... They know who I am reflexively the same way.

I don't know you, however, and why should I view you as a credible source?

Posted June 18, 2008 3:39 PM by Paula Lieberman

I just did a Google on +AP +"Media Bloggers Association" and gave up after scrolling through the first four pages of results. I'm sorry, but I hardly think anyone can be blamed for overlooking your post.

I'm the guy at the center of this dispute, Lance! Teresa can dig into the Wayback Machine and the Wikipedia edit log to find dirt on Robert but she can't find my blog? I'm pulling her credentials.

Posted June 18, 2008 3:40 PM by Rogers Cadenhead

Re #72

With his head tucked
Up into his ass
He posts on Making Light
With his head tucked
Up into his ass
Can't see daylight!

With his head tucked up into his ass
With his head tucked up into his ass!

Posted June 18, 2008 3:47 PM by Paula Lieberman

Quoting Cox's blog (one of the entries Teresa linked to): "I always have mixed emotions about events like the one last week at the Museum of Television & Radio on the “blending of news and views”." Sic.

Why would I trust as a representative of bloggers somebody who has demonstrated so little attention to his own blogging that he hasn't bothered to learn how to avoid screwing up the character encodings on his entries in new and innovative ways?

(For the technically minded: he has apparently created the document in UTF-8, uploaded it as if it were ISO-8859-1, and his server has then converted the meaningless ISO-8859-1 to equally meaningless UTF-8 for presentation to readers. Clever.)

Posted June 18, 2008 3:55 PM by Jules

Paula, he really is the guy at the center of the dispute.

Posted June 18, 2008 3:55 PM by Bill Higgins-- Beam Jockey

Rogers, Teresa said she was "monitoring reactions to the AP story". The aforementioned search currently returns ~25k hits. Rumors of omniscience to the contrary, I doubt she fully reviewed every single result.

Furthermore, while you certainly are an involved party to the inciting incident, Teresa's intent (from my perspective) is to either confirm or debunk Roger's implicit/explicit claims that MBA represents even a single blog that could possibly be considered popular by any measurement much less a substantial number of those. In either case, the assumption that your blog is a crucial component of this research whose absence is inexcusable just does not wash.

Now, if you'd come on here and simply said something to the effect of "Hi, I'm Rogers, the guy at the middle of all this - here's my posts about the mess" I think you would have gotten a lot of more positive attention.

Posted June 18, 2008 3:59 PM by Lance Weber

Point taken, Lance, but I'm just offering one data point that has been overlooked in the merciless slagging that Teresa is inflicting on Robert Cox: He's involved not as a self-appointed representative of all bloggers but as a person I directly asked to help.

If I hadn't asked, and I hadn't told every reporter who calls me to also call the Media Bloggers Association, we probably aren't having this discussion at all about the MBA.

You can find more about how the MBA got involved on my weblog:

http://www.cadenhead.org/workbench/news/3370

As Oliver Willis just wrote on his own blog, I'm not clear on why we have to kick the MBA's ass every time they intervene in a blogger's legal difficulties. Who else is volunteering for that job?

Posted June 18, 2008 4:06 PM by Rogers Cadenhead

jeez, Paula, dial it down a notch or two, please?

Rogers seems to be perfectly legit; he linked his blog to his name where everybody can read it, and his tone seems perfectly mild to me given that he's personally invested in what's going on.

Posted June 18, 2008 4:08 PM by Mary Dell

Sounds like the sort of strategy that Rove is so good at coordinating.

Love, C.

Posted June 18, 2008 4:08 PM by Constance Ash

Rogers Cadenhead @#77: The issue here isn't what MBA and Robert Cox may have done for you, although that's interesting and I'm glad you posted here. The problem is the AP announcement, that Robert Cox is presumably a party to. As Teresa quotes above, The Associated Press [...] plans to meet this week with a bloggers’ group to help form guidelines under which AP news stories could be quoted online.

That's not about your case; that's about all of the future cases the AP is planning to create. Robert Cox, on his blog, talks about the need for a set of guidelines; he's working with the AP to create those guidelines. That's why he's become a target, not because he helped you with your case. He's actively involved in helping the AP in their attempt to limit the rights of bloggers, and he's allowing the AP to talk about the MBA as "a bloggers group," which implies that it's an advocacy organization, when really it's a professional association with limited membership, controlled by Robert Cox.

