The incredible shrinking Washington Post: Lesson for AP and book people? And meanwhile, no 'Yiddish Policemen's Union' in E

The AP’s inanity about Fair Use and the Net goes on, alas. The RIAA of the news business apparently still wants to enforce its rules against bloggers quoting first paragraphs of news stories without paying up. Perhaps the Washington Post Company might be a positive role model for AP and other news organizations in certain ways—and some book people  as well.

"The Washington Post newspaper, in downtown D.C. since its founding in 1888, is going to be absorbed gradually into Washingtonpost.com, its Internet cousin across the Potomac River in Arlington," reports the Washingtonian Magazine. "’The question is not whether the two will be merged,’ one editor says, ‘but when.’" A merger would be jibe with the existing blends of the P and E sides of the New York Times and Wall Street Journal.

What’s also notable about the Post Company, however, is that it has taken the radical step of letting its Kaplan educational arm grow to the point where most of the corporation’s income comes from it rather than the news side. That’s quite a departure for a company whose flagship newspaper is best known as the main setting for the book and film versions of All the President’s Men (click to see movie trailer on YouTube).

The case for change: New media buyout of AP?

So am I suggesting that the AP do a Post act and get into education? Not necessarily. But the Post, the New York Times and others are showing more of a willingness to embrace the new than AP and many in the book business are. Perhaps the AP needs to get itself bought up by a consortium of companies such as AOL, Microsoft, Google and Yahoo. A little re-invention, please.

As for the book business, most P books are still not making it into E, and if anything, small presses may be worse than Random House and the rest. Even some industry leaders in the E area are disappointing me. I finally gave up on The Yiddish Jewish Policemen’s Union appearing in E in a timely way and bought a used hardback. Revenue for HarperCollins and Michael Chabon (photo): $0. Perhaps Chabon’s agent is the problem here. Anyone know? And just how clueful are agents in general about the Internet? Your thoughts welcome. Were it not for agents—who, like the AP, are fiercely protectively of copyrighted content—would we see a lot more books in E?