Blogspace vs. NPR

jonkl writes "National Public Radio's linking policy at npr.org has caused a fuss within the blog community that's hot and getting hotter. The policy's simply stated in two sentences: 'Linking to or framing of any material on this site without the prior written consent of NPR is prohibited. If you would like to link to NPR from your Web site, please fill out the link permission request form.' This is buried, of course, in a page linked to the site's footer, but somebody noticed and mentioned it to Howard Rheingold, who passed it on to Cory Doctorow of boingboing.net. Cory wrote scathing commentary, calling the policy 'brutally stupid,' even 'fatally stupid.' The outrage is spreading; this has to be a rough day for the NPR ombudsman who's deluged with email by now... ~24 hours after Cory's report." Reminds of the KPMG policy.

Comments

Re:Well, part of the reason...

[SystemFork]

Perhaps it was the opening word, "Agreed" that threw you off. "Aha" you say, "a me-too post!" If you were to read beyond this point you may have realized that the point was the metaphor, "No website is an island." It's clever; a play on, "No man is an island."

But of course you understood that.

--

OT: NPR should change its name...

[Zen Mastuh]

...to MPR (Monsanto Pressrelease Radio). They are becoming a mouthpiece for the biotech firms. I'm disappointed in their integrity (or lack thereof), but I can't blame them: they are merely trying to replace the government funds that at one time guaranteed their publicness [word?]. With all the anti-NEA/NEH propaganda that the Reaganbots & Rushbots have been spewing for the last 18 years, it's a wonder that NPR never lost all of its funding.

With its pro-megacorp mentality, this draconian linking policy shouldn't surprise anybody.

NPR government funded? Just a little

[yack0]

According to their page, which I link to against their policy and specifically make an html post to do so, financials:

The only direct government funding NPR receives is through competitive grants from government agencies for specific projects. Such grants are awarded by the Corporation for Public Broadcasting, the National Science Foundation, and the National Endowments for the Arts and the Humanities, and typically represent only 2% of total revenues.

So, they get grants and some money from NSF and NEA, but it's a drop in the bucket. Most of their revenue is program fees, corporate sponsorships and endowment type money.

For all their talkign about the NSF and NEA on the credits, you'd think they had received more. So, when will they get a grant from the Free Software Foundation for clueful use of the world wide web?

Re:Well, part of the reason...

[SystemFork]

It wasn't a joke.
[shrugs]

Re:linking?

[Hast]

Resistence is futile!

Re:Non-thinkers call the thoughtful center "biased

[Mr. Slippery]

Indeed,if you tried to describe the broadcast networks as `center' or `mainstream' to most Americans, they would laugh at you

I'd laugh because describing megacorp-owned media as anything but rightist is ridiculous. The whole notion of a vast left-wing conspiracy in control of the media is a wonderfully effective strawman for conservatives, but has no basis in fact.

there's a reason Bernard Goldberg's book Bias is a nationwide best-seller while the broadcast networks are losing viewers hand-over-fist to Fox.

Fox is just more proof that catering to the lowest common denominator is the path to success.

As for Goldberg's Bias, since when has being a best-seller had anything to do with quality? His claim about labeling has http://www.prospect.org/print/V13/8/nunberg-g.html already been debunked (with a follow-up here).