<article>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#article09_07_13_0531215</id>
	<title>Traditional News Media Lead Blogs By 2.5 Hours</title>
	<author>timothy</author>
	<datestamp>1247506980000</datestamp>
	<htmltext><a href="http://peacecorpsonline.org/" rel="nofollow">Peace Corps Online</a> writes <i>"The NY Times reports that researchers at Cornell studying the news cycle by looking for repeated phrases and tracking some 90 million articles and blog posts which appeared from August through October 2008 on 1.6 million mainstream media sites and blogs, have discovered that for the most part, <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2009/07/13/technology/internet/13influence.html">traditional news outlets lead and the blogs follow, typically by 2.5 hours</a>. The researchers studied <a href="http://graphics8.nytimes.com/images/2009/07/13/business/13influence-graf01.jpg">frequently repeated short phrases, the equivalent of 'genetic signatures' for ideas</a>. The biggest text-snippet surge  found in the study &mdash; <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lipstick\_on\_a\_pig">'lipstick on a pig'</a>  originated in Barack Obama's colorful put-down of the claim by Senator John McCain and Gov. Sarah Palin that they were the genuine voices for change in the campaign. The researchers' paper, <a href="http://www.cs.cornell.edu/home/kleinber/kdd09-quotes.pdf">'Meme-tracking and the Dynamics of the News Cycle,'</a> (PDF) shows that although most news flowed from the traditional media to the blogs,  3.5 percent of story lines originated in the blogs and later made their way to traditional media."</i></htmltext>
<tokenext>Peace Corps Online writes " The NY Times reports that researchers at Cornell studying the news cycle by looking for repeated phrases and tracking some 90 million articles and blog posts which appeared from August through October 2008 on 1.6 million mainstream media sites and blogs , have discovered that for the most part , traditional news outlets lead and the blogs follow , typically by 2.5 hours .
The researchers studied frequently repeated short phrases , the equivalent of 'genetic signatures ' for ideas .
The biggest text-snippet surge found in the study    'lipstick on a pig ' originated in Barack Obama 's colorful put-down of the claim by Senator John McCain and Gov .
Sarah Palin that they were the genuine voices for change in the campaign .
The researchers ' paper , 'Meme-tracking and the Dynamics of the News Cycle, ' ( PDF ) shows that although most news flowed from the traditional media to the blogs , 3.5 percent of story lines originated in the blogs and later made their way to traditional media .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Peace Corps Online writes "The NY Times reports that researchers at Cornell studying the news cycle by looking for repeated phrases and tracking some 90 million articles and blog posts which appeared from August through October 2008 on 1.6 million mainstream media sites and blogs, have discovered that for the most part, traditional news outlets lead and the blogs follow, typically by 2.5 hours.
The researchers studied frequently repeated short phrases, the equivalent of 'genetic signatures' for ideas.
The biggest text-snippet surge  found in the study — 'lipstick on a pig'  originated in Barack Obama's colorful put-down of the claim by Senator John McCain and Gov.
Sarah Palin that they were the genuine voices for change in the campaign.
The researchers' paper, 'Meme-tracking and the Dynamics of the News Cycle,' (PDF) shows that although most news flowed from the traditional media to the blogs,  3.5 percent of story lines originated in the blogs and later made their way to traditional media.
"</sentencetext>
</article>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_0531215.28674303</id>
	<title>Re:Not surprising</title>
	<author>Jah-Wren Ryel</author>
	<datestamp>1247487240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>And it turns out that some blogs do usually break stories before the MSM.</p></div><p>Its kind of sad that almost all of those blogs which "lead the news" are political blogs with big-time political agendas rather than, say, science blogs or something that I can read without being constantly hit over the head with a half-retarded point of view.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>And it turns out that some blogs do usually break stories before the MSM.Its kind of sad that almost all of those blogs which " lead the news " are political blogs with big-time political agendas rather than , say , science blogs or something that I can read without being constantly hit over the head with a half-retarded point of view .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>And it turns out that some blogs do usually break stories before the MSM.Its kind of sad that almost all of those blogs which "lead the news" are political blogs with big-time political agendas rather than, say, science blogs or something that I can read without being constantly hit over the head with a half-retarded point of view.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_0531215.28673065</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_0531215.28673499</id>
	<title>So...</title>
	<author>Pyrion</author>
	<datestamp>1247476320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>How long does traditional news media trail behind TotalFark?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>How long does traditional news media trail behind TotalFark ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>How long does traditional news media trail behind TotalFark?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_0531215.28673449</id>
	<title>Re:Nobody Cares</title>
	<author>operator\_error</author>
	<datestamp>1247518740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>But who on<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/. bothers to RTFA anyway?</p><p>And is this a higher percentage than Digg's article/quality-comment ratio? Mind you, the comments on digg are often so inane, if it wasn't for the articles, what's the point? In fact let me continue. It seems the comments by John &amp; Jane Q. Public left on various 'news' articles are often rather mindless, semi-anonymous comments mostly of shock value. Who bothers reading those? What does one hope to gain.</p><p>At least on<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/. I can learn to hack cheap routers from the comments left by readers.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>But who on / .
bothers to RTFA anyway ? And is this a higher percentage than Digg 's article/quality-comment ratio ?
Mind you , the comments on digg are often so inane , if it was n't for the articles , what 's the point ?
In fact let me continue .
It seems the comments by John &amp; Jane Q. Public left on various 'news ' articles are often rather mindless , semi-anonymous comments mostly of shock value .
Who bothers reading those ?
What does one hope to gain.At least on / .
I can learn to hack cheap routers from the comments left by readers .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>But who on /.
bothers to RTFA anyway?And is this a higher percentage than Digg's article/quality-comment ratio?
Mind you, the comments on digg are often so inane, if it wasn't for the articles, what's the point?
In fact let me continue.
It seems the comments by John &amp; Jane Q. Public left on various 'news' articles are often rather mindless, semi-anonymous comments mostly of shock value.
Who bothers reading those?
What does one hope to gain.At least on /.
I can learn to hack cheap routers from the comments left by readers.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_0531215.28673091</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_0531215.28673251</id>
	<title>CIA would pay $$$ for this kind of study</title>
	<author>AHuxley</author>
	<datestamp>1247515980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>How to shape with twitter in near real time.  Iran was a good test run for that.  1000's of fake pro 'green' Iran bursts all at the same time, to get the topic as number one.<br>
All pre package and ready to look 'organic'.<br>
Then track and promote the end losers who fall for it and become the real grass roots. <br>
US Ethno-Political Conflict Simulator: Influencing Leaders and Followers, 3 Oct 2006 should give slashdot readers a taste of the fun the US gov has in the 3rd world.<br>
The only question is what is been done in the USA via data like this?<br>
<a href="http://wikileaks.org/wiki/US\_Ethno-Political\_Conflict\_Simulator:\_Influencing\_Leaders\_and\_Followers\%2C\_3\_Oct\_2006" title="wikileaks.org">http://wikileaks.org/wiki/US\_Ethno-Political\_Conflict\_Simulator:\_Influencing\_Leaders\_and\_Followers\%2C\_3\_Oct\_2006</a> [wikileaks.org]</htmltext>
<tokenext>How to shape with twitter in near real time .
Iran was a good test run for that .
1000 's of fake pro 'green ' Iran bursts all at the same time , to get the topic as number one .
All pre package and ready to look 'organic' .
Then track and promote the end losers who fall for it and become the real grass roots .
US Ethno-Political Conflict Simulator : Influencing Leaders and Followers , 3 Oct 2006 should give slashdot readers a taste of the fun the US gov has in the 3rd world .
The only question is what is been done in the USA via data like this ?
http : //wikileaks.org/wiki/US \ _Ethno-Political \ _Conflict \ _Simulator : \ _Influencing \ _Leaders \ _and \ _Followers \ % 2C \ _3 \ _Oct \ _2006 [ wikileaks.org ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>How to shape with twitter in near real time.
Iran was a good test run for that.
1000's of fake pro 'green' Iran bursts all at the same time, to get the topic as number one.
All pre package and ready to look 'organic'.
Then track and promote the end losers who fall for it and become the real grass roots.
US Ethno-Political Conflict Simulator: Influencing Leaders and Followers, 3 Oct 2006 should give slashdot readers a taste of the fun the US gov has in the 3rd world.
The only question is what is been done in the USA via data like this?
http://wikileaks.org/wiki/US\_Ethno-Political\_Conflict\_Simulator:\_Influencing\_Leaders\_and\_Followers\%2C\_3\_Oct\_2006 [wikileaks.org]</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_0531215.28673029</id>
	<title>"Lipstick on a pig"</title>
	<author>jcr</author>
	<datestamp>1247426100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Offtopic</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>That phrase certainly didn't originate during the campaign.  I heard it in the context of describing attempts to make Windows look better at least five years ago, and it probably predates that usage as well.</p><p>-jcr</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>That phrase certainly did n't originate during the campaign .
I heard it in the context of describing attempts to make Windows look better at least five years ago , and it probably predates that usage as well.-jcr</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That phrase certainly didn't originate during the campaign.
I heard it in the context of describing attempts to make Windows look better at least five years ago, and it probably predates that usage as well.-jcr</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_0531215.28675263</id>
	<title>Re:So what's next?</title>
	<author>bwalling</author>
	<datestamp>1247495520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>Only possible solution I could see is a subcription service that covers hundreds of sites. You pay $4.99 a month and the money gets divided up between sites based on page views. However this is a nightmare to set up and get people on board and you may find it's about as successful as regular subscriptions.</p></div></blockquote><p>Sounds like cable television.  One would hope it doesn't fall prey to the same problem cable has - they keep adding crappy channels to increase the channel count and justify even higher prices.  I'd have cable if I could pay  $10/month for around 10 or so channels.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Only possible solution I could see is a subcription service that covers hundreds of sites .
You pay $ 4.99 a month and the money gets divided up between sites based on page views .
However this is a nightmare to set up and get people on board and you may find it 's about as successful as regular subscriptions.Sounds like cable television .
One would hope it does n't fall prey to the same problem cable has - they keep adding crappy channels to increase the channel count and justify even higher prices .
I 'd have cable if I could pay $ 10/month for around 10 or so channels .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Only possible solution I could see is a subcription service that covers hundreds of sites.
You pay $4.99 a month and the money gets divided up between sites based on page views.
However this is a nightmare to set up and get people on board and you may find it's about as successful as regular subscriptions.Sounds like cable television.
One would hope it doesn't fall prey to the same problem cable has - they keep adding crappy channels to increase the channel count and justify even higher prices.
I'd have cable if I could pay  $10/month for around 10 or so channels.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_0531215.28673377</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_0531215.28674131</id>
	<title>Maybe that's because they have reporters.</title>
	<author>EWAdams</author>
	<datestamp>1247485500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>
99\% of the content of blogs is personal blather or links to other stuff on the web. BFD. News organizations actually -- here's a shock -- <i>gather the news,</i> with people who are paid to do it.</htmltext>
<tokenext>99 \ % of the content of blogs is personal blather or links to other stuff on the web .
BFD. News organizations actually -- here 's a shock -- gather the news , with people who are paid to do it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>
99\% of the content of blogs is personal blather or links to other stuff on the web.
BFD. News organizations actually -- here's a shock -- gather the news, with people who are paid to do it.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_0531215.28673309</id>
	<title>How is this news?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247517000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Many bloggers comment on the news, but not all bloggers are investigative reporters looking to be the first to break a story. They're just expressing their opinion on the events, when they happen to hear about them.</p><p>If you crawl 90 million articles on blogs and newspapers and average all the times, of course the blogs will be hours behind.</p><p>NY Times is intentionally missing the point, to make themselves feel more relevant.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Many bloggers comment on the news , but not all bloggers are investigative reporters looking to be the first to break a story .
They 're just expressing their opinion on the events , when they happen to hear about them.If you crawl 90 million articles on blogs and newspapers and average all the times , of course the blogs will be hours behind.NY Times is intentionally missing the point , to make themselves feel more relevant .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Many bloggers comment on the news, but not all bloggers are investigative reporters looking to be the first to break a story.
They're just expressing their opinion on the events, when they happen to hear about them.If you crawl 90 million articles on blogs and newspapers and average all the times, of course the blogs will be hours behind.NY Times is intentionally missing the point, to make themselves feel more relevant.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_0531215.28673359</id>
	<title>Re:So what's next?</title>
	<author>davmoo</author>
	<datestamp>1247517720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Next time your local government does something that adversely affects you and you feel it totally sucks, think about how that lack of interest among you and the community contributes to that.  I'm not saying its all your fault or anything like that.  But people who don't take an interest in the goings-on in their community usually end up living in a horrid city with the kind of government they deserve.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Next time your local government does something that adversely affects you and you feel it totally sucks , think about how that lack of interest among you and the community contributes to that .
I 'm not saying its all your fault or anything like that .
But people who do n't take an interest in the goings-on in their community usually end up living in a horrid city with the kind of government they deserve .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Next time your local government does something that adversely affects you and you feel it totally sucks, think about how that lack of interest among you and the community contributes to that.
I'm not saying its all your fault or anything like that.
But people who don't take an interest in the goings-on in their community usually end up living in a horrid city with the kind of government they deserve.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_0531215.28673179</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_0531215.28673871</id>
	<title>Re:"Lipstick on a pig"</title>
	<author>bertoelcon</author>
	<datestamp>1247481660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I didn't understand the "lipstick on a pig" phrase at all, but I have LITERALLY done it. Makes the pig have tastier bacon, ham, and pork when done hours before taking it to be processed.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I did n't understand the " lipstick on a pig " phrase at all , but I have LITERALLY done it .
Makes the pig have tastier bacon , ham , and pork when done hours before taking it to be processed .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I didn't understand the "lipstick on a pig" phrase at all, but I have LITERALLY done it.
Makes the pig have tastier bacon, ham, and pork when done hours before taking it to be processed.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_0531215.28673029</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_0531215.28674351</id>
	<title>Define 'News'</title>
	<author>Aladrin</author>
	<datestamp>1247487900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You have to define 'news' pretty carefully to make this claim true.</p><p>If you only look at stories that were on Mainstream Media, then their numbers are probably pretty close.</p><p>If you look at news reported by bloggers, MSM doesn't even report the vast majority of it.  'New KDE Release' has -never- been on MSM, yet it's 'news' to me and I value the information.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You have to define 'news ' pretty carefully to make this claim true.If you only look at stories that were on Mainstream Media , then their numbers are probably pretty close.If you look at news reported by bloggers , MSM does n't even report the vast majority of it .
'New KDE Release ' has -never- been on MSM , yet it 's 'news ' to me and I value the information .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You have to define 'news' pretty carefully to make this claim true.If you only look at stories that were on Mainstream Media, then their numbers are probably pretty close.If you look at news reported by bloggers, MSM doesn't even report the vast majority of it.
'New KDE Release' has -never- been on MSM, yet it's 'news' to me and I value the information.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_0531215.28678987</id>
	<title>Re:"Traditional" must not mean 'the paper'</title>
	<author>Dirtside</author>
	<datestamp>1247508900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>If the President was assassinated at 1PM today</p></div></blockquote><p>Man, you better hope that doesn't come true, or they're going to send you to the prison that they send federal pound-me-in-the-ass prisons <i>to</i> when they go bad.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>If the President was assassinated at 1PM todayMan , you better hope that does n't come true , or they 're going to send you to the prison that they send federal pound-me-in-the-ass prisons to when they go bad .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If the President was assassinated at 1PM todayMan, you better hope that doesn't come true, or they're going to send you to the prison that they send federal pound-me-in-the-ass prisons to when they go bad.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_0531215.28673075</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_0531215.28673133</id>
	<title>2.5 hours lead time is nothing</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247427660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>Traditional news sometime can even <a href="http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/february2007/260207building7.htm" title="prisonplanet.com">lead the reality.</a> [prisonplanet.com] Bloggers simply cannot top them without psychic or divine intervention.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Traditional news sometime can even lead the reality .
[ prisonplanet.com ] Bloggers simply can not top them without psychic or divine intervention .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Traditional news sometime can even lead the reality.
