<article>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#article09_11_02_168232</id>
	<title>Paywalls To Drive Journalists Away In Addition To Consumers?</title>
	<author>ScuttleMonkey</author>
	<datestamp>1257183060000</datestamp>
	<htmltext><a href="http://hughpickens.com/" rel="nofollow">Hugh Pickens</a> writes <i>"With news organizations struggling and newsroom jobs disappearing, each week brings new calls from writers and editors who believe their employers should save themselves by charging for Internet access. However, in an interesting turnabout, the NY Times reports that Saul Friedman, a journalist for more than 50 years and a columnist for Newsday since 1996, <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/02/business/media/02elderly.html">announced last week he was quitting</a> after Newsday decided that non-subscribers to Newsday's print edition will have to pay $5 a week to see much of the site, making it one of the few newspapers in the country to take such a plunge. 'My column has been popular around the country, but now it was really going to be impossible for people outside Long Island to read it,' he says. Friedman, who is 80, said he would continue to write about older people for the site '<a href="http://ronnibennett.typepad.com/">Time Goes By</a>.' 'One of the reasons why the NY Times eventually did away with its old "paywall" was that its big name columnists started complaining that fewer and fewer people were reading them,' writes Mike Masnick at Techdirt. 'Newspapers who decide to put up a paywall may find that their <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20091101/1842486752.shtml">best reporters decide to go elsewhere</a>, knowing that locking up their own content isn't a good thing in terms of career advancement.'"</i></htmltext>
<tokenext>Hugh Pickens writes " With news organizations struggling and newsroom jobs disappearing , each week brings new calls from writers and editors who believe their employers should save themselves by charging for Internet access .
However , in an interesting turnabout , the NY Times reports that Saul Friedman , a journalist for more than 50 years and a columnist for Newsday since 1996 , announced last week he was quitting after Newsday decided that non-subscribers to Newsday 's print edition will have to pay $ 5 a week to see much of the site , making it one of the few newspapers in the country to take such a plunge .
'My column has been popular around the country , but now it was really going to be impossible for people outside Long Island to read it, ' he says .
Friedman , who is 80 , said he would continue to write about older people for the site 'Time Goes By .
' 'One of the reasons why the NY Times eventually did away with its old " paywall " was that its big name columnists started complaining that fewer and fewer people were reading them, ' writes Mike Masnick at Techdirt .
'Newspapers who decide to put up a paywall may find that their best reporters decide to go elsewhere , knowing that locking up their own content is n't a good thing in terms of career advancement .
' "</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Hugh Pickens writes "With news organizations struggling and newsroom jobs disappearing, each week brings new calls from writers and editors who believe their employers should save themselves by charging for Internet access.
However, in an interesting turnabout, the NY Times reports that Saul Friedman, a journalist for more than 50 years and a columnist for Newsday since 1996, announced last week he was quitting after Newsday decided that non-subscribers to Newsday's print edition will have to pay $5 a week to see much of the site, making it one of the few newspapers in the country to take such a plunge.
'My column has been popular around the country, but now it was really going to be impossible for people outside Long Island to read it,' he says.
Friedman, who is 80, said he would continue to write about older people for the site 'Time Goes By.
' 'One of the reasons why the NY Times eventually did away with its old "paywall" was that its big name columnists started complaining that fewer and fewer people were reading them,' writes Mike Masnick at Techdirt.
'Newspapers who decide to put up a paywall may find that their best reporters decide to go elsewhere, knowing that locking up their own content isn't a good thing in terms of career advancement.
'"</sentencetext>
</article>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_168232.29952258</id>
	<title>Opinion columnists are like bloggers</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257187140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>Opinion columnists are just like bloggers. Even if there is a sound argument for a news organization to succeed by putting up a pay-wall on their website (and I believe that a good news organization could do so and succeed), it does not apply to opinion columnists who are not providing anything different than bloggers do.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Opinion columnists are just like bloggers .
Even if there is a sound argument for a news organization to succeed by putting up a pay-wall on their website ( and I believe that a good news organization could do so and succeed ) , it does not apply to opinion columnists who are not providing anything different than bloggers do .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Opinion columnists are just like bloggers.