Posted June 18, 2008 4:16 PM by Mary Dell

Guys! So there are dumb-sses who come on strong right outta the gate here! We're solid enough to let them. It's getting a bit insular at ML IMNSHO, and I think we should treat the noobs gently to see if they sort out into interesting people after the first firey clash has simmered down. Like, I regarded placeholder's "uncle" on the other thread as a mark of someone not wholly lost.

Posted June 18, 2008 4:17 PM by Madeline F

I note that before Cox's "AP, Bloggers and Self-Appointed Groups" post of yesterday on his blog, his last preceding post was on March 5th of this year. Hardly an active blog.

Making Light has more main posts in any reasonably active two-month period than this guy put up in the entire two-year history of his blog.

I noticed the same thing that Teresa did about the comments -- huge numbers of comments, but impossible to read them. I bet that if we ever do get to read them that they'll be endless inducements to click through for Cheap Viagra, On-Line Poker, and Hot Gay Teens.

Posted June 18, 2008 4:18 PM by James D. Macdonald

Rogers, the point is more that Cox seems to be a self-appointed representative of bloggers.

Posted June 18, 2008 4:20 PM by P J Evans

"He's actively involved in helping the AP in their attempt to limit the rights of bloggers ..."

Anything's possible, but I don't believe that to be the case. When Cox's group helps a blogger reach a settlement in a legal dispute, one of their conditions is that there are terms they won't agree to. For instance, they won't settle a blog libel suit by removing something from the web that's true.

Oliver can say more on this since he's a founding member, but the MBA isn't a newly concocted group providing cover to narrow blogger's rights. They've been involved in this for a while, and their creation was motivated by Cox's own experience getting sued. They get 5-10 calls a week from bloggers in legal trouble. I've heard from people at the EFF who vouch for their work.

Posted June 18, 2008 4:26 PM by Rogers Cadenhead

Some intrepid commenters over at Gawker have done some digging and it looks like MBA is a scam.

Posted June 18, 2008 4:26 PM by Keith

#75 Bill

Ah. I didn't realize that--it was not clear from his post here.

Note in general: yes, if one wants to get that sort of point across, one ought to specify in sufficient detail and emphasis and clarity, "here is my point and why."

His post at #67 read,

"I've been monitoring reactions to the AP story. I haven't seen a single weblog indicate that it had heard of the Media Bloggers Association before this story broke."

Evidently you didn't read mine. The Media Bloggers Association became involved in this dispute because I asked them for help. I was told about them by Liza Sabater, a fellow liberal blogger who writes Culture Kitchen.

I wrote more about this today on my weblog.

You may now resume your ass-kicking.

To break down my reactions:

"I've been monitoring reactions to the AP story. I haven't seen a single weblog indicate that it had heard of the Media Bloggers Association before this story broke."

This paragraph is a straight quote from Teresa at the start of this thread. Okay, this is setting context.

Evidently you didn't read mine.

This is a combatative statement, or rather, comes off as pugnacious, putting the responsibility on the reader to have a clue in a bucket about "who is this poster, why should I be reading the poster's blog? There is nothing so far putting the poster involved in anything in the thread as a participant, and the poster's name has no connection to anything for me--as opposed to if Fragano posted, or Serge, or CHip, or Bill Higgins, or xopher, etc.

The Media Bloggers Association became involved in this dispute because I asked them for help.

Askedthem for help for what? I missed I admit the "this dispute"--it's a prepositional phrase, which usually are not main constituents and main points of a sentence, which is in between a non-direct verb form ("became involved") and and a subordinate clause--and not only that, "became" and "because" kinaeshetically in print, are VERY much similar-looking, the visual differice is that one has "m" where the other has "au", the two words visually otherwise are identically, and aurally, they are also start the same with the same unaccented first syllable followed by a
"k" sound and only get differentiated audibly with ame versus ause.

So, I missed the "in this dispute" and instead it registers in my mind as "in a dispute."

The subordinate clause, because I asked them for didn't say anything why the poster asked the organization for help, however, why is the topic of the next sentence, which is in a new paragraph. And once again, I had missed the "
this" in "in this dispute." There wasn't any more information about the dispute in the post, to get background or reiterating/reinforcing information.

I was told about them by Liza Sabater, a fellow liberal blogger who writes Culture Kitchen.

The sentence above is in passive voice, and puts Liza Sabater and that she is a liberal blogger with some blog that there is no other information about, as the key information in the sentence. There's nothing about why anyone should regard Liza Sabater as any sort of authority on anything, no information about her blog other than the poster claims that it's a liberal blog and that the poster is a liberal blogger....

I wrote more about this today on my weblog.