[prisonplanet.com] Bloggers simply cannot top them without psychic or divine intervention.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_0531215.28674341</id>
	<title>Hmm</title>
	<author>sonicmerlin</author>
	<datestamp>1247487720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>It's nice to know the people being paid to do their jobs are a little faster than those who do it for free, eh?</htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's nice to know the people being paid to do their jobs are a little faster than those who do it for free , eh ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's nice to know the people being paid to do their jobs are a little faster than those who do it for free, eh?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_0531215.28676461</id>
	<title>Re:So what's next?</title>
	<author>infalliable</author>
	<datestamp>1247500680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I'd agree that is a large portion of the decline in traditional news outlets/papers.  Too many shallow stories without deep investigative work.  Take political stories for example, you almost always see the news outlets repeat the "company" lines without any analysis as to whether they're right or not.  On some things, there is no "right" answer, but for many things there is a position that is much more tenable, is not framed to be misleading, etc.  News outlets need to hit on these things.<br>.<br>Their other issue is they've been giving it away for years now.  People are used to getting it for free, why pay now?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'd agree that is a large portion of the decline in traditional news outlets/papers .
Too many shallow stories without deep investigative work .
Take political stories for example , you almost always see the news outlets repeat the " company " lines without any analysis as to whether they 're right or not .
On some things , there is no " right " answer , but for many things there is a position that is much more tenable , is not framed to be misleading , etc .
News outlets need to hit on these things..Their other issue is they 've been giving it away for years now .
People are used to getting it for free , why pay now ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'd agree that is a large portion of the decline in traditional news outlets/papers.
Too many shallow stories without deep investigative work.
Take political stories for example, you almost always see the news outlets repeat the "company" lines without any analysis as to whether they're right or not.
On some things, there is no "right" answer, but for many things there is a position that is much more tenable, is not framed to be misleading, etc.
News outlets need to hit on these things..Their other issue is they've been giving it away for years now.
People are used to getting it for free, why pay now?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_0531215.28672979</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_0531215.28675271</id>
	<title>Quality</title>
	<author>Thaelon</author>
	<datestamp>1247495580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>They should compete on quality.  Get the users getting their news from you because you're trumping Joe Messengerbag's blog for quality of journalism, but your site must be as easily accessible as Joe Messengerbag's because convenience is a stronger motive than most people realize.  If his content is crap, but easier to get to, then users will go their instead.  This means no paywalls and no compulsory registration.  Once you get some viewership you can worry about monetization.</p><p>And in my experience you can often discern the quality of a writer/speaker by how parrot-like their usage of hot new buzzwords they do not understand.  This includes, but is not limited to, calling a buzzword a meme.  Your usages for example, seem to illustrate a pretty good grasp of the real meaning behind the buzzwords.  But I often see CNN/Fox News parroting phrases things which they have only an abstract anecdotal understanding of.</p><p>For the record, here are your buzzwords:<br>"monetize"<br>"crowdsourced"<br>"blogopshere"</p><p>Can you find mine?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>They should compete on quality .
Get the users getting their news from you because you 're trumping Joe Messengerbag 's blog for quality of journalism , but your site must be as easily accessible as Joe Messengerbag 's because convenience is a stronger motive than most people realize .
If his content is crap , but easier to get to , then users will go their instead .
This means no paywalls and no compulsory registration .
Once you get some viewership you can worry about monetization.And in my experience you can often discern the quality of a writer/speaker by how parrot-like their usage of hot new buzzwords they do not understand .
This includes , but is not limited to , calling a buzzword a meme .
Your usages for example , seem to illustrate a pretty good grasp of the real meaning behind the buzzwords .
But I often see CNN/Fox News parroting phrases things which they have only an abstract anecdotal understanding of.For the record , here are your buzzwords : " monetize " " crowdsourced " " blogopshere " Can you find mine ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>They should compete on quality.
Get the users getting their news from you because you're trumping Joe Messengerbag's blog for quality of journalism, but your site must be as easily accessible as Joe Messengerbag's because convenience is a stronger motive than most people realize.
If his content is crap, but easier to get to, then users will go their instead.
This means no paywalls and no compulsory registration.
Once you get some viewership you can worry about monetization.And in my experience you can often discern the quality of a writer/speaker by how parrot-like their usage of hot new buzzwords they do not understand.
This includes, but is not limited to, calling a buzzword a meme.
Your usages for example, seem to illustrate a pretty good grasp of the real meaning behind the buzzwords.
But I often see CNN/Fox News parroting phrases things which they have only an abstract anecdotal understanding of.For the record, here are your buzzwords:"monetize""crowdsourced""blogopshere"Can you find mine?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_0531215.28672943</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_0531215.28673487</id>
	<title>Statements &amp; Interviews</title>
	<author>Aceticon</author>
	<datestamp>1247475960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Hardly surprising.</p><p>The study measured the time that ideas/memes/stories took to come out. Given that nowadays a large number of "stories" are released by politicians/companies and most do so in a tightly controlled way, usually by means of "statements to the press" or "interviews".</p><p>Guess who gets the press passes or the interviews? The press, not the bloggers.</p><p>That said, blogs are almost entirely opinion pieces: they don't break the news, instead they give us the blogger's personal interpretations of the news (or opinion over the state of something or something-else in the world).</p><p>The best blogs are those which analyze multiple news and events and bring them together with other knowledge to show us the patterns and flows behind the public facade: in a sense, investigative journalism on the cheap (they don't usually validate the sources).</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Hardly surprising.The study measured the time that ideas/memes/stories took to come out .
Given that nowadays a large number of " stories " are released by politicians/companies and most do so in a tightly controlled way , usually by means of " statements to the press " or " interviews " .Guess who gets the press passes or the interviews ?
The press , not the bloggers.That said , blogs are almost entirely opinion pieces : they do n't break the news , instead they give us the blogger 's personal interpretations of the news ( or opinion over the state of something or something-else in the world ) .The best blogs are those which analyze multiple news and events and bring them together with other knowledge to show us the patterns and flows behind the public facade : in a sense , investigative journalism on the cheap ( they do n't usually validate the sources ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Hardly surprising.The study measured the time that ideas/memes/stories took to come out.
Given that nowadays a large number of "stories" are released by politicians/companies and most do so in a tightly controlled way, usually by means of "statements to the press" or "interviews".Guess who gets the press passes or the interviews?
The press, not the bloggers.That said, blogs are almost entirely opinion pieces: they don't break the news, instead they give us the blogger's personal interpretations of the news (or opinion over the state of something or something-else in the world).The best blogs are those which analyze multiple news and events and bring them together with other knowledge to show us the patterns and flows behind the public facade: in a sense, investigative journalism on the cheap (they don't usually validate the sources).</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_0531215.28675301</id>
	<title>Re:So what's next? This.</title>
	<author>PopeRatzo</author>
	<datestamp>1247495700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>How 'bout this:  We have "traditional" journalists produce stories, doing their in-depth investigatory thing, but then we <i>deliver</i> those stories on the web, cutting out the whole "paper, trucks, printing" thing that costs money.</p><p>Just because something is delivered on the internet doesn't mean it cannot contain a high degree of professional journalism.</p><p>What does have to change, though, is people's willingness to pony up a few cents to read this professional work.  Either that, or a willingness to turn off AdBlock for those sites that provide a professional product.</p><p>I've got no problem paying for online subscriptions for a product that's worth something.  And as a longtime subscriber to the NY Times and Chicago Tribune, I've already decided that their product is worth something.  Shit, I pay a subscription for goddamn Slashdot because I value the product.  It's such a tiny amount that I don't notice it, and I roll with the lowest level of AdBlocking.</p><p>What's NOT going to work is having newspapers owned by public corporations.  Shareholders don't care about the importance of journalism or the institution of a Free Press (oh, I read that, too.)  It takes a civic minded rich family to do that.  However, one of the problems of our current "free market" system is that it seeks out and destroys civic-minded rich families for "not showing enough third-quarter growth".</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>How 'bout this : We have " traditional " journalists produce stories , doing their in-depth investigatory thing , but then we deliver those stories on the web , cutting out the whole " paper , trucks , printing " thing that costs money.Just because something is delivered on the internet does n't mean it can not contain a high degree of professional journalism.What does have to change , though , is people 's willingness to pony up a few cents to read this professional work .
Either that , or a willingness to turn off AdBlock for those sites that provide a professional product.I 've got no problem paying for online subscriptions for a product that 's worth something .
And as a longtime subscriber to the NY Times and Chicago Tribune , I 've already decided that their product is worth something .
Shit , I pay a subscription for goddamn Slashdot because I value the product .
It 's such a tiny amount that I do n't notice it , and I roll with the lowest level of AdBlocking.What 's NOT going to work is having newspapers owned by public corporations .
Shareholders do n't care about the importance of journalism or the institution of a Free Press ( oh , I read that , too .
) It takes a civic minded rich family to do that .
However , one of the problems of our current " free market " system is that it seeks out and destroys civic-minded rich families for " not showing enough third-quarter growth " .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>How 'bout this:  We have "traditional" journalists produce stories, doing their in-depth investigatory thing, but then we deliver those stories on the web, cutting out the whole "paper, trucks, printing" thing that costs money.Just because something is delivered on the internet doesn't mean it cannot contain a high degree of professional journalism.What does have to change, though, is people's willingness to pony up a few cents to read this professional work.
Either that, or a willingness to turn off AdBlock for those sites that provide a professional product.I've got no problem paying for online subscriptions for a product that's worth something.
And as a longtime subscriber to the NY Times and Chicago Tribune, I've already decided that their product is worth something.
Shit, I pay a subscription for goddamn Slashdot because I value the product.
It's such a tiny amount that I don't notice it, and I roll with the lowest level of AdBlocking.What's NOT going to work is having newspapers owned by public corporations.
Shareholders don't care about the importance of journalism or the institution of a Free Press (oh, I read that, too.
)  It takes a civic minded rich family to do that.
However, one of the problems of our current "free market" system is that it seeks out and destroys civic-minded rich families for "not showing enough third-quarter growth".</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_0531215.28672979</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_0531215.28673075</id>
	<title>"Traditional" must not mean 'the paper'</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247426880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>....because newspapers can't even ink their presses in 2.5 hours. Seriously. If the President was assassinated at 1PM today, the soonest any paper could publish anything about it would be maybe 5 hours later; assuming they put out a special edition. For all other severities of news, it's usually at least 24 hours old. I am guessing this study only included TV and web sites otherwise newspapers would drastically wonk the numbers.</htmltext>
<tokenext>....because newspapers ca n't even ink their presses in 2.5 hours .
Seriously. If the President was assassinated at 1PM today , the soonest any paper could publish anything about it would be maybe 5 hours later ; assuming they put out a special edition .
For all other severities of news , it 's usually at least 24 hours old .
I am guessing this study only included TV and web sites otherwise newspapers would drastically wonk the numbers .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>....because newspapers can't even ink their presses in 2.5 hours.
Seriously. If the President was assassinated at 1PM today, the soonest any paper could publish anything about it would be maybe 5 hours later; assuming they put out a special edition.
For all other severities of news, it's usually at least 24 hours old.
I am guessing this study only included TV and web sites otherwise newspapers would drastically wonk the numbers.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_0531215.28680873</id>
	<title>Re:So what's next?</title>
	<author>Red Flayer</author>
	<datestamp>1247515680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>You're saying you'd pay for in-depth local news where you currently have none, and I'm calling you a liar.</p></div></blockquote><p>Before you call him a liar... you might want to check out the facts.<br> <br>Local papers are closing their doors all the time.  Local reporters are being laid off constantly.  Circulation of local papers is in freefall.<br> <br>Larger, regional papers are cutting their local reporting staff.<br> <br>Just because you don't want it to be true doesn't mean that it isn't true.<br> <br>Go ahead, look at your regional paper.  How many stories are credited to the AP?  How does this compare to three years ago?<br> <br>Go ahead, call you local paper.  Ask how many reporters they have on staff.  Ask how many stringers they use.  Compare this to three years ago.<br> <br>The FACT is that local reporting is disappearing.  Hell, even major state papers are reducing local coverage.  The Star-Ledger in NJ used to have three full-time reporters in Trenton, which meant we'd get a decent amount of in-depth, researched, coverage into state politics.  Now, they have one part-time reporter... the rest of the Trenton stories come through the AP.  The quality is a tenth what it used to be.  And that's for the state capital!  Local news is even worse.<br> <br>My local paper used to employ 11 people at the local office, and retain the services of about 10 or 15 stringers.  Now they have 4 employees at the local office, and 8 stringers (plus a couple more during HS football season).  Both the quantity and quality of local news has dropped enormously.<br> <br>This is not a local trend.  This is a national trend.  The ASNE (American Society of Newspaper Editors) can barely talk about anything else -- they are fighting for survival.  The ASME (Amer. Soc. of Magazine Editors) recognizes the problem for regional and local magazines as well.<br> <br>But go ahead, lambast someone for lying when you yourself don't know the state of affairs.  I suggest you read up on it a bit, you might be surprised how quickly local news is dying.  Do you even read your local paper?  Have you noticed how it has changed over the past few years?  You might be lucky to have a local paper that bucks the trend... but it's only a matter of time before your paper suffers the same fate.<br> <br>Personally, I think we need to figure out a way local news can be monetized on the web, because I see a value in professional local news -- and print media is going buh-bye in the long run.  But I'm not sure it can be done without a huge (and largely unwelcome) change in how we feel about web content.  Most people feel it should be free, and they are used to it being free.  But that doesn't jibe with the fact that it costs money to produce quality reporting... so we have some painful adjustments (either no good local reporting, or having to pay for online content).</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>You 're saying you 'd pay for in-depth local news where you currently have none , and I 'm calling you a liar.Before you call him a liar... you might want to check out the facts .
Local papers are closing their doors all the time .
Local reporters are being laid off constantly .
Circulation of local papers is in freefall .
Larger , regional papers are cutting their local reporting staff .
Just because you do n't want it to be true does n't mean that it is n't true .
Go ahead , look at your regional paper .
How many stories are credited to the AP ?
How does this compare to three years ago ?
Go ahead , call you local paper .
Ask how many reporters they have on staff .
Ask how many stringers they use .
Compare this to three years ago .
The FACT is that local reporting is disappearing .
Hell , even major state papers are reducing local coverage .
The Star-Ledger in NJ used to have three full-time reporters in Trenton , which meant we 'd get a decent amount of in-depth , researched , coverage into state politics .
Now , they have one part-time reporter... the rest of the Trenton stories come through the AP .
The quality is a tenth what it used to be .
And that 's for the state capital !
Local news is even worse .
My local paper used to employ 11 people at the local office , and retain the services of about 10 or 15 stringers .
Now they have 4 employees at the local office , and 8 stringers ( plus a couple more during HS football season ) .
Both the quantity and quality of local news has dropped enormously .
This is not a local trend .
This is a national trend .
The ASNE ( American Society of Newspaper Editors ) can barely talk about anything else -- they are fighting for survival .
The ASME ( Amer .
Soc. of Magazine Editors ) recognizes the problem for regional and local magazines as well .
But go ahead , lambast someone for lying when you yourself do n't know the state of affairs .
I suggest you read up on it a bit , you might be surprised how quickly local news is dying .
Do you even read your local paper ?
Have you noticed how it has changed over the past few years ?
You might be lucky to have a local paper that bucks the trend... but it 's only a matter of time before your paper suffers the same fate .
Personally , I think we need to figure out a way local news can be monetized on the web , because I see a value in professional local news -- and print media is going buh-bye in the long run .
But I 'm not sure it can be done without a huge ( and largely unwelcome ) change in how we feel about web content .
Most people feel it should be free , and they are used to it being free .
But that does n't jibe with the fact that it costs money to produce quality reporting... so we have some painful adjustments ( either no good local reporting , or having to pay for online content ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You're saying you'd pay for in-depth local news where you currently have none, and I'm calling you a liar.Before you call him a liar... you might want to check out the facts.
Local papers are closing their doors all the time.
Local reporters are being laid off constantly.
Circulation of local papers is in freefall.
Larger, regional papers are cutting their local reporting staff.
Just because you don't want it to be true doesn't mean that it isn't true.
Go ahead, look at your regional paper.
How many stories are credited to the AP?
How does this compare to three years ago?
Go ahead, call you local paper.
Ask how many reporters they have on staff.
Ask how many stringers they use.
Compare this to three years ago.
The FACT is that local reporting is disappearing.
Hell, even major state papers are reducing local coverage.
The Star-Ledger in NJ used to have three full-time reporters in Trenton, which meant we'd get a decent amount of in-depth, researched, coverage into state politics.
