Just a small bit of criticism about the Hub Blog today.
Blogger Jay Fitzgerald includes this following entry:
'The repeal was gaveled through on a voice vote,' Part III: Brian Moroney makes all the right connections: Clean elections, the smoking ban, bilingual education, charter schools. What the hell else did they put in that bill? ... Moroney makes another interesting connection: Why the hell didn’t Republicans ask for a roll-call vote? Maybe that explains why Mitt has been so quiet on this issue. ... Wayne Woodlief is covering roughly the same ground (pay-to-view).
In the above entry, Hub Blog links to Boston Herald columnist Woodlief's article that bloggers must pay to read.
On principle, I am against bloggers linking to "pay per view" columns. One of the most critical aspects of the Blogosphere is the ability to discuss a subject or column or idea and link to some of the primary sources regarding the topic being discussed. To remain part of the "biosphere dialogue", those whose ideas wish to be included must keep the links to those ideas free and unencumbered. It is for that reason I won't link to pay per view columns nor to Boston Globe or NYTimes pay per view archived articles.
Perhaps this the beginning of a discussion the wider world of blogs should discuss....Blogger Ethics: Pay Per View Links and Archives....discuss amongst yourselves....
UPDATE: Hub Blog responds-
"I usually don't link to pay-to-view columns for the reasons mentioned. But in this case, the Herald columns all dealt with issues I've been hammering away at in recent days. Peter Gelzinis, in particular, broke the Reilly/Billy story in a paid column -- and it's turned out to be one of the biggest stories in Boston in recent days. So I linked to him both yesterday and today. I've been hammering away at the Voice Vote antics of the lawmakers over the past few days, and Wayne was writing about it today. So I linked to him. Sometimes linking to pay-to-view/subscriber material is necessary to further and/or bolster an argument. ... As for your line: "Perhaps this the beginning of a discussion the wider world of blogs should discuss....Blogger Ethics: Pay Per View Links and Archives....discuss amongst yourselves" .... Ugh. Double ugh. Let's end the discussion right here. You're starting to sound like a stuffy non-blogger journalist. No 'Blogger Ethics,' please. To each his own, I say."