"What we are paying for is not cost-effective," says Smith, who notes that he would save about $32,000 per year under new rates, but still sees the nearly-$400,000 annual cost as too high. "The money we save will help me preserve local staff jobs."
I'm not sure what my stance on the AP is right now:
| Pro | Con |
|---|---|
| They're a massive, national news gathering organization that is able to put a lot of fee on the ground | They're really big and bureaucratic. |
| The service can now be more custom tailored to local newspapers | The AP charges a lot of money for a service that most papers use (at least partially) as a backup. |
| To assure the existence of professional journalism, the a large collective like the AP can ensure that they get paid. | The copyright débâcle. |
| The AP is an established brand that is proven to provide a useful service. |
I'm probably missing a few points, but those are what come to mind first.
…and, it looks like I don't really have a point to this post. Just a musing that the AP needs to tread carefully.