Now, they have one part-time reporter... the rest of the Trenton stories come through the AP.
The quality is a tenth what it used to be.
And that's for the state capital!
Local news is even worse.
My local paper used to employ 11 people at the local office, and retain the services of about 10 or 15 stringers.
Now they have 4 employees at the local office, and 8 stringers (plus a couple more during HS football season).
Both the quantity and quality of local news has dropped enormously.
This is not a local trend.
This is a national trend.
The ASNE (American Society of Newspaper Editors) can barely talk about anything else -- they are fighting for survival.
The ASME (Amer.
Soc. of Magazine Editors) recognizes the problem for regional and local magazines as well.
But go ahead, lambast someone for lying when you yourself don't know the state of affairs.
I suggest you read up on it a bit, you might be surprised how quickly local news is dying.
Do you even read your local paper?
Have you noticed how it has changed over the past few years?
You might be lucky to have a local paper that bucks the trend... but it's only a matter of time before your paper suffers the same fate.
Personally, I think we need to figure out a way local news can be monetized on the web, because I see a value in professional local news -- and print media is going buh-bye in the long run.
But I'm not sure it can be done without a huge (and largely unwelcome) change in how we feel about web content.
Most people feel it should be free, and they are used to it being free.
But that doesn't jibe with the fact that it costs money to produce quality reporting... so we have some painful adjustments (either no good local reporting, or having to pay for online content).
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_0531215.28673321</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_0531215.28676819</id>
	<title>Re:Well, duh?</title>
	<author>DNS-and-BIND</author>
	<datestamp>1247501700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>My biggest fear is that the mainstream media will not die, but continue.  "Respected" journalists quoting Twitter on-air, as if everyone reads it and is familiar with it - and more to the point, that it's a credible source?  Die faster, please.</htmltext>
<tokenext>My biggest fear is that the mainstream media will not die , but continue .
" Respected " journalists quoting Twitter on-air , as if everyone reads it and is familiar with it - and more to the point , that it 's a credible source ?
Die faster , please .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>My biggest fear is that the mainstream media will not die, but continue.
"Respected" journalists quoting Twitter on-air, as if everyone reads it and is familiar with it - and more to the point, that it's a credible source?
Die faster, please.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_0531215.28673101</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_0531215.28673043</id>
	<title>Uhm</title>
	<author>Maudib</author>
	<datestamp>1247426340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Thats it?</p><p>I really would have hoped for better.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Thats it ? I really would have hoped for better .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Thats it?I really would have hoped for better.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_0531215.28674605</id>
	<title>That's only with stories they want to cover</title>
	<author>jollyreaper</author>
	<datestamp>1247490600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I use my family members to track public awareness -- my mom listens to safe, comfy nutritionless mainstream media products from NBC, my dad listens to right wing hate radio, and my sister tries to avoid hearing anything about anything  but leans progressive.</p><p>My dad is marginally better informed than my sister if only because they can't lie about everything and some nuggets of truth slip through. If you assign a negative weight to all the stuff he knows that just isn't so, he's far less informed.</p><p>My mom only knows what the MSM wants to cover but has gradually come to distrust it. Over the eight years of Boosh, I would keep bringing up things she had not heard of only to hear then six to twelve months later on the news. It's not that this stuff wasn't out there to be discovered, it's just that nobody was talking about it. Say a bit of news gets flushed out on an Infodump Friday, the blogs would pick it up and talk about it even as the talking heads ignored it. Enough blog interest could eventually make the story big enough for the MSM to start covering it again. What finally convinced her that NBC is morally bankrupt was seeing that insidious little investment gnome Cramer go on Jon Stewart, get his ass handed to him, then show up on the Today show a few days later doing his same old schtick. This was a man revealed to the world as a fraud and yet there were no consequences. "Of course there aren't. Morning shows like this are one big commercial. There's the little 30 second ones and then there's the longer ones with the hosts. They put Cramer on to drum up interest for his CNBC show."</p><p>A really telling figure is that the ratings for the various professional news outlets are very, very minuscule compared to the size of the nation. A top-rated cable news show will have a million viewers and that's compared to a nation of 300 million?</p><p>I think a better study would be trying to figure out the permeation level of the news sources through the society at large. It seems like most people are completely disconnected like my sister and only find out things through hearsay. So if Rush Limbaugh puts out the idea that Obama has a fake birth certificate, if that little meme goes beyond his shows and people who never listen to him start believing it, that's an influence far beyond his nominal audience. Second-hand disinformation? Goebbels called this sort of thing the Big Lie but I call it the "big penis stunt." I start talking about having a 12-inch dick. At first, the response will be "no, you don't" and "perv!" But if I keep talking about it, eventually the comments will shift from challenging the existence of my 12-inch dick to my talking about it. This presupposes the existence of the prodigious prong and now the debate is over whether it's appropriate to discuss in public. Doesn't matter if I'm actually hung like a Ken doll, everyone else knows I'm not.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I use my family members to track public awareness -- my mom listens to safe , comfy nutritionless mainstream media products from NBC , my dad listens to right wing hate radio , and my sister tries to avoid hearing anything about anything but leans progressive.My dad is marginally better informed than my sister if only because they ca n't lie about everything and some nuggets of truth slip through .
If you assign a negative weight to all the stuff he knows that just is n't so , he 's far less informed.My mom only knows what the MSM wants to cover but has gradually come to distrust it .
Over the eight years of Boosh , I would keep bringing up things she had not heard of only to hear then six to twelve months later on the news .
It 's not that this stuff was n't out there to be discovered , it 's just that nobody was talking about it .
Say a bit of news gets flushed out on an Infodump Friday , the blogs would pick it up and talk about it even as the talking heads ignored it .
Enough blog interest could eventually make the story big enough for the MSM to start covering it again .
What finally convinced her that NBC is morally bankrupt was seeing that insidious little investment gnome Cramer go on Jon Stewart , get his ass handed to him , then show up on the Today show a few days later doing his same old schtick .
This was a man revealed to the world as a fraud and yet there were no consequences .
" Of course there are n't .
Morning shows like this are one big commercial .
There 's the little 30 second ones and then there 's the longer ones with the hosts .
They put Cramer on to drum up interest for his CNBC show .
" A really telling figure is that the ratings for the various professional news outlets are very , very minuscule compared to the size of the nation .
A top-rated cable news show will have a million viewers and that 's compared to a nation of 300 million ? I think a better study would be trying to figure out the permeation level of the news sources through the society at large .
It seems like most people are completely disconnected like my sister and only find out things through hearsay .
So if Rush Limbaugh puts out the idea that Obama has a fake birth certificate , if that little meme goes beyond his shows and people who never listen to him start believing it , that 's an influence far beyond his nominal audience .
Second-hand disinformation ?
Goebbels called this sort of thing the Big Lie but I call it the " big penis stunt .
" I start talking about having a 12-inch dick .
At first , the response will be " no , you do n't " and " perv !
" But if I keep talking about it , eventually the comments will shift from challenging the existence of my 12-inch dick to my talking about it .
This presupposes the existence of the prodigious prong and now the debate is over whether it 's appropriate to discuss in public .
Does n't matter if I 'm actually hung like a Ken doll , everyone else knows I 'm not .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I use my family members to track public awareness -- my mom listens to safe, comfy nutritionless mainstream media products from NBC, my dad listens to right wing hate radio, and my sister tries to avoid hearing anything about anything  but leans progressive.My dad is marginally better informed than my sister if only because they can't lie about everything and some nuggets of truth slip through.
If you assign a negative weight to all the stuff he knows that just isn't so, he's far less informed.My mom only knows what the MSM wants to cover but has gradually come to distrust it.
Over the eight years of Boosh, I would keep bringing up things she had not heard of only to hear then six to twelve months later on the news.
It's not that this stuff wasn't out there to be discovered, it's just that nobody was talking about it.
Say a bit of news gets flushed out on an Infodump Friday, the blogs would pick it up and talk about it even as the talking heads ignored it.
Enough blog interest could eventually make the story big enough for the MSM to start covering it again.
What finally convinced her that NBC is morally bankrupt was seeing that insidious little investment gnome Cramer go on Jon Stewart, get his ass handed to him, then show up on the Today show a few days later doing his same old schtick.
This was a man revealed to the world as a fraud and yet there were no consequences.
"Of course there aren't.
Morning shows like this are one big commercial.
There's the little 30 second ones and then there's the longer ones with the hosts.
They put Cramer on to drum up interest for his CNBC show.
"A really telling figure is that the ratings for the various professional news outlets are very, very minuscule compared to the size of the nation.
A top-rated cable news show will have a million viewers and that's compared to a nation of 300 million?I think a better study would be trying to figure out the permeation level of the news sources through the society at large.
It seems like most people are completely disconnected like my sister and only find out things through hearsay.
So if Rush Limbaugh puts out the idea that Obama has a fake birth certificate, if that little meme goes beyond his shows and people who never listen to him start believing it, that's an influence far beyond his nominal audience.
Second-hand disinformation?
Goebbels called this sort of thing the Big Lie but I call it the "big penis stunt.
" I start talking about having a 12-inch dick.
At first, the response will be "no, you don't" and "perv!
" But if I keep talking about it, eventually the comments will shift from challenging the existence of my 12-inch dick to my talking about it.
This presupposes the existence of the prodigious prong and now the debate is over whether it's appropriate to discuss in public.
Doesn't matter if I'm actually hung like a Ken doll, everyone else knows I'm not.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_0531215.28673179</id>
	<title>Re:So what's next?</title>
	<author>Killer Orca</author>
	<datestamp>1247428500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>Well you might want local news, but some people want world and national news.  I hate it when the local news airs here, for the most part I could care less, I can't imagine going out of my way to read about mundane events in my city, "City losing money", "Local man killed" "Pet adoption on the rise"  blah, blah, blah.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Well you might want local news , but some people want world and national news .
I hate it when the local news airs here , for the most part I could care less , I ca n't imagine going out of my way to read about mundane events in my city , " City losing money " , " Local man killed " " Pet adoption on the rise " blah , blah , blah .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Well you might want local news, but some people want world and national news.
I hate it when the local news airs here, for the most part I could care less, I can't imagine going out of my way to read about mundane events in my city, "City losing money", "Local man killed" "Pet adoption on the rise"  blah, blah, blah.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_0531215.28672979</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_0531215.28681541</id>
	<title>Re:So what's next?</title>
	<author>sorak</author>
	<datestamp>1247518320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>(Disclosure: I work for a traditional news source)<br>.<br>It's not that they're firing more reporters and buying more AP stories. They pay AP a flat rate. They're firing reporters because they aren't bringing in enough money to cover their expenses (and labor is a big one).<br>.<br>The dilemma they are facing is that banner ads do not pay well enough to cover the costs of a significantly sized team of reporters, that charging for access is typically the kiss of death for a site, and the only successful way they have to pay today's bills is through yesterday's business model.<br>.<br>But the question is, what would a forward-thinking businessman do to pay the bills? As the internet will likely assimilate all older media (including television and radio), the solution is going to have to be one that is completely online, cannot be blocked by an ad-blocker, and doesn't cost the end-user any money.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>( Disclosure : I work for a traditional news source ) .It 's not that they 're firing more reporters and buying more AP stories .
They pay AP a flat rate .
They 're firing reporters because they are n't bringing in enough money to cover their expenses ( and labor is a big one ) ..The dilemma they are facing is that banner ads do not pay well enough to cover the costs of a significantly sized team of reporters , that charging for access is typically the kiss of death for a site , and the only successful way they have to pay today 's bills is through yesterday 's business model..But the question is , what would a forward-thinking businessman do to pay the bills ?
As the internet will likely assimilate all older media ( including television and radio ) , the solution is going to have to be one that is completely online , can not be blocked by an ad-blocker , and does n't cost the end-user any money .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>(Disclosure: I work for a traditional news source).It's not that they're firing more reporters and buying more AP stories.
They pay AP a flat rate.
They're firing reporters because they aren't bringing in enough money to cover their expenses (and labor is a big one)..The dilemma they are facing is that banner ads do not pay well enough to cover the costs of a significantly sized team of reporters, that charging for access is typically the kiss of death for a site, and the only successful way they have to pay today's bills is through yesterday's business model..But the question is, what would a forward-thinking businessman do to pay the bills?
As the internet will likely assimilate all older media (including television and radio), the solution is going to have to be one that is completely online, cannot be blocked by an ad-blocker, and doesn't cost the end-user any money.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_0531215.28672979</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_0531215.28675477</id>
	<title>Re:That's only with stories they want to cover</title>
	<author>Shakrai</author>
	<datestamp>1247496540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>my dad listens to right wing hate radio</p></div><p>Tell us what you really think<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:)</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>my dad listens to right wing hate radioTell us what you really think : )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>my dad listens to right wing hate radioTell us what you really think :)
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_0531215.28674605</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_0531215.28677615</id>
	<title>Re:So what's next?</title>
	<author>DragonWriter</author>
	<datestamp>1247504460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>Which brings up the point again...traditional media outlets will need to figure out how to monetize and stay in business, or all those blogs will no longer have a source for their stories.</p></div></blockquote><p>Or, more likely, if the blogs are better at making money, as the traditional news media fail, the profitable blogs will make the investments necessary to assure that they continue to have sources for their stories. Even if the fact that blogs tend to be slower on stories really means that they are depenndent on the traditional media. In some cases, that may be true, but it could just be that the traditional media are still driven by the desire to be first, while the blogs are driven more by the need to provide something that their readers care about, which often means more depth, context, and analysis and less emphasis on "you heard it hear first" on the bare bones of a story.</p><blockquote><div><p>Which is OK in a riot or a protest, but otherwise does not come with the depth of research from a good, non-lazy journalist that does his or her homework, uses multiple sources to back up facts, etc. etc.</p></div></blockquote><p>IMO, the better online outlets are already better at this than anything left in the traditional media (outside of some of the the weekly or monthly print outlets.)</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Which brings up the point again...traditional media outlets will need to figure out how to monetize and stay in business , or all those blogs will no longer have a source for their stories.Or , more likely , if the blogs are better at making money , as the traditional news media fail , the profitable blogs will make the investments necessary to assure that they continue to have sources for their stories .
Even if the fact that blogs tend to be slower on stories really means that they are depenndent on the traditional media .
In some cases , that may be true , but it could just be that the traditional media are still driven by the desire to be first , while the blogs are driven more by the need to provide something that their readers care about , which often means more depth , context , and analysis and less emphasis on " you heard it hear first " on the bare bones of a story.Which is OK in a riot or a protest , but otherwise does not come with the depth of research from a good , non-lazy journalist that does his or her homework , uses multiple sources to back up facts , etc .
etc.IMO , the better online outlets are already better at this than anything left in the traditional media ( outside of some of the the weekly or monthly print outlets .
)</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Which brings up the point again...traditional media outlets will need to figure out how to monetize and stay in business, or all those blogs will no longer have a source for their stories.Or, more likely, if the blogs are better at making money, as the traditional news media fail, the profitable blogs will make the investments necessary to assure that they continue to have sources for their stories.
Even if the fact that blogs tend to be slower on stories really means that they are depenndent on the traditional media.
In some cases, that may be true, but it could just be that the traditional media are still driven by the desire to be first, while the blogs are driven more by the need to provide something that their readers care about, which often means more depth, context, and analysis and less emphasis on "you heard it hear first" on the bare bones of a story.Which is OK in a riot or a protest, but otherwise does not come with the depth of research from a good, non-lazy journalist that does his or her homework, uses multiple sources to back up facts, etc.
etc.IMO, the better online outlets are already better at this than anything left in the traditional media (outside of some of the the weekly or monthly print outlets.
)
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_0531215.28672943</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_0531215.28673321</id>
	<title>Re:So what's next?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247517120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>The problem is most traditional media outlets aren't doing that style of journalism any more. They fire as many of their local people as they can, and rely even more on AP and the intarwebs. Instead of bringing me in-depth local news that I can't get anywhere else and would be willing to pay for, they bring me news that I can find in 470 other locations for free.</p></div><p>For those of you lucky enough to have both the Internet AND a TV, in the US, over the air stations are required to air so many hours of local news each day.</p><p>What backwoods little town do you come from where you think you're being shorted in-depth local news?  You want to find your local news, go kick a state trooper in the nuts.  I'd feel bad for him, but you'd find your local media.  How in depth do you want it anyway?  Maybe nobody gives a damn about some old house that burned down, or the availability of kerosene at the local mom &amp; pop.  Are you SURE you don't have a Foo Chronicle, Bar Tribune, Qux Times, or Gonad Weekly where you're from?  Not even a monthly newsletter?  Do you have any news to report?</p><p>You're saying you'd pay for in-depth local news where you currently have none, and I'm calling you a liar.  Pick up a local newspaper (it's even cheaper than big media) and stop bullshitting.  I'm guessing you don't actually WANT news, but entertainment, AKA<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/., AKA blogs.  You probably feel entitled to that too, since you can get it 27452 other places free.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>The problem is most traditional media outlets are n't doing that style of journalism any more .