Even if there is a sound argument for a news organization to succeed by putting up a pay-wall on their website (and I believe that a good news organization could do so and succeed), it does not apply to opinion columnists who are not providing anything different than bloggers do.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_168232.29966646</id>
	<title>Re:Net Neutrality</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257278280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Unfortunately, I believe this is acceptable - see ESPN360...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Unfortunately , I believe this is acceptable - see ESPN360.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Unfortunately, I believe this is acceptable - see ESPN360...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_168232.29952274</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_168232.29957352</id>
	<title>Re:Net Neutrality</title>
	<author>Eil</author>
	<datestamp>1257168360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>Would any of the currently proposed net neutrality laws prevent Cablevision from charging other people for web content that it gives to its own ISP customers for free?</p></div></blockquote><p>No. And they shouldn't, as long as Cablevision is not interfering with their customers' use of other news services.</p><blockquote><div><p>Or is this considered an acceptable competitive practice?</p></div></blockquote><p>As a membership benefit, my credit union used to sell tickets to local movie theaters at a discount. Consumer Reports lets you subscribe to their online content at a reduced rate if you already receive the printed publication. This is no different.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Would any of the currently proposed net neutrality laws prevent Cablevision from charging other people for web content that it gives to its own ISP customers for free ? No .
And they should n't , as long as Cablevision is not interfering with their customers ' use of other news services.Or is this considered an acceptable competitive practice ? As a membership benefit , my credit union used to sell tickets to local movie theaters at a discount .
Consumer Reports lets you subscribe to their online content at a reduced rate if you already receive the printed publication .
This is no different .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Would any of the currently proposed net neutrality laws prevent Cablevision from charging other people for web content that it gives to its own ISP customers for free?No.
And they shouldn't, as long as Cablevision is not interfering with their customers' use of other news services.Or is this considered an acceptable competitive practice?As a membership benefit, my credit union used to sell tickets to local movie theaters at a discount.
Consumer Reports lets you subscribe to their online content at a reduced rate if you already receive the printed publication.
This is no different.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_168232.29952274</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_168232.29957488</id>
	<title>Re:Net Neutrality</title>
	<author>Aeron65432</author>
	<datestamp>1257168900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Cablevision would just providing pay-access. This already exists with the site ESPN360.com, where you can watch live sports and on replay. There is no up front fee, in fact you cannot use the site unless your ISP pays for it. Going the Cable TV route, basically.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Cablevision would just providing pay-access .
This already exists with the site ESPN360.com , where you can watch live sports and on replay .
There is no up front fee , in fact you can not use the site unless your ISP pays for it .
Going the Cable TV route , basically .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Cablevision would just providing pay-access.
This already exists with the site ESPN360.com, where you can watch live sports and on replay.
There is no up front fee, in fact you cannot use the site unless your ISP pays for it.
Going the Cable TV route, basically.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_168232.29952274</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_168232.29952272</id>
	<title>career advancement?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257187200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"...their best reporters decide to go elsewhere, knowing that locking up their own content isn't a good thing in terms of career advancement."</p><p>"Friedman, who is 80.."</p><p>Yes. Yes, that is obviously why. More readers to further his career.. yes, that must be it.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" ...their best reporters decide to go elsewhere , knowing that locking up their own content is n't a good thing in terms of career advancement .
" " Friedman , who is 80.. " Yes .
Yes , that is obviously why .
More readers to further his career.. yes , that must be it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"...their best reporters decide to go elsewhere, knowing that locking up their own content isn't a good thing in terms of career advancement.
""Friedman, who is 80.."Yes.
Yes, that is obviously why.
More readers to further his career.. yes, that must be it.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_168232.29957014</id>
	<title>Re:Used to read NY Times oped before paywall</title>
	<author>massysett</author>
	<datestamp>1257166740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>I'm probably one of the few people that found his book, "the World is Flat" to be incredibly uninsightful.</p></div><p>Nah. I didn't even finish it. He kept repeating himself over and over. He had enough material for a NYT Magazine article, but definitely not for a book.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm probably one of the few people that found his book , " the World is Flat " to be incredibly uninsightful.Nah .