Again, what I got from this sentence wasn't useful information, since there's no information about what the dispute is other than that "this" that I missed.... an additional sentence saying SOMETHING specific/denotative about the content of the blog would have helped a lot and provided a different stimulus than the eliciting the post DID get from me.

You may now resume your ass-kicking.

This is a definite pugnacious challenge... and this is not a forum full of passive viewers sitting in an audience expecting to get hired hand entertainment for a financial entry free... wrong part of the psychosphere for that (there is a very long-standing conversation in science fiction convention running fandom about people who go to events to pay their money and be entertained, versus conventions when people pay for memberships and -engage- with other people.... Making Light comes, my perception is, from the engagement tradition. Saying "resume you ass-kicking" in this form has the connotation of just having INVITED people like me to go into attack mode in response.

The next post #72 had
I'm the guy at the center of this dispute, Lance! Teresa can dig into the Wayback Machine and the Wikipedia edit log to find dirt on Robert but she can't find my blog? I'm pulling her credentials.

There was no information about what "this dispute" was other than the words "this dispute," and again, I was NOT reading something that said the "this dispute" was the AP issue!!! So, when the next two sentences looked like an attack against Teresa, her level of clue, and her ability to research, THAT was was elicited the response from me....

Posted June 18, 2008 4:26 PM by Paula Lieberman

Over on Roger "I represent all bloggers, really" Cox's blog, there appears to be something missing...

Oh, yeah. No comments. None. No "Leave a Comment" link. No "View Comments" links. Nothing, nada and, in fact, zip.

Perhaps (just perhaps) Mr. Cox is missing the point on this whole "blog" thing? You know, the feedback, the dialogue, the stuff that makes Making Light (and many other blogs) so great?

Posted June 18, 2008 4:35 PM by Wirelizard

digging back, via FDL:
Cox got two passes for his group. There were three other bloggers with passes: Justin Rood (TPM), emptywheel (Next Hurrah/dKos) and Jane Hamsher (FDL/Huffington).

There was also a little dustup where Cox apparently represented himself to the NY Times as having 'negotiated access' for all the bloggers, following which the Times had to print a correction that he only got access for his own group.

Posted June 18, 2008 4:35 PM by P J Evans

Teresa @44:

You win, and please pass the brain bleach.

Posted June 18, 2008 4:39 PM by Hugh

I think what I find disturbing is that an invitation-only organization is negotiating terms on behalf of "bloggers" with a company which is making demands that exceed their legal rights.

If bloggers choose to negotiate away their rights, they certainly may. I'm not completely comfortable with a private entity which doesn't represent non-members taking it on themselves to do it.

Paula @ 86

Liza Sabater is a fairly well-known liberal blogger in New York. She gets linked to by the local media a lot. Someone from our market would probably assume everyone would recognize the name.

Posted June 18, 2008 4:39 PM by julia

#86, me

"He called the Enterprise a garbage scow!"

"And that's when [you hit the Klingon, starting the fight?]"

"Aye, Captain."

It was the attack on Teresa that got to me.

Posted June 18, 2008 4:40 PM by Paula Lieberman

Rogers Cadenhead @#84, Robert Cox explains it thusly on

Now, once they had agreed to meet to see if we could resolve Rogers situation, we offered to provide any assistance we could in helping them draft some sort of guidelines that could be promulgated to the blogosphere so that bloggers would have a clear understanding of AP's point of view on copyright, excerpting and linking. They were receptive to that offer and so when we meet this week to get Rogers case resolved (hopefully) we will stick around and try to kick around ideas on what a set of guidelines would look like.

He is using your case to create an opportunity for his association to "provide assistance" to the AP, in getting their point of view on copyright promulgated to the blogosphere.

That seems like a serious conflict of interest to me. When he's done with the part of the meeting that's about representing you, whose interests will he be representing?

Posted June 18, 2008 4:43 PM by Mary Dell

That may be the single greatest response to any comment I've ever made on the Internet, Paula.

I can't tell you how glad I am to have joined the WorldCon committees to vote on Hugos and start inching back into science fiction fandom.

But I digress.

Posted June 18, 2008 4:45 PM by Rogers Cadenhead

re 3: Do you mean this bad Wikipedia entry?

Posted June 18, 2008 4:48 PM by C. Wingate

julia #90

That's an assumption that didn't fly in my case... there have been world experts I've known whose names are not known outside their areas of expertise. Assuming that someone is a Media Personality to the universe tends to be a bad assumption.

