futurejournalismproject:

St. Louis Dispatch

Its coverage can be read here.

Related, via PoynterHow St. Louis’ Alt-Weekly is Covering Ferguson:

The episode has exhausted the reporters, many of whom worked long hours with little sleep in between. Lindsay Toler, a news blogger, was halfway through a bottle of Busch at a cash-only dive bar on Sunday when she saw TV reports of the chaos in Ferguson. She left without saying a word to her friends and spent the rest of the night monitoring the story on Twitter. She estimates she has worked several 12-hour days since then, with about five hours of sleep daily. Lussenhop said she and her fellow journalists are running on about three to five hours of sleep most days. Garrison tried to convince his reporters to take a break, but they resisted. On Thursday, he edited a story from an wiped-out reporter who spelled “Ferguson” four different ways…

…Because of the scope of the story, the paper has devoted most of its small editorial staff to covering Ferguson. Of the 39 stories published on the paper’s news blog last week, 34 of them were about the suburb. The other five were written before the shooting. 

Image: Detail, front page, St. Louis Post-Dispatch.

ateenagefuckery:

alisaolivia:

This made my night!!

It’s not Kool-Aid until you taste the diabetes!
ateenagefuckery:

alisaolivia:

This made my night!!

It’s not Kool-Aid until you taste the diabetes!
ateenagefuckery:

alisaolivia:

This made my night!!

It’s not Kool-Aid until you taste the diabetes!

ateenagefuckery:

alisaolivia:

This made my night!!

It’s not Kool-Aid until you taste the diabetes!

(via sextnoise)

997:

LMAO: Let Me Ask Obama

(via gnarly)

marcoslefthalf:

you dont have to agree with his policies but you have to admit hes the coolest president weve had ever
marcoslefthalf:

you dont have to agree with his policies but you have to admit hes the coolest president weve had ever
marcoslefthalf:

you dont have to agree with his policies but you have to admit hes the coolest president weve had ever
marcoslefthalf:

you dont have to agree with his policies but you have to admit hes the coolest president weve had ever
marcoslefthalf:

you dont have to agree with his policies but you have to admit hes the coolest president weve had ever
marcoslefthalf:

you dont have to agree with his policies but you have to admit hes the coolest president weve had ever

marcoslefthalf:

you dont have to agree with his policies but you have to admit hes the coolest president weve had ever

(via gnarly)

bestoftheread:

yensidthejester:

Done

WHO IS RESPONSIBLE FOR THIS

Bruhhhhhhhh

(via ftwimateenager)

coolduck420:

jib—reel:

skunkbear:

So photographer David Slater wants Wikipedia to remove a monkey selfie that was taken with his camera. As you can see from this screen shot, Wikipedia says no: the monkey pressed the shutter so it owns the copyright.
We got NPR’s in-house legal counsel, Ashley Messenger, to weigh in. She said:

Traditional interpretation of copyright law is that the person who captured the image owns the copyright. That would be the monkey. The photographer’s best argument is that the monkey took the photo at his direction and therefore it’s work for hire. But that’s not a great argument because it’s not clear the monkey had the intent to work at the direction of the photographer nor is it clear there was “consideration” (value) exchanged for the work. So… It’s definitely an interesting question! Or the photographer could argue that leaving the camera to see what would happen is his work an therefore the monkey’s capture of the image was really the photographer’s art, but that would be a novel approach, to my knowledge.


truly an incredible time to be alive. 

coolduck420:

jib—reel:

skunkbear:

So photographer David Slater wants Wikipedia to remove a monkey selfie that was taken with his camera. As you can see from this screen shot, Wikipedia says no: the monkey pressed the shutter so it owns the copyright.
We got NPR’s in-house legal counsel, Ashley Messenger, to weigh in. She said:

Traditional interpretation of copyright law is that the person who captured the image owns the copyright. That would be the monkey. The photographer’s best argument is that the monkey took the photo at his direction and therefore it’s work for hire. But that’s not a great argument because it’s not clear the monkey had the intent to work at the direction of the photographer nor is it clear there was “consideration” (value) exchanged for the work. So… It’s definitely an interesting question! Or the photographer could argue that leaving the camera to see what would happen is his work an therefore the monkey’s capture of the image was really the photographer’s art, but that would be a novel approach, to my knowledge.


truly an incredible time to be alive. 

coolduck420:

jib—reel:

skunkbear:

So photographer David Slater wants Wikipedia to remove a monkey selfie that was taken with his camera. As you can see from this screen shot, Wikipedia says no: the monkey pressed the shutter so it owns the copyright.

We got NPR’s in-house legal counsel, Ashley Messenger, to weigh in. She said:

Traditional interpretation of copyright law is that the person who captured the image owns the copyright. That would be the monkey. The photographer’s best argument is that the monkey took the photo at his direction and therefore it’s work for hire. But that’s not a great argument because it’s not clear the monkey had the intent to work at the direction of the photographer nor is it clear there was “consideration” (value) exchanged for the work. So… It’s definitely an interesting question! Or the photographer could argue that leaving the camera to see what would happen is his work an therefore the monkey’s capture of the image was really the photographer’s art, but that would be a novel approach, to my knowledge.

truly an incredible time to be alive. 

(via ftwimateenager)