IA has a capture of the site[0]; the first and only photo in the archived version of TFA appears to be a cropped version of one sourced to AP ([1] photo 2 in the carousel), and it is entirely uncredited in TFA.
I don't know if "blogspam" is fair. This article seems to contain a significant amount of original content that is not lifted/rewritten from elsewhere. The photos do seem to be taken from the AP article without acknowledgement, which is not ideal, but I guess that's for them to worry about.
Overall I think it's an interesting enough topic to warrant HN front page placement, and this is the most extensive article about it. We'd be happy to switch to a different source if someone can recommend a better one.
IMO the article reads like it was written by a high schooler trying to reach a page count. It has original content, but it rehashes the same points many times, is short on actual substance, and doesn't have a clear point.
Ironically the UX on Reuters and AP wasn’t hugely worse than the blogspam:
* the text of the blogspam is pretty faithful to the AP article
* Reuters had a fullscreen paywall
* the AP had a floating video ad and an interstitial you have to click to get below the fold