They fire as many of their local people as they can , and rely even more on AP and the intarwebs .
Instead of bringing me in-depth local news that I ca n't get anywhere else and would be willing to pay for , they bring me news that I can find in 470 other locations for free.For those of you lucky enough to have both the Internet AND a TV , in the US , over the air stations are required to air so many hours of local news each day.What backwoods little town do you come from where you think you 're being shorted in-depth local news ?
You want to find your local news , go kick a state trooper in the nuts .
I 'd feel bad for him , but you 'd find your local media .
How in depth do you want it anyway ?
Maybe nobody gives a damn about some old house that burned down , or the availability of kerosene at the local mom &amp; pop .
Are you SURE you do n't have a Foo Chronicle , Bar Tribune , Qux Times , or Gonad Weekly where you 're from ?
Not even a monthly newsletter ?
Do you have any news to report ? You 're saying you 'd pay for in-depth local news where you currently have none , and I 'm calling you a liar .
Pick up a local newspaper ( it 's even cheaper than big media ) and stop bullshitting .
I 'm guessing you do n't actually WANT news , but entertainment , AKA /. , AKA blogs .
You probably feel entitled to that too , since you can get it 27452 other places free .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The problem is most traditional media outlets aren't doing that style of journalism any more.
They fire as many of their local people as they can, and rely even more on AP and the intarwebs.
Instead of bringing me in-depth local news that I can't get anywhere else and would be willing to pay for, they bring me news that I can find in 470 other locations for free.For those of you lucky enough to have both the Internet AND a TV, in the US, over the air stations are required to air so many hours of local news each day.What backwoods little town do you come from where you think you're being shorted in-depth local news?
You want to find your local news, go kick a state trooper in the nuts.
I'd feel bad for him, but you'd find your local media.
How in depth do you want it anyway?
Maybe nobody gives a damn about some old house that burned down, or the availability of kerosene at the local mom &amp; pop.
Are you SURE you don't have a Foo Chronicle, Bar Tribune, Qux Times, or Gonad Weekly where you're from?
Not even a monthly newsletter?
Do you have any news to report?You're saying you'd pay for in-depth local news where you currently have none, and I'm calling you a liar.
Pick up a local newspaper (it's even cheaper than big media) and stop bullshitting.
I'm guessing you don't actually WANT news, but entertainment, AKA /., AKA blogs.
You probably feel entitled to that too, since you can get it 27452 other places free.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_0531215.28672979</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_0531215.28675897</id>
	<title>Re:Slashdot screws the average.</title>
	<author>aaarrrgggh</author>
	<datestamp>1247498400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Despite that significant time lag, we still all come here to share insight and get a deeper understand of a story. I notice myself thinking that stories are dupes because I read about them aday earlier somewhere else, but being spared the trite and inane commentary of some of the other blogs creates value. Too many MSM articles are so devoid of real insight and are missing fundamental information...<br>
&nbsp;</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Despite that significant time lag , we still all come here to share insight and get a deeper understand of a story .
I notice myself thinking that stories are dupes because I read about them aday earlier somewhere else , but being spared the trite and inane commentary of some of the other blogs creates value .
Too many MSM articles are so devoid of real insight and are missing fundamental information.. .  </tokentext>
<sentencetext>Despite that significant time lag, we still all come here to share insight and get a deeper understand of a story.
I notice myself thinking that stories are dupes because I read about them aday earlier somewhere else, but being spared the trite and inane commentary of some of the other blogs creates value.
Too many MSM articles are so devoid of real insight and are missing fundamental information...
 </sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_0531215.28672983</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_0531215.28675657</id>
	<title>Re:Nobody Cares</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247497380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>dugg!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>dugg !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>dugg!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_0531215.28673449</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_0531215.28675051</id>
	<title>Re:Not surprising</title>
	<author>mdwh2</author>
	<datestamp>1247494200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I agree. Another obvious point is that this solely looked at the Presidential campaign. This is something that (a) the media would have been focused on, using the full extent of their resources, meanwhile (b) it could be argued that non-professionals were less likely to be covering it, partly because of (a), the media are already covering it immensely, so there's no need to do it, and also possibly issues to do with the hassles of security in attended events where presidential candidates were present.</p><p>What's the picture like for less notable events?</p><p>It's also unclear what they count as a blog (does Slashdot count? What about people using blogs for journalling, or commentary, and not for news reporting?) or indeed a news site (do they include local news? What about non-US sources?)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I agree .
Another obvious point is that this solely looked at the Presidential campaign .
This is something that ( a ) the media would have been focused on , using the full extent of their resources , meanwhile ( b ) it could be argued that non-professionals were less likely to be covering it , partly because of ( a ) , the media are already covering it immensely , so there 's no need to do it , and also possibly issues to do with the hassles of security in attended events where presidential candidates were present.What 's the picture like for less notable events ? It 's also unclear what they count as a blog ( does Slashdot count ?
What about people using blogs for journalling , or commentary , and not for news reporting ?
) or indeed a news site ( do they include local news ?
What about non-US sources ?
)</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I agree.
Another obvious point is that this solely looked at the Presidential campaign.
This is something that (a) the media would have been focused on, using the full extent of their resources, meanwhile (b) it could be argued that non-professionals were less likely to be covering it, partly because of (a), the media are already covering it immensely, so there's no need to do it, and also possibly issues to do with the hassles of security in attended events where presidential candidates were present.What's the picture like for less notable events?It's also unclear what they count as a blog (does Slashdot count?
What about people using blogs for journalling, or commentary, and not for news reporting?
) or indeed a news site (do they include local news?
What about non-US sources?
)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_0531215.28672955</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_0531215.28673485</id>
	<title>Um, huh, what?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247475960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>blogs by and large are about ideas, not news, so it seems like this is an apples and oranges study, discovering (surprise, surprise) that apples are more like apples than oranges are.

Now maybe if the study had compared editorials to blogs...</htmltext>
<tokenext>blogs by and large are about ideas , not news , so it seems like this is an apples and oranges study , discovering ( surprise , surprise ) that apples are more like apples than oranges are .
Now maybe if the study had compared editorials to blogs.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>blogs by and large are about ideas, not news, so it seems like this is an apples and oranges study, discovering (surprise, surprise) that apples are more like apples than oranges are.
Now maybe if the study had compared editorials to blogs...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_0531215.28673639</id>
	<title>It says something that blogs are more reliable..</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247478780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>News organizations lead blogs, it's true, but they suffer repeated embarrassment as respondants do actual fact checking.</p><p>Maybe the lesson here is they should hold their tongues and do real investigations into the issues they cover and offer balanced analysis rather than regurgitate press releases or empty ideological sound bytes.</p><p>Blogs would lose relevance quickly if the news sources themselves provided this analysis along with truly open, community moderated, meta-moderated, and meta-meta-moderated response columns to help add any unmentioned perspectives, updates, or corrections.</p><p>If traditional outlets don't take the time to properly research and compose their stories and don't offer true opportunities for community feedback they will always run second string to the likes of slashdot, reddit, and the daily show.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>News organizations lead blogs , it 's true , but they suffer repeated embarrassment as respondants do actual fact checking.Maybe the lesson here is they should hold their tongues and do real investigations into the issues they cover and offer balanced analysis rather than regurgitate press releases or empty ideological sound bytes.Blogs would lose relevance quickly if the news sources themselves provided this analysis along with truly open , community moderated , meta-moderated , and meta-meta-moderated response columns to help add any unmentioned perspectives , updates , or corrections.If traditional outlets do n't take the time to properly research and compose their stories and do n't offer true opportunities for community feedback they will always run second string to the likes of slashdot , reddit , and the daily show .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>News organizations lead blogs, it's true, but they suffer repeated embarrassment as respondants do actual fact checking.Maybe the lesson here is they should hold their tongues and do real investigations into the issues they cover and offer balanced analysis rather than regurgitate press releases or empty ideological sound bytes.Blogs would lose relevance quickly if the news sources themselves provided this analysis along with truly open, community moderated, meta-moderated, and meta-meta-moderated response columns to help add any unmentioned perspectives, updates, or corrections.If traditional outlets don't take the time to properly research and compose their stories and don't offer true opportunities for community feedback they will always run second string to the likes of slashdot, reddit, and the daily show.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_0531215.28673101</id>
	<title>Well, duh?</title>
	<author>dancingmad</author>
	<datestamp>1247427120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I hate the "main-stream media" as much as any one (watching CNN irritates the hell out of me - if I wanted to read Twitter, Rick Sanchez, I would get on the Internet!) and don't even get me started on Fox.</p><p>But this is obvious - there is very little original research going on the Web (the one counter example are the Abu Ghraib pictures as I remember those being posted to Live Journal long before they hit the rest of the media world).  It's more of a sounding chamber for things already being reported - commentary more than original research.</p><p>My biggest fear is that the mainstream media is moving in the same direction - closing local branches, relying on Twitter and the Facebook, this competitive advantage that the media has is slowly being dissolved, by itself.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I hate the " main-stream media " as much as any one ( watching CNN irritates the hell out of me - if I wanted to read Twitter , Rick Sanchez , I would get on the Internet !
) and do n't even get me started on Fox.But this is obvious - there is very little original research going on the Web ( the one counter example are the Abu Ghraib pictures as I remember those being posted to Live Journal long before they hit the rest of the media world ) .
It 's more of a sounding chamber for things already being reported - commentary more than original research.My biggest fear is that the mainstream media is moving in the same direction - closing local branches , relying on Twitter and the Facebook , this competitive advantage that the media has is slowly being dissolved , by itself .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I hate the "main-stream media" as much as any one (watching CNN irritates the hell out of me - if I wanted to read Twitter, Rick Sanchez, I would get on the Internet!
) and don't even get me started on Fox.But this is obvious - there is very little original research going on the Web (the one counter example are the Abu Ghraib pictures as I remember those being posted to Live Journal long before they hit the rest of the media world).
It's more of a sounding chamber for things already being reported - commentary more than original research.My biggest fear is that the mainstream media is moving in the same direction - closing local branches, relying on Twitter and the Facebook, this competitive advantage that the media has is slowly being dissolved, by itself.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_0531215.28673517</id>
	<title>The study is misleading</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247476560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If you define "news" as stories like "lipstick on a pig," of course Old Media is going to lead. They invented those stories in the first place, pulling memes out of their collective asses and headlining them in explosions of inanity, while ignoring real issues. If the study focused on phrases like "obama secrecy," "12 trillion to banks," or "single-payer healthcare," I doubt Old Media would even register.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If you define " news " as stories like " lipstick on a pig , " of course Old Media is going to lead .
They invented those stories in the first place , pulling memes out of their collective asses and headlining them in explosions of inanity , while ignoring real issues .
If the study focused on phrases like " obama secrecy , " " 12 trillion to banks , " or " single-payer healthcare , " I doubt Old Media would even register .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If you define "news" as stories like "lipstick on a pig," of course Old Media is going to lead.
They invented those stories in the first place, pulling memes out of their collective asses and headlining them in explosions of inanity, while ignoring real issues.
If the study focused on phrases like "obama secrecy," "12 trillion to banks," or "single-payer healthcare," I doubt Old Media would even register.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_0531215.28673129</id>
	<title>Newspapers.</title>
	<author>eBayDoug</author>
	<datestamp>1247427600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>There is no new, or news, in the newspaper. Maybe they should change the name?

News comes from Tipsters.</htmltext>
<tokenext>There is no new , or news , in the newspaper .
Maybe they should change the name ?
News comes from Tipsters .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There is no new, or news, in the newspaper.
Maybe they should change the name?
News comes from Tipsters.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_0531215.28672925</id>
	<title>Nobody Cares</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247424660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>/. puts the best bits all in one neat package regardless where its from.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>/ .
puts the best bits all in one neat package regardless where its from .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>/.
puts the best bits all in one neat package regardless where its from.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_0531215.28673065</id>
	<title>Re:Not surprising</title>
	<author>Asdanf</author>
	<datestamp>1247426640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>It would be more interesting to study the fastest of the blog posts, say 5\%, and see whether they beat the media.</p></div><p>Fortunately, the researchers agree with you and <a href="http://memetracker.org/lag.html" title="memetracker.org" rel="nofollow">did just that</a> [memetracker.org].  And it turns out that some blogs do usually break stories before the MSM.  I wonder why the NYTimes didn't lead with that finding...</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>It would be more interesting to study the fastest of the blog posts , say 5 \ % , and see whether they beat the media.Fortunately , the researchers agree with you and did just that [ memetracker.org ] .
And it turns out that some blogs do usually break stories before the MSM .
I wonder why the NYTimes did n't lead with that finding.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It would be more interesting to study the fastest of the blog posts, say 5\%, and see whether they beat the media.Fortunately, the researchers agree with you and did just that [memetracker.org].
And it turns out that some blogs do usually break stories before the MSM.
I wonder why the NYTimes didn't lead with that finding...
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_0531215.28672955</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_0531215.28674527</id>
	<title>Heavily flawed</title>
	<author>Legion303</author>
	<datestamp>1247490120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>After reading through the paper, I see it's clear the authors didn't test news content at all, just soundbites. So for example, they search for the Sarah Palin quote:</p><p>"Our opponent is someone who sees America, it seems, as being so imperfect, imperfect enough that he's palling around with terrorists who would target their own country."<nobr> <wbr></nobr>...and close derivatives of if on Google News, then on blogs to see where it appeared first. The problem with this methodology is that traditional media tended to report the quote uncritically, while the blogs took it and dissected it. In other words, corporate "news" media did fuck-all for reporting on the topic. The blogs did actual reporting work and found out that Palin was stretching the truth (surprise!), examined the facts behind her claim, and generally did the work mainstream media failed to do themselves.</p><p>So the bottom line is, if you want to know who can regurgitate phrases faster, the paper makes it clear that mainstream media is the obvious winner. If you want in-depth reporting, look to the web.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>After reading through the paper , I see it 's clear the authors did n't test news content at all , just soundbites .
So for example , they search for the Sarah Palin quote : " Our opponent is someone who sees America , it seems , as being so imperfect , imperfect enough that he 's palling around with terrorists who would target their own country .
" ...and close derivatives of if on Google News , then on blogs to see where it appeared first .
The problem with this methodology is that traditional media tended to report the quote uncritically , while the blogs took it and dissected it .
In other words , corporate " news " media did fuck-all for reporting on the topic .
The blogs did actual reporting work and found out that Palin was stretching the truth ( surprise !
) , examined the facts behind her claim , and generally did the work mainstream media failed to do themselves.So the bottom line is , if you want to know who can regurgitate phrases faster , the paper makes it clear that mainstream media is the obvious winner .
If you want in-depth reporting , look to the web .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>After reading through the paper, I see it's clear the authors didn't test news content at all, just soundbites.
So for example, they search for the Sarah Palin quote:"Our opponent is someone who sees America, it seems, as being so imperfect, imperfect enough that he's palling around with terrorists who would target their own country.
" ...and close derivatives of if on Google News, then on blogs to see where it appeared first.
The problem with this methodology is that traditional media tended to report the quote uncritically, while the blogs took it and dissected it.
In other words, corporate "news" media did fuck-all for reporting on the topic.
The blogs did actual reporting work and found out that Palin was stretching the truth (surprise!
), examined the facts behind her claim, and generally did the work mainstream media failed to do themselves.So the bottom line is, if you want to know who can regurgitate phrases faster, the paper makes it clear that mainstream media is the obvious winner.
If you want in-depth reporting, look to the web.
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_0531215.28673377</id>
	<title>Re:So what's next?</title>
	<author>abigsmurf</author>
	<datestamp>1247517900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>There is no way of monetising that will keep geeks happy. It's a myth peddled by people who want to justify the morality of blocking every ad, no matter how unintrusive.