The most that can be assumed about someone posting on Making Light, is that the person is posting on Making Light, probably has a computer or at least has computer access, and probably has enough web literacy to have posted it themself (given some of the spam that shows up, it's not clear that even that much is true....).

People/handles gain or lose credibility points according to content and content over time. Someone known to some fraction of the habitues who posts with a recognizable name/handle/referential content, has baggage coming in, based on past history that generally is outside of Making Light.

There are a number of different venues possible for that--science fiction conventions, publishing, fanzines, music connections, weblogs, knitting connections, etc. Assuming that someone from one sphere is known to people with tie-ins from other spheres, again, is a bad assumption... while one might be six people from just about anyone on the planet, that doesn't mean that person A two degrees away from Person B, has a clue in a galaxy about person B.... there are LOTS of links that remain never explored, sometimes I get surprised even with the SF universe, that A and B have never met, when they're both people I've been acquainted with for years....

Posted June 18, 2008 4:51 PM by Paula Lieberman

Who else is volunteering for that job?

There are other organizations* that help bloggers.

They tend to take cases with constitutional implications, and they are limited in how many they can take.

However, that is orthogonal to the question of how the MBA represents itself / is represented in the media.

There's a big difference if the AP knows it's dealing with and working out the situation with (or dictating their modified terms to) one specific blogger and his representative, vs. the AP dealing with and working out the 21st century implications of the already complex area of fair use.
_____________
* They mention their blogger-specific work on journalist rights, free speech rights, political speech rights, right to anonymity, and freedom from liability in hosting speech. They specifically list Eli Lilly Zyprexa Litigation; Deihl v. Crook, Spocko and KSFO, Apple v. Does; Barrett v. Rosenthal; OPG v. Diebold and Doe Anonymity Cases.

Posted June 18, 2008 4:58 PM by Kathryn from SolarCity

I still think the MBA is nothing more than a scam designed to sell bloggers some sort of insurance they don't freakin' need in the first place, and I find it kind of suspect (or total bullshit) that they get "5 to 10 calls a week" from bloggers facing litigation.

Posted June 18, 2008 5:01 PM by Dan

Roger, your sarcasm is lost in whatever effect you intended it to have on me. It's possible that I know you in person, even. Don't flatter yourself that you're specially privileged in me not matching face to name if that's true, there are people I've known for decades who if my life depended on being able to identify them by name, I would be long since moldering in a casket buried in Sharon Memorial Park (an aunt bequeathed me a burial lot there, she was gifted with it by a lifelong friend who decided to be buried in Florida where she'd moved to, instead of Massachusetts with the rest of her extended family, who probably are very distant relatives of my late aunt and thus myself).

And as for social skills, there was the occasion at a Boskone after I'd said to someone "your social skills are even worse than mine" that mentioning the incident to a prominent member of the Making Light community (if the person remembers and wants to self-identify, the reason I'm not is that I leave it up to the person if the person notices and remembers) deflated me by saying, "No, [name of person] is not more socially clueless than you, [name of person] is intentionally nasty, not socially clueless."

However... it looks like you're trying to challenge for lack of social clue, or perhaps merely being gratuitously nasty, or some combination of both.

Posted June 18, 2008 5:01 PM by Paula Lieberman

Rogers Cadenhead, given the position you're in, I'd forgive you if you took help from Dick Cheney, Justice Taney, and Lucifer himself.

Everybody, Rogers Cadenhead is the guy who does Drudge Retort. I don't know what he's like in normal circumstances, because I've never been in the habit of reading his blog. At the moment, he's at Ground Zero in this fight. I've been there. One becomes excitable and grumpy and prone to miss things. Please do your best to be nice to him.

Posted June 18, 2008 5:05 PM by Teresa Nielsen Hayden

C. Wingate: Shhhh. I'm working on it.

Posted June 18, 2008 5:08 PM by Teresa Nielsen Hayden

It's amazing the sort of stupid declarative statements people can make when they haven't done the basic reading on something, then the holes they dig themselves into afterwards.

Rogers is at the center of this issue, asked the MBA for help, then when he makes a comment here, you start asking him who the heck he is. Sheesh.

Posted June 18, 2008 5:09 PM by Oliver Willis

#99 Teresa

Ah.
(Does conversion, equating Rogers Cadenhead to being ground zero with AP using him as target on a "gone nuclear" option to make an example of.)

Yes, I can now see that he might be a tad discombobulated/upset/etc. (understatement)

I will attempt to disengage from any further provocation etc. towards him, or skirmishings at him.

