So NPR should be in the business of "approving" groups or businesses that link to it? Talk about a PC way of looking at the world. As long as a sitedoes not create links or frames to misrepresent itself as part of NPR or as NPR-endorsed, what difference should it make? Even commercial sitesshould be able to link to NPR. As a consumer, I'd rather see a full news item than a business's summary of it.
What's more, in the case of typical news organizations, it would be great for advertisers to get their wares exposed even to lefthanded diabetic socialists--a hypothetical example that the NPR ombudsman at first used against unrestricted linking (hitting a little close to home, by the way, since my wife, albeit righthanded, is at least a liberal diabetic).
Methinks Steve is right on target about this one. What's more, NPR deserves credit for reconsidering its policies, which it is doing now.
As for bloggers stealing from news organizations, hey, they're usually excellent about linking back. And quite likely, some journalists are working in the other direction and reading blogs for fresh ideas. A win-win for all. In my case, I guess I'm stealing from myself since one of my blog links points to a Christian Science Monitor article I freelanced some years ago on the link controversy.
Further details at , including some comments passed on to me directly from NPR's ombudsman. Items begin at . Scroll up.One question of the moment is, How will NPR cover the controversy? It's been covered not just in Wired News and by Steve but also by public radio in Minnesota. Will legal correspondent Nina Totenberg, whom the American LIbrary Association has honored for her First Amendment work, speak out in favor of unfettered linking as I'd hope she would? And however she feels, will she at least go on the air and cover this controversy? If I were NPR, I'd put her on the story ASAP with instructions to do a commentary and truly speak her mind.Like it or not, more news organizations will be following Wired's lead. Better that NPR, one of my favorite mainstream news organizations, be right out in front.David Rothman | teleread.org | dr@teleread.org | 703-370-6540
One question of the moment is, How will NPR cover the controversy? It's been covered not just in Wired News and by Steve but also by public radio in Minnesota. Will legal correspondent Nina Totenberg, whom the American LIbrary Association has honored for her First Amendment work, speak out in favor of unfettered linking as I'd hope she would? And however she feels, will she at least go on the air and cover this controversy? If I were NPR, I'd put her on the story ASAP with instructions to do a commentary and truly speak her mind.
Like it or not, more news organizations will be following Wired's lead. Better that NPR, one of my favorite mainstream news organizations, be right out in front.
David Rothman | teleread.org | dr@teleread.org | 703-370-6540
At a minimum, NPR would hold a stronger legal position against another site that created a linking relationship of which NPR did not approve.
I know, I know… deep-linking policies are “SOOOO NOT what the Internet is about”. When it comes to certain webloggers, I think the Internet is about a group of attention-seeking “infophiles” having free reign over a universe of free, but costly-to-produce, content. (“We are SOOO enlightened…”. “Give us LINKING or give us death!!!”, etc., etc.). “If” only this altruistic attitude could be adopted by corporations, so that all competitive trade secrets could be set free for the “betterment” of society. Meanwhile, the perceived economic value of online content (and services) is a big fat zero in the eyes of too many advertisers and consumers.
And, boy, isn’t Major League Baseball “dumb” to ALWAYS interrupt its broadcast with the “expressed written permission” sermon??? If they are going to publicly broadcast their games, I guess they should expect that their property will be used and abused by others as they see fit?
Why do webloggers get soooo upset about efforts to manage deep-linking (i.e. when others try to protect their online assets)??? Perhaps, it is because their 15-minutes of fame become threatened in an environment where they are able to freely and easily benefit from the work of others. (I know… they bring “customers” to other sites, even though these "customers" often ignore online ads. And, on and on, the game continues…). No matter that blogs and aggregation sites will have the long-term effects of turning destination sites into one-dimensional commodities with waning customer loyalty.
And of course, “if they don’t want people linking, then use technology”. Then when technology is prevalently used to control access to hard-earned content, perhaps hackers will join the “fight” and provide “liberating” technology to bypass the shackles of gated-access. Then we can enter another technological spy-vs-spy battle - “if they don’t want people to link, then they shouldn’t use INFERIOR technology”…
As far a “public relations nightmare”, who cares at this point? Who is complaining? An audience that has little respect for the mountains of content and services provided for free on a 24/7/365 basis? Or perhaps it is just the webloggers, who are concerned that their wells of limitless “natural online resources” are beginning to dry up?