<br> <br>
The ways of making money:
<br> <br>
Subscription - few people are willing to subscribe to a single site.
<br> <br>
advertising - adblock. Only cast iron method of getting around it is by putting ads before videos and not displaying any videos until the ad has played through. But not every news site does videos.
<br> <br>
Merchandise - CNN don't sell many DVDs and CNN branded T-shirts are hardly going to fly off the shelves.
<br> <br>
Donations - People point to Wiki as an example of this being successful but it simply isn't viable for 99\% of sites. If people donate at all they donate once and that's it. Wiki survives because of hard campaining for donations and because it looks good for companies to donate to.
<br> <br>
Licencing content - when blogs can rip out all the juicy info from an article and just link to the source at the bottom, this simply isn't viable (that and you're moving the revenue problem downstream)
<br> <br>
Only possible solution I could see is a subcription service that covers hundreds of sites. You pay $4.99 a month and the money gets divided up between sites based on page views. However this is a nightmare to set up and get people on board and you may find it's about as successful as regular subscriptions.</htmltext>
<tokenext>There is no way of monetising that will keep geeks happy .
It 's a myth peddled by people who want to justify the morality of blocking every ad , no matter how unintrusive .
The ways of making money : Subscription - few people are willing to subscribe to a single site .
advertising - adblock .
Only cast iron method of getting around it is by putting ads before videos and not displaying any videos until the ad has played through .
But not every news site does videos .
Merchandise - CNN do n't sell many DVDs and CNN branded T-shirts are hardly going to fly off the shelves .
Donations - People point to Wiki as an example of this being successful but it simply is n't viable for 99 \ % of sites .
If people donate at all they donate once and that 's it .
Wiki survives because of hard campaining for donations and because it looks good for companies to donate to .
Licencing content - when blogs can rip out all the juicy info from an article and just link to the source at the bottom , this simply is n't viable ( that and you 're moving the revenue problem downstream ) Only possible solution I could see is a subcription service that covers hundreds of sites .
You pay $ 4.99 a month and the money gets divided up between sites based on page views .
However this is a nightmare to set up and get people on board and you may find it 's about as successful as regular subscriptions .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There is no way of monetising that will keep geeks happy.
It's a myth peddled by people who want to justify the morality of blocking every ad, no matter how unintrusive.
The ways of making money:
 
Subscription - few people are willing to subscribe to a single site.
advertising - adblock.
Only cast iron method of getting around it is by putting ads before videos and not displaying any videos until the ad has played through.
But not every news site does videos.
Merchandise - CNN don't sell many DVDs and CNN branded T-shirts are hardly going to fly off the shelves.
Donations - People point to Wiki as an example of this being successful but it simply isn't viable for 99\% of sites.
If people donate at all they donate once and that's it.
Wiki survives because of hard campaining for donations and because it looks good for companies to donate to.
Licencing content - when blogs can rip out all the juicy info from an article and just link to the source at the bottom, this simply isn't viable (that and you're moving the revenue problem downstream)
 
Only possible solution I could see is a subcription service that covers hundreds of sites.
You pay $4.99 a month and the money gets divided up between sites based on page views.
However this is a nightmare to set up and get people on board and you may find it's about as successful as regular subscriptions.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_0531215.28672943</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_0531215.28679613</id>
	<title>Re:So what's next?</title>
	<author>mattwarden</author>
	<datestamp>1247510880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>&gt; There is no way of monetising that will keep geeks happy. It's a myth<br>&gt; peddled by people who want to justify the morality of blocking every<br>&gt; ad, no matter how unintrusive.<nobr> <wbr></nobr>...<br>&gt; advertising - adblock. Only cast iron method of getting around it is<br>&gt; by putting ads before videos and not displaying any videos until the<br>&gt; ad has played through. But not every news site does videos.</p><p>Look, I don't have any interest in advertisements, even targeted ones. I have no use for them. None. Not on TV, not on the Web, not on billboards. I am not interested in what some company thinks I should buy.</p><p>You have completely missed the issue by focusing on how people are keeping their own computer from annoying them with ads (those bastards!) and ways to "defeat" these methods. Even if you "defeat" these methods and display an ad to me, like in the case of videos where I can't get around it, <strong>it still doesn't work</strong>. All I do is flip to another tab or do something for 10 seconds until what I actually want comes on. You do not control the content I see. If you want compensation for your content, then ask for it. But forcing me to stare at an advertisement I have no interest in, will never click on, and will never be influenced by will never result in any increased revenue for you.</p><p>The business model of forcing people to look at stuff they aren't interested in was never solid enough to stand upright. If the "defeat" you mention becomes much more popular, I or someone else will write a quick plug in that plays video in the background into a buffer and then when the user really wants to watch the video, playback will start right after the ad ends (this is basically the TiVo solution).</p><p>All of these people who trying to get users to play content they don't want on their own computers are shocked that it doesn't work.</p><p>Really?</p><p>&gt; Subscription - few people are willing to subscribe to a single site.</p><p>If a site offered true, un- or minimally-biased investigative journalism, I would pay for it. I don't know whom this site would hire, though, because these journalists don't currently exist.</p><p>I am not interested in paying for content aggregation, though. And I am not interested in paying for exaggerating misrepresentations of minor scientific advancements. And I am not interested in paying for half-truths and talking points from the likes of Fox News of MSNBC.</p><p>Like anything else in the world, if you offer something <strong>of value</strong>, I will pay for it.</p><p>Again, I think you are missing the point. The issue with subscriptions is not that people aren't willing to pay anything. The issue is that the value provided by a single site is so small that the transaction costs of collecting a fee would make the transaction unprofitable. You seem to understand that below, but do not point out the reasoning:</p><p>&gt; You pay $4.99 a month and the money gets divided up between sites based on<br>&gt; page views. However this is a nightmare to set up and get people on board<br>&gt; and you may find it's about as successful as regular subscriptions</p><p>The reason that it would work for a collection of sites for a larger fee is because of the transaction cost issue. Even then, it only works if the collective value is $4.99 or higher. If I only care about 1 of those sites, then I will not pay the fee.</p><p>You don't necessarily need to do this bundle model. As long as you can establish a third party payer with low enough transaction costs, where I can put $25 in my account and it gets debited in small amounts as I access content, it could work. This is similar to the model that nearlyfreespeech.net's hosting service uses (although there is no third-party there).</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>&gt; There is no way of monetising that will keep geeks happy .
It 's a myth &gt; peddled by people who want to justify the morality of blocking every &gt; ad , no matter how unintrusive .
... &gt; advertising - adblock .
Only cast iron method of getting around it is &gt; by putting ads before videos and not displaying any videos until the &gt; ad has played through .
But not every news site does videos.Look , I do n't have any interest in advertisements , even targeted ones .
I have no use for them .
None. Not on TV , not on the Web , not on billboards .
I am not interested in what some company thinks I should buy.You have completely missed the issue by focusing on how people are keeping their own computer from annoying them with ads ( those bastards !
) and ways to " defeat " these methods .
Even if you " defeat " these methods and display an ad to me , like in the case of videos where I ca n't get around it , it still does n't work .
All I do is flip to another tab or do something for 10 seconds until what I actually want comes on .
You do not control the content I see .
If you want compensation for your content , then ask for it .
But forcing me to stare at an advertisement I have no interest in , will never click on , and will never be influenced by will never result in any increased revenue for you.The business model of forcing people to look at stuff they are n't interested in was never solid enough to stand upright .
If the " defeat " you mention becomes much more popular , I or someone else will write a quick plug in that plays video in the background into a buffer and then when the user really wants to watch the video , playback will start right after the ad ends ( this is basically the TiVo solution ) .All of these people who trying to get users to play content they do n't want on their own computers are shocked that it does n't work.Really ? &gt; Subscription - few people are willing to subscribe to a single site.If a site offered true , un- or minimally-biased investigative journalism , I would pay for it .
I do n't know whom this site would hire , though , because these journalists do n't currently exist.I am not interested in paying for content aggregation , though .
And I am not interested in paying for exaggerating misrepresentations of minor scientific advancements .
And I am not interested in paying for half-truths and talking points from the likes of Fox News of MSNBC.Like anything else in the world , if you offer something of value , I will pay for it.Again , I think you are missing the point .
The issue with subscriptions is not that people are n't willing to pay anything .
The issue is that the value provided by a single site is so small that the transaction costs of collecting a fee would make the transaction unprofitable .
You seem to understand that below , but do not point out the reasoning : &gt; You pay $ 4.99 a month and the money gets divided up between sites based on &gt; page views .
However this is a nightmare to set up and get people on board &gt; and you may find it 's about as successful as regular subscriptionsThe reason that it would work for a collection of sites for a larger fee is because of the transaction cost issue .
Even then , it only works if the collective value is $ 4.99 or higher .
If I only care about 1 of those sites , then I will not pay the fee.You do n't necessarily need to do this bundle model .
As long as you can establish a third party payer with low enough transaction costs , where I can put $ 25 in my account and it gets debited in small amounts as I access content , it could work .
This is similar to the model that nearlyfreespeech.net 's hosting service uses ( although there is no third-party there ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>&gt; There is no way of monetising that will keep geeks happy.
It's a myth&gt; peddled by people who want to justify the morality of blocking every&gt; ad, no matter how unintrusive.
...&gt; advertising - adblock.
Only cast iron method of getting around it is&gt; by putting ads before videos and not displaying any videos until the&gt; ad has played through.
But not every news site does videos.Look, I don't have any interest in advertisements, even targeted ones.
I have no use for them.
None. Not on TV, not on the Web, not on billboards.
I am not interested in what some company thinks I should buy.You have completely missed the issue by focusing on how people are keeping their own computer from annoying them with ads (those bastards!
) and ways to "defeat" these methods.
Even if you "defeat" these methods and display an ad to me, like in the case of videos where I can't get around it, it still doesn't work.
All I do is flip to another tab or do something for 10 seconds until what I actually want comes on.
You do not control the content I see.
If you want compensation for your content, then ask for it.
But forcing me to stare at an advertisement I have no interest in, will never click on, and will never be influenced by will never result in any increased revenue for you.The business model of forcing people to look at stuff they aren't interested in was never solid enough to stand upright.
If the "defeat" you mention becomes much more popular, I or someone else will write a quick plug in that plays video in the background into a buffer and then when the user really wants to watch the video, playback will start right after the ad ends (this is basically the TiVo solution).All of these people who trying to get users to play content they don't want on their own computers are shocked that it doesn't work.Really?&gt; Subscription - few people are willing to subscribe to a single site.If a site offered true, un- or minimally-biased investigative journalism, I would pay for it.
I don't know whom this site would hire, though, because these journalists don't currently exist.I am not interested in paying for content aggregation, though.
And I am not interested in paying for exaggerating misrepresentations of minor scientific advancements.
And I am not interested in paying for half-truths and talking points from the likes of Fox News of MSNBC.Like anything else in the world, if you offer something of value, I will pay for it.Again, I think you are missing the point.
The issue with subscriptions is not that people aren't willing to pay anything.
The issue is that the value provided by a single site is so small that the transaction costs of collecting a fee would make the transaction unprofitable.
You seem to understand that below, but do not point out the reasoning:&gt; You pay $4.99 a month and the money gets divided up between sites based on&gt; page views.
However this is a nightmare to set up and get people on board&gt; and you may find it's about as successful as regular subscriptionsThe reason that it would work for a collection of sites for a larger fee is because of the transaction cost issue.
Even then, it only works if the collective value is $4.99 or higher.
If I only care about 1 of those sites, then I will not pay the fee.You don't necessarily need to do this bundle model.
As long as you can establish a third party payer with low enough transaction costs, where I can put $25 in my account and it gets debited in small amounts as I access content, it could work.
This is similar to the model that nearlyfreespeech.net's hosting service uses (although there is no third-party there).</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_0531215.28673377</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_0531215.28673759</id>
	<title>Meme Theory Simplified</title>
	<author>broward</author>
	<datestamp>1247480160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I posted my first Meme Graph and reference here on Slashdot back in 2006.<br>What comes next?<br>We go from measurement to manipulation.</p><p><a href="http://www.realmeme.com/roller/page/realmeme?entry=meme\_theory" title="realmeme.com">http://www.realmeme.com/roller/page/realmeme?entry=meme\_theory</a> [realmeme.com]</p><p>Diffraction is my term for measuring how well a new meme captures more bandwdith.  In a Quality-Of-Service network, bandwidth always has contention and grabbing more bandwidth is difficult.   If you understand how to grab bandwidth through meme patterns, you can propagate your information ahead of others.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I posted my first Meme Graph and reference here on Slashdot back in 2006.What comes next ? We go from measurement to manipulation.http : //www.realmeme.com/roller/page/realmeme ? entry = meme \ _theory [ realmeme.com ] Diffraction is my term for measuring how well a new meme captures more bandwdith .
In a Quality-Of-Service network , bandwidth always has contention and grabbing more bandwidth is difficult .
If you understand how to grab bandwidth through meme patterns , you can propagate your information ahead of others .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I posted my first Meme Graph and reference here on Slashdot back in 2006.What comes next?We go from measurement to manipulation.http://www.realmeme.com/roller/page/realmeme?entry=meme\_theory [realmeme.com]Diffraction is my term for measuring how well a new meme captures more bandwdith.
In a Quality-Of-Service network, bandwidth always has contention and grabbing more bandwidth is difficult.
If you understand how to grab bandwidth through meme patterns, you can propagate your information ahead of others.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_0531215.28672943</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_0531215.28675037</id>
	<title>No surprise</title>
	<author>DaveV1.0</author>
	<datestamp>1247494080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Where do you think the "news" bloggers get their news?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Where do you think the " news " bloggers get their news ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Where do you think the "news" bloggers get their news?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_0531215.28678827</id>
	<title>Blogs don't lead for news...</title>
	<author>Sosarian</author>
	<datestamp>1247508360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>For the stories that the newspapers are actually reporting.</p><p>What about stories that they aren't reporting on, putting on page 57, or just getting the facts wrong.</p><p>I've almost given up on local media, probably because not a lot of it interests me beyond fires, murders, local government.  The rest I get off the internet.  Although they have adapted a bit here in my city, posting their top news stories to twitter from their websites.</p><p>And for things like science reporting, I think the specialty reporting is doing a better job, like science bloggers, podcasts, radio and tv (Science Friday, Quirks and Quarks, Daily Planet).</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>For the stories that the newspapers are actually reporting.What about stories that they are n't reporting on , putting on page 57 , or just getting the facts wrong.I 've almost given up on local media , probably because not a lot of it interests me beyond fires , murders , local government .
The rest I get off the internet .
Although they have adapted a bit here in my city , posting their top news stories to twitter from their websites.And for things like science reporting , I think the specialty reporting is doing a better job , like science bloggers , podcasts , radio and tv ( Science Friday , Quirks and Quarks , Daily Planet ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>For the stories that the newspapers are actually reporting.What about stories that they aren't reporting on, putting on page 57, or just getting the facts wrong.I've almost given up on local media, probably because not a lot of it interests me beyond fires, murders, local government.
The rest I get off the internet.
Although they have adapted a bit here in my city, posting their top news stories to twitter from their websites.And for things like science reporting, I think the specialty reporting is doing a better job, like science bloggers, podcasts, radio and tv (Science Friday, Quirks and Quarks, Daily Planet).</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_0531215.28674405</id>
	<title>Coincidence</title>
	<author>ianalis</author>
	<datestamp>1247488860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I just presented this paper earlier. We're working on another paper related to this long before this paper was published. It's based on my master's thesis. Stay tuned!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I just presented this paper earlier .
We 're working on another paper related to this long before this paper was published .
It 's based on my master 's thesis .
Stay tuned !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I just presented this paper earlier.
We're working on another paper related to this long before this paper was published.
It's based on my master's thesis.