(Actually, I have heard quite a number of positive things about the Drudge Report over time... as noted above, though, association of people's names with various stuff, often don't associate easily for me. There was a couple whom I knew both of, and it wasn't until they'd split up, that I realized that they had been married! I knew than each of them had gotten married, but not that it had been to one another! (I WROTE that socially I'm clueless, it's not my fault if people don't believe what I say/write regarding that!)

Posted June 18, 2008 5:14 PM by Paula Lieberman

Oh, and Rogers? If I were you, I'd ask the EFF for help. Your case is exactly the kind of thing they're there for.

Posted June 18, 2008 5:14 PM by Teresa Nielsen Hayden

Retort, Paula. Drudge Retort. The Drudge Report is something else entirely.

Did you mistype that? I'd expect you to know what the Drudge Report is.

Posted June 18, 2008 5:17 PM by Teresa Nielsen Hayden

Paula #@98: Yes, Rogers is being a bit snarky to you. But you did accuse him, in verse, of having his head up his ass, when he actually doesn't have his head up his ass, and then you posted a justification instead of an apology. I can understand why this wouldn't bring out the best in him. Maybe you can take a step back and let this particular fire die down a bit?

I do sympathise with your protective feelings toward Teresa. I feel similarly protective--foolishly, of course, given that she always comes to battle whistling a cheery tune and juggling handfuls of ammunition.

Posted June 18, 2008 5:18 PM by Mary Dell

In Which I Read the MBA News Archive So You Don't Have To

A lot of talk from Cadenhead about the MBA's important work providing legal aid to bloggers. Impressive, if it's true. Let's head over to their news section and read all about the great stuff they do.

The first page of stories on their news page is mostly stuff on this recent kerfuffle. By page 2 the posts are a year old, and mostly consist of links to relevant opinion pieces, or articles with soundbites from Robert Cox.

This one, for example, sounds all exciting with its mention of Bloggers! Getting! Sued!, but the actual article only talks about...well...that one time Robert Cox got sued.

This one sounds like it might actually be something but the link is to...the post itself.

Around April 2007 there are posts relating to a blogger named Katherine Coble. The situation seems to have been that she and her husband discovered a scam employment agency, she blogged about it, and they threatened to sue. (The MBA posts link to long-404'd news articles.) Seems like they settled out of court. To do: ask Katherine Coble about the MBA.

In between, it seems like Robert Cox may have made some kind of statement about the Kathy Sierra debacle -- was that around then, or was it about the Kos pie fight, or something else? -- but the linked article is dead.

Then, page 4-ish (early 2007), there's a lot of stuff about the Libby Trial. More patient people than I will have to watch the Youtube video in the post about MBA's deal with the AP.

This post links to a promising story about a Republican lobbyist blogger getting a restraining order against an online anti-fan, but it doesn't seem that the MBA was actually connected to the case.

Iiiiiiinteresting: this late 2006 post links to an AP story that is, like so many of these things, basically a MBA press release dressed up like a serious article.

Ummm...and that's the end of it, in 2006.

In summary, it looks like the MBA is a vehicle for getting Robert Cox quoted in papers. And they've been awfully cozy with the AP for a long while (well, two years is a long while in Internet time).

Posted June 18, 2008 5:23 PM by Tlönista

Oliver @ 101

We don't all read Drudge, even if we've heard of it. We certainly don't know the names of all the other bloggers out there, and probably not the names of their blogs either.
In fact, I haven't seen any names attached to this story before this post.
Cut us a little slack, too, please?

Posted June 18, 2008 5:23 PM by P J Evans

Hmm, MBA reminds me of the Southern Baptist Convention (SBC)after 9/11, I may have posted links here way back then--the SBC's websites had information up about a mission set up in New York City across the street from one of the other collapsed buildings, specifically for proselytizing--the websites actually included funding amounts and the percentage of funds to use for aid to people, and the percentage to use for proselytizing--the purpose of the mission was to gain more souls by setting up a mission fronting as a facility providing humanitarian aid, having a goal of getting people in the door with the lure of food and assistance for shelter, and then feeding them a diet that would get more and more evangelizing in content.

The percentage of funding for the evanglizing activities was quite a bit larger than the funding for humanitarian aid for food and assisting getting people shelter. The SBC websites were also being self-congratulatory about e.g. having proselytized at least one Roman Catholic victimized on 9/11 and converted the Roman Catholic into a Southern Baptist....