Stay tuned!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_0531215.28674001</id>
	<title>News gathering and publishing will have to rescale</title>
	<author>superposed</author>
	<datestamp>1247483700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>There's not as much money in newspaper advertising as there used to be, and this will inevitably lead to a reduction in the amount of news being collected and the number of printed newspapers.<br>
<br>
In the old days, your local newspaper(s) had a monopoly or oligopoly on display and classified advertising. This gave them enough money to hire a local reporting staff, and in some cases, to set up remote bureaus. The smaller papers relied on wire services or news agencies for their national or international news, and the bigger papers gathered some of this for themselves. Often there was enough advertising revenue to support two or more newspapers in the same town.<br>
<br>
Now, many readers have switched from printed newspapers to the Internet, drying up the display ad revenue (newspapers make money selling readers to advertisers, not selling news to readers). The websites don't get nearly so much revenue per ad-view as the printed papers did. Meanwhile craigslist has grabbed the classified ads. So now each person who reads a story doesn't bring in nearly as much ad revenue as they used to. What's going to happen?<br>
<br>
I think a big consolidation is inevitable -- the amount of original news reporting will have to be reduced, so that more people read each story, and the ad revenue per story returns to a high enough level to support the cost of writing it. All the newspapers will lose money for a while, until most of them have failed or radically restructured (e.g., going online-only and closing any remote bureaus). At that point, all national and international news will probably be gathered by a few national wire services, a few national TV networks, and maybe a couple of major national papers. All the other papers, websites and TV stations will rely on these sources for their "content". There will probably also be a big reduction in local reporting, except in the biggest cities. But each original story will be so widely disseminated that the revenue from teeth-whitening ads on Yahoo.com, Applebee's ads on sfgate.com, and Macy's ads in a few dozen local papers will be enough to cover the cost of reporting it.<br>
<br>
This is depressing if you care about having a diversity of news sources, but it is probably unavoidable. There just isn't enough ad revenue to support as much news reporting as we have now.</htmltext>
<tokenext>There 's not as much money in newspaper advertising as there used to be , and this will inevitably lead to a reduction in the amount of news being collected and the number of printed newspapers .
In the old days , your local newspaper ( s ) had a monopoly or oligopoly on display and classified advertising .
This gave them enough money to hire a local reporting staff , and in some cases , to set up remote bureaus .
The smaller papers relied on wire services or news agencies for their national or international news , and the bigger papers gathered some of this for themselves .
Often there was enough advertising revenue to support two or more newspapers in the same town .
Now , many readers have switched from printed newspapers to the Internet , drying up the display ad revenue ( newspapers make money selling readers to advertisers , not selling news to readers ) .
The websites do n't get nearly so much revenue per ad-view as the printed papers did .
Meanwhile craigslist has grabbed the classified ads .
So now each person who reads a story does n't bring in nearly as much ad revenue as they used to .
What 's going to happen ?
I think a big consolidation is inevitable -- the amount of original news reporting will have to be reduced , so that more people read each story , and the ad revenue per story returns to a high enough level to support the cost of writing it .
All the newspapers will lose money for a while , until most of them have failed or radically restructured ( e.g. , going online-only and closing any remote bureaus ) .
At that point , all national and international news will probably be gathered by a few national wire services , a few national TV networks , and maybe a couple of major national papers .
All the other papers , websites and TV stations will rely on these sources for their " content " .
There will probably also be a big reduction in local reporting , except in the biggest cities .
But each original story will be so widely disseminated that the revenue from teeth-whitening ads on Yahoo.com , Applebee 's ads on sfgate.com , and Macy 's ads in a few dozen local papers will be enough to cover the cost of reporting it .
This is depressing if you care about having a diversity of news sources , but it is probably unavoidable .
There just is n't enough ad revenue to support as much news reporting as we have now .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There's not as much money in newspaper advertising as there used to be, and this will inevitably lead to a reduction in the amount of news being collected and the number of printed newspapers.
In the old days, your local newspaper(s) had a monopoly or oligopoly on display and classified advertising.
This gave them enough money to hire a local reporting staff, and in some cases, to set up remote bureaus.
The smaller papers relied on wire services or news agencies for their national or international news, and the bigger papers gathered some of this for themselves.
Often there was enough advertising revenue to support two or more newspapers in the same town.
Now, many readers have switched from printed newspapers to the Internet, drying up the display ad revenue (newspapers make money selling readers to advertisers, not selling news to readers).
The websites don't get nearly so much revenue per ad-view as the printed papers did.
Meanwhile craigslist has grabbed the classified ads.
So now each person who reads a story doesn't bring in nearly as much ad revenue as they used to.
What's going to happen?
I think a big consolidation is inevitable -- the amount of original news reporting will have to be reduced, so that more people read each story, and the ad revenue per story returns to a high enough level to support the cost of writing it.
All the newspapers will lose money for a while, until most of them have failed or radically restructured (e.g., going online-only and closing any remote bureaus).
At that point, all national and international news will probably be gathered by a few national wire services, a few national TV networks, and maybe a couple of major national papers.
All the other papers, websites and TV stations will rely on these sources for their "content".
There will probably also be a big reduction in local reporting, except in the biggest cities.
But each original story will be so widely disseminated that the revenue from teeth-whitening ads on Yahoo.com, Applebee's ads on sfgate.com, and Macy's ads in a few dozen local papers will be enough to cover the cost of reporting it.
This is depressing if you care about having a diversity of news sources, but it is probably unavoidable.
There just isn't enough ad revenue to support as much news reporting as we have now.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_0531215.28672943</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_0531215.28672979</id>
	<title>Re:So what's next?</title>
	<author>davmoo</author>
	<datestamp>1247425500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The problem is most traditional media outlets aren't doing that style of journalism any more.  They fire as many of their local people as they can, and rely even more on AP and the intarwebs.  Instead of bringing me in-depth local news that I can't get anywhere else and would be willing to pay for, they bring me news that I can find in 470 other locations for free.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The problem is most traditional media outlets are n't doing that style of journalism any more .
They fire as many of their local people as they can , and rely even more on AP and the intarwebs .
Instead of bringing me in-depth local news that I ca n't get anywhere else and would be willing to pay for , they bring me news that I can find in 470 other locations for free .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The problem is most traditional media outlets aren't doing that style of journalism any more.
They fire as many of their local people as they can, and rely even more on AP and the intarwebs.
Instead of bringing me in-depth local news that I can't get anywhere else and would be willing to pay for, they bring me news that I can find in 470 other locations for free.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_0531215.28672943</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_0531215.28673501</id>
	<title>Re:So what's next?</title>
	<author>skilledbachelor</author>
	<datestamp>1247476320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>The last para of the article: "Even from last fall to today, the dynamics of the news cycle are very different, because of Twitter"</htmltext>
<tokenext>The last para of the article : " Even from last fall to today , the dynamics of the news cycle are very different , because of Twitter "</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The last para of the article: "Even from last fall to today, the dynamics of the news cycle are very different, because of Twitter"</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_0531215.28672943</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_0531215.28676253</id>
	<title>Re:So what's next?</title>
	<author>misexistentialist</author>
	<datestamp>1247499900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Interest is hardly enough. A part of the population is too stupid to even recognize what's happening, a part is not actually affected by the government's decision, and a part is connected to government. On the local level city employees and their friends and family make up a large and well-funded percentage of the vote. And someone defending his/her $80k/year redundant job is going to be a hell of a lot more motivated than you are about a $5/year tax increase, especially since s/he has a hell of a lot more time to campaign for it.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Interest is hardly enough .
A part of the population is too stupid to even recognize what 's happening , a part is not actually affected by the government 's decision , and a part is connected to government .
On the local level city employees and their friends and family make up a large and well-funded percentage of the vote .
And someone defending his/her $ 80k/year redundant job is going to be a hell of a lot more motivated than you are about a $ 5/year tax increase , especially since s/he has a hell of a lot more time to campaign for it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Interest is hardly enough.
A part of the population is too stupid to even recognize what's happening, a part is not actually affected by the government's decision, and a part is connected to government.
On the local level city employees and their friends and family make up a large and well-funded percentage of the vote.
And someone defending his/her $80k/year redundant job is going to be a hell of a lot more motivated than you are about a $5/year tax increase, especially since s/he has a hell of a lot more time to campaign for it.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_0531215.28673359</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_0531215.28675635</id>
	<title>Re:So what's next?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247497320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You er.  Much of current print "journalism" is; lazy, crowd sourced (the crowd of other journalists), and often fails to back up their facts.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You er .
Much of current print " journalism " is ; lazy , crowd sourced ( the crowd of other journalists ) , and often fails to back up their facts .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You er.
Much of current print "journalism" is; lazy, crowd sourced (the crowd of other journalists), and often fails to back up their facts.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_0531215.28672943</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_0531215.28684539</id>
	<title>Re:So what's next?</title>
	<author>Ripit</author>
	<datestamp>1247489640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I actually would like to subscribe to your newsletter.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I actually would like to subscribe to your newsletter .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I actually would like to subscribe to your newsletter.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_0531215.28673339</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_0531215.28673407</id>
	<title>And this is a good thing!?</title>
	<author>puroresu</author>
	<datestamp>1247518260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>If the "traditional" media believes this to be a good thing then they're hammering another nail into their own coffin. The fact of the matter is that good journalism takes time. Sure, speed is one element of news reporting, but it trails accuracy and clarity in terms of importance.
<br> <br>
Much of the "traditional" media also seems to be mistakenly pursuing "balance" as some ultimate goal. This consists of finding two sides to any issue, despite the fact that it may be far more nuanced than this, and giving both of them equal time and credence, whether or not they deserve it. This is all slotted into a sixty second package which tells viewers almost nothing, then repeated ad nauseum until interest in the story completely dies, or something more important happens, like a celebrity farting.</htmltext>
<tokenext>If the " traditional " media believes this to be a good thing then they 're hammering another nail into their own coffin .
The fact of the matter is that good journalism takes time .
Sure , speed is one element of news reporting , but it trails accuracy and clarity in terms of importance .
Much of the " traditional " media also seems to be mistakenly pursuing " balance " as some ultimate goal .
This consists of finding two sides to any issue , despite the fact that it may be far more nuanced than this , and giving both of them equal time and credence , whether or not they deserve it .
This is all slotted into a sixty second package which tells viewers almost nothing , then repeated ad nauseum until interest in the story completely dies , or something more important happens , like a celebrity farting .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If the "traditional" media believes this to be a good thing then they're hammering another nail into their own coffin.
The fact of the matter is that good journalism takes time.
Sure, speed is one element of news reporting, but it trails accuracy and clarity in terms of importance.
Much of the "traditional" media also seems to be mistakenly pursuing "balance" as some ultimate goal.
This consists of finding two sides to any issue, despite the fact that it may be far more nuanced than this, and giving both of them equal time and credence, whether or not they deserve it.
This is all slotted into a sixty second package which tells viewers almost nothing, then repeated ad nauseum until interest in the story completely dies, or something more important happens, like a celebrity farting.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_0531215.28673019</id>
	<title>Of course!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247425980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Of course bloggers follow "Traditional" media...  The NYTimes needs to publish it before all the bloggers start copying the story...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Of course bloggers follow " Traditional " media... The NYTimes needs to publish it before all the bloggers start copying the story.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Of course bloggers follow "Traditional" media...  The NYTimes needs to publish it before all the bloggers start copying the story...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_0531215.28672983</id>
	<title>Slashdot screws the average.</title>
	<author>prichardson</author>
	<datestamp>1247425500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The problem is also that they averaged in slashdot with the other blogs.  Without Slashdot's "yesterday's news today" and week-old repeats I'm sure the blog average would be higher.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The problem is also that they averaged in slashdot with the other blogs .
Without Slashdot 's " yesterday 's news today " and week-old repeats I 'm sure the blog average would be higher .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The problem is also that they averaged in slashdot with the other blogs.
Without Slashdot's "yesterday's news today" and week-old repeats I'm sure the blog average would be higher.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_0531215.28673269</id>
	<title>*groan*</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247516160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>Which brings up the point again</i> </p><p>The best substitute for "begs the question" is not using the construction at all- it's pretentious, wasted verbiage and you're not projecting the education and urbanity you think you are. GB2 ENGL 101, KTHX.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Which brings up the point again The best substitute for " begs the question " is not using the construction at all- it 's pretentious , wasted verbiage and you 're not projecting the education and urbanity you think you are .
GB2 ENGL 101 , KTHX .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Which brings up the point again The best substitute for "begs the question" is not using the construction at all- it's pretentious, wasted verbiage and you're not projecting the education and urbanity you think you are.
GB2 ENGL 101, KTHX.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_0531215.28672943</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_0531215.28675519</id>
	<title>Re:So what's next?</title>
	<author>MrMr</author>
	<datestamp>1247496780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><i>It's a myth peddled by people who want to justify the morality of blocking every ad</i> <br>
You have been brainwashed.<br>Every ad is paid for by you, whether you watch it or not: Since ads are paid by manufacturers, who get their money from you paying inflated prices.<br>The immorality of refusing to consume sufficient ads is a ridiculous myth perpetrated by the advertisement industry.</htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's a myth peddled by people who want to justify the morality of blocking every ad You have been brainwashed.Every ad is paid for by you , whether you watch it or not : Since ads are paid by manufacturers , who get their money from you paying inflated prices.The immorality of refusing to consume sufficient ads is a ridiculous myth perpetrated by the advertisement industry .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's a myth peddled by people who want to justify the morality of blocking every ad 
You have been brainwashed.Every ad is paid for by you, whether you watch it or not: Since ads are paid by manufacturers, who get their money from you paying inflated prices.The immorality of refusing to consume sufficient ads is a ridiculous myth perpetrated by the advertisement industry.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_0531215.28673377</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_0531215.28672955</id>
	<title>Not surprising</title>
	<author>fatp</author>
	<datestamp>1247425080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>I don't know what's the point of this finding. Do they think 2.5 hours is too fast or too slow?<br><br>This seems pretty fast for me. Most bloggers are not in 1st person contact of the event. It is understandable that they will not know the event before the media talks about that. They will also not immediate login their blog immediately to write their post. They can even write a post several days later!<br><br>It would be more interesting to study the fastest of the blog posts, say 5\%, and see whether they beat the media.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I do n't know what 's the point of this finding .
Do they think 2.5 hours is too fast or too slow ? This seems pretty fast for me .
Most bloggers are not in 1st person contact of the event .
It is understandable that they will not know the event before the media talks about that .
They will also not immediate login their blog immediately to write their post .
They can even write a post several days later ! It would be more interesting to study the fastest of the blog posts , say 5 \ % , and see whether they beat the media .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I don't know what's the point of this finding.
Do they think 2.5 hours is too fast or too slow?This seems pretty fast for me.
Most bloggers are not in 1st person contact of the event.
It is understandable that they will not know the event before the media talks about that.
They will also not immediate login their blog immediately to write their post.
They can even write a post several days later!It would be more interesting to study the fastest of the blog posts, say 5\%, and see whether they beat the media.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_0531215.28673705</id>
	<title>Re:So what's next?</title>
	<author>plasmacutter</author>
	<datestamp>1247479740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>hen we'll have nothing left but crowdsourced news. Which is OK in a riot or a protest, but otherwise does not come with the depth of research from a good, non-lazy journalist that does his or her homework</p></div><p>you mean repeating verbatim various corporate press releases and giving more coverage to dogmatic wackos than factual dissection?</p><p>That's what's passing for main stream media now so far as complex issues are concerned.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>hen we 'll have nothing left but crowdsourced news .
Which is OK in a riot or a protest , but otherwise does not come with the depth of research from a good , non-lazy journalist that does his or her homeworkyou mean repeating verbatim various corporate press releases and giving more coverage to dogmatic wackos than factual dissection ? That 's what 's passing for main stream media now so far as complex issues are concerned .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>hen we'll have nothing left but crowdsourced news.
Which is OK in a riot or a protest, but otherwise does not come with the depth of research from a good, non-lazy journalist that does his or her homeworkyou mean repeating verbatim various corporate press releases and giving more coverage to dogmatic wackos than factual dissection?That's what's passing for main stream media now so far as complex issues are concerned.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_0531215.28672943</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_0531215.28673733</id>
	<title>Re:CIA would pay $$$ for this kind of study</title>
	<author>Sockatume</author>
	<datestamp>1247480040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I'm not sure what "taste of the fun the US gov has in the 3rd world" you're talking about here. That's a presentation on a simulation system to try to predict how those sorts of decisions are going to turn out, not some shocking leak that - stop the fucking presses - the US government intervenes in international conflicts in ways that benefit the US. Given the incredible awfulness of the presentation, I'm not sure that it's influenced the real world beyond getting that guy research grants by bamboozling the Air Force into thinking he's on to something.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm not sure what " taste of the fun the US gov has in the 3rd world " you 're talking about here .
That 's a presentation on a simulation system to try to predict how those sorts of decisions are going to turn out , not some shocking leak that - stop the fucking presses - the US government intervenes in international conflicts in ways that benefit the US .
Given the incredible awfulness of the presentation , I 'm not sure that it 's influenced the real world beyond getting that guy research grants by bamboozling the Air Force into thinking he 's on to something .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm not sure what "taste of the fun the US gov has in the 3rd world" you're talking about here.
That's a presentation on a simulation system to try to predict how those sorts of decisions are going to turn out, not some shocking leak that - stop the fucking presses - the US government intervenes in international conflicts in ways that benefit the US.
Given the incredible awfulness of the presentation, I'm not sure that it's influenced the real world beyond getting that guy research grants by bamboozling the Air Force into thinking he's on to something.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_0531215.28673251</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_0531215.28673491</id>
	<title>Re:So what's next?</title>
	<author>operator\_error</author>
	<datestamp>1247476080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>crowdsourced news is all that stuff being sent out from Iran, right? Where can I tune into that?</p><p>P.S., I am a busy guy, so can I have some digestible bite-sized chunks of meat please. Not too raw, but well done please.</p><p>Hey lookie, the NYT doesn't cost much, and I can read it while I commute home. (More people should try reading during the commute, methinks). Or podcasts like NPR offers, etc. (note, haven't tried any podcasts myself).</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>crowdsourced news is all that stuff being sent out from Iran , right ?
Where can I tune into that ? P.S. , I am a busy guy , so can I have some digestible bite-sized chunks of meat please .
Not too raw , but well done please.Hey lookie , the NYT does n't cost much , and I can read it while I commute home .
( More people should try reading during the commute , methinks ) .
Or podcasts like NPR offers , etc .
( note , have n't tried any podcasts myself ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>crowdsourced news is all that stuff being sent out from Iran, right?
Where can I tune into that?P.S., I am a busy guy, so can I have some digestible bite-sized chunks of meat please.
Not too raw, but well done please.Hey lookie, the NYT doesn't cost much, and I can read it while I commute home.
(More people should try reading during the commute, methinks).
Or podcasts like NPR offers, etc.
(note, haven't tried any podcasts myself).</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_0531215.28672943</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_0531215.28672931</id>
	<title>And that NYT article</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247424720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>did it appear on the NYT site 2.5 hours after the paper came out?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>did it appear on the NYT site 2.5 hours after the paper came out ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>did it appear on the NYT site 2.5 hours after the paper came out?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_0531215.28673659</id>
	<title>Re:2.5 hours lead time is nothing</title>
	<author>plasmacutter</author>
	<datestamp>1247479140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Traditional news sometime can even <a href="http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/february2007/260207building7.htm" title="prisonplanet.com">lead the reality.</a> [prisonplanet.com]</p> </div><p>If this is a swiftian joke, it's cute, otherwise, move along, nothing to see here..</p><blockquote><div><p>Although there is no clock or time stamp on the footage, the source claims the report was given at 4:57pm EST, 23 minutes before Building 7 collapsed at 5:20pm. While the exact time of the report cannot be confirmed at present</p></div></blockquote></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Traditional news sometime can even lead the reality .
[ prisonplanet.com ] If this is a swiftian joke , it 's cute , otherwise , move along , nothing to see here..Although there is no clock or time stamp on the footage , the source claims the report was given at 4 : 57pm EST , 23 minutes before Building 7 collapsed at 5 : 20pm .
While the exact time of the report can not be confirmed at present</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Traditional news sometime can even lead the reality.
[prisonplanet.com] If this is a swiftian joke, it's cute, otherwise, move along, nothing to see here..Although there is no clock or time stamp on the footage, the source claims the report was given at 4:57pm EST, 23 minutes before Building 7 collapsed at 5:20pm.
While the exact time of the report cannot be confirmed at present
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_0531215.28673133</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_0531215.28673795</id>
	<title>Re:Well, duh?</title>
	<author>rbarreira</author>
	<datestamp>1247480580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Not true. The financial crisis (the reality of it, not just the optimism parts) has been much better covered by blogs than by traditional media.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Not true .
The financial crisis ( the reality of it , not just the optimism parts ) has been much better covered by blogs than by traditional media .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Not true.
The financial crisis (the reality of it, not just the optimism parts) has been much better covered by blogs than by traditional media.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_0531215.28673101</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_0531215.28674611</id>
	<title>Re:Not surprising</title>
	<author>pbhj</author>
	<datestamp>1247490660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>So basically they're saying that AP, et al., watch the top blogs (as in your link) and recycles (automatically?) their stories to the traditional newspapers. The traditional media, who as they have people working around the clock, manage to get those stories out from the wires before the predominantly unpaid bloggers get to them.</p><p>It appears that "hot air" get over 40\% of top political quotes online on average a day before the traditional media outlets?!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>So basically they 're saying that AP , et al. , watch the top blogs ( as in your link ) and recycles ( automatically ?
) their stories to the traditional newspapers .
The traditional media , who as they have people working around the clock , manage to get those stories out from the wires before the predominantly unpaid bloggers get to them.It appears that " hot air " get over 40 \ % of top political quotes online on average a day before the traditional media outlets ?
!</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So basically they're saying that AP, et al., watch the top blogs (as in your link) and recycles (automatically?
) their stories to the traditional newspapers.
The traditional media, who as they have people working around the clock, manage to get those stories out from the wires before the predominantly unpaid bloggers get to them.It appears that "hot air" get over 40\% of top political quotes online on average a day before the traditional media outlets?
!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_0531215.28673065</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_0531215.28673025</id>
	<title>Re:Not surprising</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247426040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I suspect it is too fast.</p><p>Print media should vet and organise news articles. The internet is a disorganised mess of unverified stuff.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I suspect it is too fast.Print media should vet and organise news articles .
The internet is a disorganised mess of unverified stuff .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I suspect it is too fast.Print media should vet and organise news articles.
The internet is a disorganised mess of unverified stuff.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_0531215.28672955</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_0531215.28673061</id>
	<title>Film at 11</title>
	<author>neiras</author>
	<datestamp>1247426460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>I think the blogger thought process goes something like this.<blockquote><div><p>CNN has a BREAKING NEWS headline. Quick! I'll post it on my blog and the huddled masses on the Internet will look up to me for being so much better informed than they are!"</p></div></blockquote><p>

All they want is your respect! They want to stand out in a crowd! THEY HEARD IT FIRST! The proof is right there, in their wordpress history!</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I think the blogger thought process goes something like this.CNN has a BREAKING NEWS headline .
Quick ! I 'll post it on my blog and the huddled masses on the Internet will look up to me for being so much better informed than they are !
" All they want is your respect !
They want to stand out in a crowd !
THEY HEARD IT FIRST !
The proof is right there , in their wordpress history !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I think the blogger thought process goes something like this.CNN has a BREAKING NEWS headline.
Quick! I'll post it on my blog and the huddled masses on the Internet will look up to me for being so much better informed than they are!
"

All they want is your respect!
They want to stand out in a crowd!
THEY HEARD IT FIRST!
The proof is right there, in their wordpress history!
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_0531215.28673339</id>
	<title>Re:So what's next?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247517420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>This is because you're not thinking big enough.  Local news <i>is</i> world news: something always happens somewhere.  It's a matter of which people care about it.  Traditional media has capitalized on high-profile stories that will draw lots of attention ("low-hanging fruit," to use the annoying buzzphrase).

<p>However, this means we're <i>missing a huge chunk of actual world news</i>.  While we know of a few major items, we don't know about the <i>aggregate</i> of <i>everything else</i>.  How many people died today?  Glancing at Google News, you might note that maybe some people died from bombings, and a few others in battle, and maybe a few to flu.  But that's a very tiny selection.  High profile cases.  How many people died in traffic accidents?  Or from other disease or poor health?  Old age?  What regions?  What were the numbers?</p><p>This is <i>actual interesting information</i> which would probably change our perspective drastically on a lot of issues.  Unfortunately it takes a good bit of work to put it together, and it doesn't quite get you glamorous headlines.  But it's world news, and the sort of thing that would be worth paying for.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This is because you 're not thinking big enough .
Local news is world news : something always happens somewhere .
It 's a matter of which people care about it .
Traditional media has capitalized on high-profile stories that will draw lots of attention ( " low-hanging fruit , " to use the annoying buzzphrase ) .
However , this means we 're missing a huge chunk of actual world news .
While we know of a few major items , we do n't know about the aggregate of everything else .
How many people died today ?
Glancing at Google News , you might note that maybe some people died from bombings , and a few others in battle , and maybe a few to flu .
But that 's a very tiny selection .
High profile cases .
How many people died in traffic accidents ?
Or from other disease or poor health ?
Old age ?
What regions ?
What were the numbers ? This is actual interesting information which would probably change our perspective drastically on a lot of issues .
Unfortunately it takes a good bit of work to put it together , and it does n't quite get you glamorous headlines .
But it 's world news , and the sort of thing that would be worth paying for .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This is because you're not thinking big enough.
Local news is world news: something always happens somewhere.
It's a matter of which people care about it.
Traditional media has capitalized on high-profile stories that will draw lots of attention ("low-hanging fruit," to use the annoying buzzphrase).
However, this means we're missing a huge chunk of actual world news.
While we know of a few major items, we don't know about the aggregate of everything else.
How many people died today?
Glancing at Google News, you might note that maybe some people died from bombings, and a few others in battle, and maybe a few to flu.
But that's a very tiny selection.
High profile cases.
How many people died in traffic accidents?
Or from other disease or poor health?
Old age?
What regions?
What were the numbers?This is actual interesting information which would probably change our perspective drastically on a lot of issues.
Unfortunately it takes a good bit of work to put it together, and it doesn't quite get you glamorous headlines.
But it's world news, and the sort of thing that would be worth paying for.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_0531215.28673179</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_0531215.28673593</id>
	<title>Re:So what's next?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247478240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This explains why I quit paying attention to the nearly all sources of news.  Most of what's out there is obvious, shallow, uninteresting, and irrelevant.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This explains why I quit paying attention to the nearly all sources of news .
Most of what 's out there is obvious , shallow , uninteresting , and irrelevant .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This explains why I quit paying attention to the nearly all sources of news.
Most of what's out there is obvious, shallow, uninteresting, and irrelevant.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_0531215.28672979</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_0531215.28673625</id>
	<title>depends heavily on a lot of things..</title>
	<author>crossmr</author>
	<datestamp>1247478660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I'm sure all of us have looked at digg once or twice and there are blog posts that get made quite popular there, develop a following and then end up in the paper.<br>In fact anything that originates on the internet is likely to be reported about first in a blog than "traditional media".<br>Many local stories might end up getting reported about first on a blog before "traditional media" if they're not high profile. The news has to get a reporter there first. then film it or write it. A blogger can see it, and do it right away if they have a smartphone or as soon as they get home/to a pc.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm sure all of us have looked at digg once or twice and there are blog posts that get made quite popular there , develop a following and then end up in the paper.In fact anything that originates on the internet is likely to be reported about first in a blog than " traditional media " .Many local stories might end up getting reported about first on a blog before " traditional media " if they 're not high profile .
The news has to get a reporter there first .
then film it or write it .
A blogger can see it , and do it right away if they have a smartphone or as soon as they get home/to a pc .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm sure all of us have looked at digg once or twice and there are blog posts that get made quite popular there, develop a following and then end up in the paper.In fact anything that originates on the internet is likely to be reported about first in a blog than "traditional media".Many local stories might end up getting reported about first on a blog before "traditional media" if they're not high profile.
The news has to get a reporter there first.
then film it or write it.
A blogger can see it, and do it right away if they have a smartphone or as soon as they get home/to a pc.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_0531215.28675355</id>
	<title>Re:CIA would pay $$$ for this kind of study</title>
	<author>DNS-and-BIND</author>
	<datestamp>1247495880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Question: how many of Iran's population speaks English?  Out of this tiny population, how many use Twitter?  And out of *this* subset, how many could afford iPhones? <p>Yeah.  That miniscule population was what the Western media took for the majority's opinion in Iran.  If it didn't have such tragic consequences for our own democracy, I'd be laughing.  Imagine what a major U.S. protest would look like if the only information the foreign press got was iPhone-using Twitterbots?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Question : how many of Iran 's population speaks English ?
Out of this tiny population , how many use Twitter ?
And out of * this * subset , how many could afford iPhones ?
Yeah. That miniscule population was what the Western media took for the majority 's opinion in Iran .
If it did n't have such tragic consequences for our own democracy , I 'd be laughing .
Imagine what a major U.S. protest would look like if the only information the foreign press got was iPhone-using Twitterbots ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Question: how many of Iran's population speaks English?
Out of this tiny population, how many use Twitter?
And out of *this* subset, how many could afford iPhones?
Yeah.  That miniscule population was what the Western media took for the majority's opinion in Iran.
If it didn't have such tragic consequences for our own democracy, I'd be laughing.
Imagine what a major U.S. protest would look like if the only information the foreign press got was iPhone-using Twitterbots?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_0531215.28673251</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_0531215.28679105</id>
	<title>Re:So what's next?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247509320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You're right!</p><p>We need more people like Dan Rather in the newspaper industry!!</p><p>Oh wait...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You 're right ! We need more people like Dan Rather in the newspaper industry !
! Oh wait.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You're right!We need more people like Dan Rather in the newspaper industry!
!Oh wait...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_0531215.28672943</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_0531215.28674459</id>
	<title>Re:Nobody Cares</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247489520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>/. puts the best bits all in one neat package regardless where its from.</p></div><p>This basically makes it a news aggregation <b>blog</b>.  It's not an original news source because it does not (normally) have original articles.</p><p>It's not really a news blog because most news blog postings normally take the form of "this is my considered opinion on <i>the news</i> reported by <i>original news source</i>", whereas Slashdot summaries are generally pretty short.</p><p>What sets Slashdot appart from a lesser news aggregation blogs is emphasis on the discussion forum.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>/ .
puts the best bits all in one neat package regardless where its from.This basically makes it a news aggregation blog .
It 's not an original news source because it does not ( normally ) have original articles.It 's not really a news blog because most news blog postings normally take the form of " this is my considered opinion on the news reported by original news source " , whereas Slashdot summaries are generally pretty short.What sets Slashdot appart from a lesser news aggregation blogs is emphasis on the discussion forum .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>/.
puts the best bits all in one neat package regardless where its from.This basically makes it a news aggregation blog.
It's not an original news source because it does not (normally) have original articles.It's not really a news blog because most news blog postings normally take the form of "this is my considered opinion on the news reported by original news source", whereas Slashdot summaries are generally pretty short.What sets Slashdot appart from a lesser news aggregation blogs is emphasis on the discussion forum.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_0531215.28672925</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_0531215.28674987</id>
	<title>Re:So what's next?</title>
	<author>mdwh2</author>
	<datestamp>1247493840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>but otherwise does not come with the depth of research from a good, non-lazy journalist that does his or her homework, uses multiple sources to back up facts, etc. etc.</i></p><p>When did we have that?</p><p>(Okay, there are some good investigative journalists around, but this is not an in anyway reasonable description of most of the media, who seem to be happy to copy and paste facts to each other without citing sources or fact checking - let alone using multiple sources - and either pushing their own bias, or just reproducing press releases sent to them by the Government or organisations without further checks.)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>but otherwise does not come with the depth of research from a good , non-lazy journalist that does his or her homework , uses multiple sources to back up facts , etc .
etc.When did we have that ?
( Okay , there are some good investigative journalists around , but this is not an in anyway reasonable description of most of the media , who seem to be happy to copy and paste facts to each other without citing sources or fact checking - let alone using multiple sources - and either pushing their own bias , or just reproducing press releases sent to them by the Government or organisations without further checks .
)</tokentext>
<sentencetext>but otherwise does not come with the depth of research from a good, non-lazy journalist that does his or her homework, uses multiple sources to back up facts, etc.
etc.When did we have that?
(Okay, there are some good investigative journalists around, but this is not an in anyway reasonable description of most of the media, who seem to be happy to copy and paste facts to each other without citing sources or fact checking - let alone using multiple sources - and either pushing their own bias, or just reproducing press releases sent to them by the Government or organisations without further checks.