Posted June 18, 2008 5:24 PM by Paula Lieberman

Teresa #3: I've seen people who were used and hung out to dry (in one case a good friend of mine). They never understood what happened to them.

Posted June 18, 2008 5:24 PM by Fragano Ledgister

I was trying to be sincere about Paula's comment #86. I gafiated long ago from science fiction fandom, and when I wandered in here to find out why Robert Cox was being slagged, I knew the Nielsen Haydens by their rep.

"Oh, and Rogers? If I were you, I'd ask the EFF for help. Your case is exactly the kind of thing they're there for."

Since the dispute made the Times, I've had the EFF and other big groups contact me regarding potential future courtship. I'm hoping that it won't come to that.

Posted June 18, 2008 5:27 PM by Rogers Cadenhead

So I spent a bit of time probing the depths of the MBA news archive, but my linkalicious write-up is, naturally, in moderation.

Basically: the MBA doesn't seem to have done sh*t for bloggers; they seem to have actually represented two people in the past two years, one of them being Roger Cadenhead. And they covered the Libby trial. And Robert Cox spends a lot of time telling reporters his opinion on blogging, because he's so official and such.

Does anyone know of anything else they've done?

Posted June 18, 2008 5:30 PM by Tlönista

#104 Teresa

I misread Retort as Report.

Posted June 18, 2008 5:31 PM by Paula Lieberman

I think that's pretty clear now, Oliver.

It's a shame they didn't start up a year earlier. They probably could have handled hand-picked founding member Donald Luskin's attempt to sue Atrios out of his anonymity without his having to lawyer up.

Posted June 18, 2008 5:35 PM by julia

albatross #68: That's a possibility that had not occurred to me (another one that now occurs to me is two Nigerians trying to scam each other).

Posted June 18, 2008 5:36 PM by Fragano Ledgister

I've been looking at the MBA website.

OK, I'm not an American. I maybe don't quite get where the cultural standards are. Bur it doesn't feel quite straight rto me. There is, in what I read, a sense of lurking dishonesty.

Take this page as an instance

The hadline is "Bloggers seek training to avoid legal pitfalls", but what's obviously presented is a quote from the MBA. It doesn't summarise the story behind the headline, which turned out to be the headline of a story on a site called redOrbit

And when you read that story, it's more about an organisation offering training than about anyone actually seeking it. The story is almost an advert, which happens to quote Robert Cox. And the Robert Cox quote is "told the Associated Press"

Nothing wrong with that, though the only source for the stories of nervous bloggers seems to be the Associated Press. And that starts to look a bit less honest.

OK, stipulated, the sort of limits on what you can safely say, traditionally taught to journalists, need to be more widely known.

The examples given seem good: bloggers who are getting into risky territory.

But right now AP have the image as one of the hazards, and the claims about the risk, even Robert Cox's enumeration of the scale of the problem--more than 100 cases and $17million total judgements, have come through AP.

Conflict of interests?

Anyway, I get a strong whiff of self-aggrandisement in the story as Robert Cox presents it. I also get the feel that he's not really reading the original. It's not bloggers asking for training--one of them hasn't done anything with a domain name for eight years--it's an offer of training, backed by a lot of scare stories.

This doesn't encourage me to trust Robert Cox's view of what AP is doing. I wonder if he's really going to be much help as a representative of bloggers, as a class.

OK, he's Rogers Cadenhead's representative. He's not mine. I doubt he's Teresa's. And, to be fair, AP only describe him as President of a blogger's organisation.

But he and they are both talking as though he's important, and as if he knowa what he's talking about, and I fear we'll be stuck with whatever he agrees to.

I fear that because I don't see signs of competence, and I don't think he has the importance he claims. He doesn't need to be able to write a sonnet, deliver a baby, or plan an invasion. (We have high standards hereabouts.) But I'd like to see signs that he can recognise bullshit when he sees it.

Hint: it's the brown patty in the grass with the circling flies.

Posted June 18, 2008 5:50 PM by Dave Bell

I fear we'll be stuck with whatever he agrees to.

No, we won't. Whatever Bob Cox agrees to with the AP is only binding on Bob Cox.

Posted June 18, 2008 5:58 PM by James D. Macdonald

Rogers #109

Big operations sometimes have specific criteria for picking targets--note that Apple when it went around suing other companies for alleged copyright/patent infringement, usually went after small fry that couldn't afford the time and energy and funds for a war in court, and left e.g. Hewlett-Packard (which had licensing for graphical user interface intellectual property from Xerox) completely alone. That is, the specific criteria include looking for small fry who don't hav