)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_0531215.28672943</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_0531215.28674863</id>
	<title>Re:So what's next?</title>
	<author>rho</author>
	<datestamp>1247492880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>So what's the future look like? A merging of the blogosphere and traditional media to something new?</p></div></blockquote><p>The "blogosphere" (God I hate that word), if it has a purpose, is to either amplify or correct what comes out of the traditional media outlets. It's a very symbiotic relationship, and probably won't work co-joined.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>So what 's the future look like ?
A merging of the blogosphere and traditional media to something new ? The " blogosphere " ( God I hate that word ) , if it has a purpose , is to either amplify or correct what comes out of the traditional media outlets .
It 's a very symbiotic relationship , and probably wo n't work co-joined .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So what's the future look like?
A merging of the blogosphere and traditional media to something new?The "blogosphere" (God I hate that word), if it has a purpose, is to either amplify or correct what comes out of the traditional media outlets.
It's a very symbiotic relationship, and probably won't work co-joined.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_0531215.28672943</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_0531215.28672981</id>
	<title>Not really</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247425500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It's not exactly true that the "lipstick on a pig" phrase originated with Obama. McCain had said the line in speeches during the primary before Obama did.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's not exactly true that the " lipstick on a pig " phrase originated with Obama .
McCain had said the line in speeches during the primary before Obama did .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's not exactly true that the "lipstick on a pig" phrase originated with Obama.
McCain had said the line in speeches during the primary before Obama did.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_0531215.28673207</id>
	<title>Self-serving crap</title>
	<author>DNS-and-BIND</author>
	<datestamp>1247515200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>Oh, yeah...the New York Times, the poster child for Old Media, does a story and finds that they are better than the competition.  Sorry, but I'd sooner believe an online pharmacy that did a survey and found that it was better than the competition.  But, since it has the NYT name on it, the people in the know nod sagely and agree.  Anyone shouting "the emperor has no clothes" is deemed as not part of the in-group and escorted to the door, never to be invited to the best parties again.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Oh , yeah...the New York Times , the poster child for Old Media , does a story and finds that they are better than the competition .
Sorry , but I 'd sooner believe an online pharmacy that did a survey and found that it was better than the competition .
But , since it has the NYT name on it , the people in the know nod sagely and agree .
Anyone shouting " the emperor has no clothes " is deemed as not part of the in-group and escorted to the door , never to be invited to the best parties again .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Oh, yeah...the New York Times, the poster child for Old Media, does a story and finds that they are better than the competition.
Sorry, but I'd sooner believe an online pharmacy that did a survey and found that it was better than the competition.
But, since it has the NYT name on it, the people in the know nod sagely and agree.
Anyone shouting "the emperor has no clothes" is deemed as not part of the in-group and escorted to the door, never to be invited to the best parties again.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_0531215.28672967</id>
	<title>Frosty Pists</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247425260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Offtopic</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>suck my ginormous cock</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>suck my ginormous cock</tokentext>
<sentencetext>suck my ginormous cock</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_0531215.28673829</id>
	<title>Re:Nobody Cares</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247481180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Flamebait</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>At least on<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/. I can learn to hack cheap routers from the comments left by readers.</p></div></blockquote><p>Because you can't learn to do it yourself, if your posting history is any indication.<br> <br>Go back to Digg, moron.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>At least on / .
I can learn to hack cheap routers from the comments left by readers.Because you ca n't learn to do it yourself , if your posting history is any indication .
Go back to Digg , moron .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>At least on /.
I can learn to hack cheap routers from the comments left by readers.Because you can't learn to do it yourself, if your posting history is any indication.
Go back to Digg, moron.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_0531215.28673449</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_0531215.28673347</id>
	<title>Re:"Lipstick on a pig"</title>
	<author>vux984</author>
	<datestamp>1247517600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>That phrase certainly didn't originate during the campaign.</i></p><p>They never said it did.</p><p><i>I heard it in the context of<nobr> <wbr></nobr>...</i></p><p>Ah context. That's precisely what's at issue here. The article was referring to the phrase strictly in the context of the Obama campaign news cycle.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>That phrase certainly did n't originate during the campaign.They never said it did.I heard it in the context of ...Ah context .
That 's precisely what 's at issue here .
The article was referring to the phrase strictly in the context of the Obama campaign news cycle .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That phrase certainly didn't originate during the campaign.They never said it did.I heard it in the context of ...Ah context.
That's precisely what's at issue here.
The article was referring to the phrase strictly in the context of the Obama campaign news cycle.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_0531215.28673029</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_0531215.28672943</id>
	<title>So what's next?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247424840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Which brings up the point again...traditional media outlets will need to figure out how to monetize and stay in business, or all those blogs will no longer have a source for their stories.  Then we'll have nothing left but crowdsourced news.  Which is OK in a riot or a protest, but otherwise does not come with the depth of research from a good, non-lazy journalist that does his or her homework, uses multiple sources to back up facts, etc. etc.</p><p>So what's the future look like?    A merging of the blogosphere and traditional media to something new?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Which brings up the point again...traditional media outlets will need to figure out how to monetize and stay in business , or all those blogs will no longer have a source for their stories .
Then we 'll have nothing left but crowdsourced news .
Which is OK in a riot or a protest , but otherwise does not come with the depth of research from a good , non-lazy journalist that does his or her homework , uses multiple sources to back up facts , etc .
etc.So what 's the future look like ?
A merging of the blogosphere and traditional media to something new ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Which brings up the point again...traditional media outlets will need to figure out how to monetize and stay in business, or all those blogs will no longer have a source for their stories.
Then we'll have nothing left but crowdsourced news.
Which is OK in a riot or a protest, but otherwise does not come with the depth of research from a good, non-lazy journalist that does his or her homework, uses multiple sources to back up facts, etc.
etc.So what's the future look like?
A merging of the blogosphere and traditional media to something new?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_0531215.28673047</id>
	<title>It took them this long?</title>
	<author>rxan</author>
	<datestamp>1247426340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><nobr> <wbr></nobr></p><div class="quote"><p>... tracking some 90 million articles and blog posts which appeared from August through October 2008 on 1.6 million mainstream media sites and blogs.</p></div><p>It took them 8 months to come up with the results?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>... tracking some 90 million articles and blog posts which appeared from August through October 2008 on 1.6 million mainstream media sites and blogs.It took them 8 months to come up with the results ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext> ... tracking some 90 million articles and blog posts which appeared from August through October 2008 on 1.6 million mainstream media sites and blogs.It took them 8 months to come up with the results?
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_0531215.28674805</id>
	<title>Re:So what's next?</title>
	<author>superwiz</author>
	<datestamp>1247492280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>You forgot to mention going out of business of most main-stream media (aka consolidation).  So that only the intelligent news reporters and news sources would stay in business.  The proliferation of MSM has reduced competitiveness of news reporting.  Which has reduced quality.  This is purely symbolic, but I spotted 2 typos on NYTimes front page (front page!!!) within the last year.  If they are this careful with their front page, you can imagine how careful they are with they fact checking and analysis.  There is simply too much job security in that business.  When we moved from having 80\% of people working on farms to 5\% of people working on farms, which farmers do you think stayed employed?  The least competent ones?</htmltext>
<tokenext>You forgot to mention going out of business of most main-stream media ( aka consolidation ) .
So that only the intelligent news reporters and news sources would stay in business .
The proliferation of MSM has reduced competitiveness of news reporting .
Which has reduced quality .
This is purely symbolic , but I spotted 2 typos on NYTimes front page ( front page ! ! !
) within the last year .
If they are this careful with their front page , you can imagine how careful they are with they fact checking and analysis .
There is simply too much job security in that business .
When we moved from having 80 \ % of people working on farms to 5 \ % of people working on farms , which farmers do you think stayed employed ?
The least competent ones ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You forgot to mention going out of business of most main-stream media (aka consolidation).
So that only the intelligent news reporters and news sources would stay in business.
The proliferation of MSM has reduced competitiveness of news reporting.
Which has reduced quality.
This is purely symbolic, but I spotted 2 typos on NYTimes front page (front page!!!
) within the last year.
If they are this careful with their front page, you can imagine how careful they are with they fact checking and analysis.
There is simply too much job security in that business.
When we moved from having 80\% of people working on farms to 5\% of people working on farms, which farmers do you think stayed employed?
The least competent ones?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_0531215.28673377</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_0531215.28673091</id>
	<title>Re:Nobody Cares</title>
	<author>Hope Thelps</author>
	<datestamp>1247427060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><nobr> <wbr></nobr></p><div class="quote"><p>/. puts the best bits all in one neat package regardless where its from.</p></div><p>Plus, I'd just feel stupid buying  a newspaper in order to NOT read any of the articles and just get on with discussing them anyway - what a waste of money. Slashdot makes it feel natural.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>/ .
puts the best bits all in one neat package regardless where its from.Plus , I 'd just feel stupid buying a newspaper in order to NOT read any of the articles and just get on with discussing them anyway - what a waste of money .
Slashdot makes it feel natural .</tokentext>
<sentencetext> /.
puts the best bits all in one neat package regardless where its from.Plus, I'd just feel stupid buying  a newspaper in order to NOT read any of the articles and just get on with discussing them anyway - what a waste of money.
Slashdot makes it feel natural.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_0531215.28672925</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_0531215.28674145</id>
	<title>retractions</title>
	<author>daveb</author>
	<datestamp>1247485620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>although most news flowed from the traditional media to the blogs, 3.5 percent of story lines originated in the blogs and later made their way to traditional media.</p></div></blockquote><p>

I wonder what percentage were later retracted as completely bogus. Jeff Goldblume might be able to point out one recent issue</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>although most news flowed from the traditional media to the blogs , 3.5 percent of story lines originated in the blogs and later made their way to traditional media .
I wonder what percentage were later retracted as completely bogus .
Jeff Goldblume might be able to point out one recent issue</tokentext>
<sentencetext>although most news flowed from the traditional media to the blogs, 3.5 percent of story lines originated in the blogs and later made their way to traditional media.
I wonder what percentage were later retracted as completely bogus.
Jeff Goldblume might be able to point out one recent issue
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_0531215.28673135</id>
	<title>Finding blogs that quote?</title>
	<author>psy</author>
	<datestamp>1247427660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>By finding catch phrases (quotes) you find the blogs that quote the news paper article.</p><p>What about specific events where there isnt a catch phrase, wouldnt those be excluded by the way the matching works?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>By finding catch phrases ( quotes ) you find the blogs that quote the news paper article.What about specific events where there isnt a catch phrase , wouldnt those be excluded by the way the matching works ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>By finding catch phrases (quotes) you find the blogs that quote the news paper article.What about specific events where there isnt a catch phrase, wouldnt those be excluded by the way the matching works?
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_13_0531215_27</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_0531215.28675355
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_0531215.28673251
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_13_0531215_31</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_0531215.28673593
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_0531215.28672979
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_0531215.28672943
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_13_0531215_26</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_0531215.28673025
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_0531215.28672955
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_13_0531215_17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_0531215.28674611
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_0531215.28673065
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_0531215.28672955
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_13_0531215_32</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_0531215.28680873
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_0531215.28673321
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_0531215.28672979
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_0531215.28672943
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_13_0531215_3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_0531215.28681541
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_0531215.28672979
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_0531215.28672943
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_13_0531215_25</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_0531215.28675263
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_0531215.28673377
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_0531215.28672943
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_13_0531215_15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_0531215.28673347
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_0531215.28673029
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_13_0531215_20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_0531215.28674863
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_0531215.28672943
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_13_0531215_38</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_0531215.28675301
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_0531215.28672979
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_0531215.28672943
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_13_0531215_9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_0531215.28676461
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_0531215.28672979
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_0531215.28672943
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_13_0531215_35</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_0531215.28673501
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_0531215.28672943
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_13_0531215_6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_0531215.28674459
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_0531215.28672925
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_13_0531215_18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_0531215.28674805
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_0531215.28673377
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_0531215.28672943
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_13_0531215_12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_0531215.28679613
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_0531215.28673377
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_0531215.28672943
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_13_0531215_36</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_0531215.28675519
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_0531215.28673377
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_0531215.28672943
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_13_0531215_7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_0531215.28674987
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_0531215.28672943
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_13_0531215_29</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_0531215.28674303
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_0531215.28673065
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_0531215.28672955
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_13_0531215_33</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_0531215.28673759
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_0531215.28672943
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_13_0531215_2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_0531215.28684539
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_0531215.28673339
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_0531215.28673179
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_0531215.28672979
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_0531215.28672943
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_13_0531215_4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_0531215.28676819
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_0531215.28673101
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_13_0531215_10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_0531215.28674001
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_0531215.28672943
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_13_0531215_24</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_0531215.28675657
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_0531215.28673449
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_0531215.28673091
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_0531215.28672925
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_13_0531215_39</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_0531215.28678987
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_0531215.28673075
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_13_0531215_30</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_0531215.28673871
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_0531215.28673029
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_13_0531215_1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_0531215.28673659
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_0531215.28673133
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_13_0531215_16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_0531215.28673795
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_0531215.28673101
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_13_0531215_0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_0531215.28673733
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_0531215.28673251
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_13_0531215_23</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_0531215.28675051
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_0531215.28672955
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_13_0531215_19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_0531215.28679105
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_0531215.28672943
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_13_0531215_22</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_0531215.28673269
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_0531215.28672943
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_13_0531215_13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_0531215.28673491
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_0531215.28672943
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_13_0531215_37</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_0531215.28675635
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_0531215.28672943
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_13_0531215_8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_0531215.28677615
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_0531215.28672943
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_13_0531215_14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_0531215.28673705
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_0531215.28672943
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_13_0531215_28</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_0531215.28675897
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_0531215.28672983
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_13_0531215_21</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_0531215.28675271
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_0531215.28672943
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_13_0531215_11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_0531215.28676253
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_0531215.28673359
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_0531215.28673179
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_0531215.28672979
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_0531215.28672943
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_13_0531215_34</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_0531215.28673829
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_0531215.28673449
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_0531215.28673091
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_0531215.28672925
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_13_0531215_5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_0531215.28675477
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_0531215.28674605
</commentlist>
</thread>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_13_0531215.20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_0531215.28673309
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_13_0531215.14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_0531215.28673625
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_13_0531215.9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_0531215.28672931
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_13_0531215.12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_0531215.28673043
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_13_0531215.15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_0531215.28673485
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_13_0531215.18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_0531215.28673639
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_13_0531215.13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_0531215.28673517
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_13_0531215.16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_0531215.28672981
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_13_0531215.19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_0531215.28673251
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_0531215.28675355
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_0531215.28673733
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_13_0531215.8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_0531215.28673487
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_13_0531215.17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_0531215.28674605
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_0531215.28675477
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_13_0531215.7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_0531215.28673075
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_0531215.28678987
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_13_0531215.1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_0531215.28673047
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_13_0531215.10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_0531215.28672983
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_0531215.28675897
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_13_0531215.5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_0531215.28673135
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_13_0531215.2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_0531215.28674131
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_13_0531215.23</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_0531215.28672955
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_0531215.28675051
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_0531215.28673025
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_0531215.28673065
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_0531215.28674303
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_0531215.28674611
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_13_0531215.11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_0531215.28673133
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_0531215.28673659
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_13_0531215.21</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_0531215.28674351
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_13_0531215.0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_0531215.28673029
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_0531215.28673871
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_0531215.28673347
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_13_0531215.3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_0531215.28673101
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_0531215.28676819
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_0531215.28673795
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_13_0531215.6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_0531215.28672943
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_0531215.28673491
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_0531215.28677615
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_0531215.28679105
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_0531215.28674863
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_0531215.28673759
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_0531215.28672979
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_0531215.28681541
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_0531215.28673179
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_0531215.28673359
----http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_0531215.28676253
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_0531215.28673339
----http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_0531215.28684539
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_0531215.28673321
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_0531215.28680873
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_0531215.28675301
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_0531215.28673593
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_0531215.28676461
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_0531215.28673377
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_0531215.28675519
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_0531215.28675263
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_0531215.28674805
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_0531215.28679613
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_0531215.28675271
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_0531215.28675635
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_0531215.28674987
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_0531215.28674001
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_0531215.28673501
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_0531215.28673705
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_0531215.28673269
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_13_0531215.4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_0531215.28673407
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_13_0531215.22</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_0531215.28672925
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_0531215.28674459
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_0531215.28673091
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_0531215.28673449
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_0531215.28673829
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_0531215.28675657
</commentlist>
</conversation>