I did n't even finish it .
He kept repeating himself over and over .
He had enough material for a NYT Magazine article , but definitely not for a book .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm probably one of the few people that found his book, "the World is Flat" to be incredibly uninsightful.Nah.
I didn't even finish it.
He kept repeating himself over and over.
He had enough material for a NYT Magazine article, but definitely not for a book.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_168232.29952880</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_168232.29952800</id>
	<title>From TFA; on artificial intelligence:</title>
	<author>Interoperable</author>
	<datestamp>1257189900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p> <i>A machine that will be proud of us</i> </p><p>We can never connect AI to the internet...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>A machine that will be proud of us We can never connect AI to the internet.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext> A machine that will be proud of us We can never connect AI to the internet...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_168232.29952426</id>
	<title>Brief delay might work; Consolidation WILL happen</title>
	<author>dwheeler</author>
	<datestamp>1257187980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>
<a href="http://lwn.net/" title="lwn.net">Linux Weekly News (LWN.net)</a> [lwn.net] has managed to keep going by having a <i>temporary</i> paywall.  That is, you pay to get immediate access to articles, and after a week, anyone can see them.  This <i>might</i> work in some cases, at the least, you could generate <i>some</i> revenue if people were willing to pay for immediate access, while not driving away the authors who want many readers.  I will say that for LWN, they're making some money but they certainly aren't rolling in it, so even if that works, it will not bring back the massive money inflows that these organizations are used to.
</p><p>
Let's be honest: There is a glut of news organizations, and consolidation WILL happen.  The internet has permanently changed the market.  I don't see that the U.S. government needs to get involved; we have NOT lost the ability to receive news. Yes, many news organizations are going out of business, and in the future we will need fewer of them.  But that's simply how competition works.
</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Linux Weekly News ( LWN.net ) [ lwn.net ] has managed to keep going by having a temporary paywall .
That is , you pay to get immediate access to articles , and after a week , anyone can see them .
This might work in some cases , at the least , you could generate some revenue if people were willing to pay for immediate access , while not driving away the authors who want many readers .
I will say that for LWN , they 're making some money but they certainly are n't rolling in it , so even if that works , it will not bring back the massive money inflows that these organizations are used to .
Let 's be honest : There is a glut of news organizations , and consolidation WILL happen .
The internet has permanently changed the market .
I do n't see that the U.S. government needs to get involved ; we have NOT lost the ability to receive news .
Yes , many news organizations are going out of business , and in the future we will need fewer of them .
But that 's simply how competition works .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>
Linux Weekly News (LWN.net) [lwn.net] has managed to keep going by having a temporary paywall.
That is, you pay to get immediate access to articles, and after a week, anyone can see them.
This might work in some cases, at the least, you could generate some revenue if people were willing to pay for immediate access, while not driving away the authors who want many readers.
I will say that for LWN, they're making some money but they certainly aren't rolling in it, so even if that works, it will not bring back the massive money inflows that these organizations are used to.
Let's be honest: There is a glut of news organizations, and consolidation WILL happen.
The internet has permanently changed the market.
I don't see that the U.S. government needs to get involved; we have NOT lost the ability to receive news.
Yes, many news organizations are going out of business, and in the future we will need fewer of them.
But that's simply how competition works.
</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_168232.29952880</id>
	<title>Used to read NY Times oped before paywall</title>
	<author>caseih</author>
	<datestamp>1257190320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I used to read Thomas Friedman's oped column regularly until the NY Times put him behind their paywall.  Eventually they dropped the paywall but by then I was too late.  I just didn't care that much any more.  The few times I did pick up his column I realized that except for his columns on the middle east (his field of expertise) there wasn't much that he had to say that was incredibly relevant.  I'm probably one of the few people that found his book, "the World is Flat" to be incredibly uninsightful.</p><p>The paywall made me realize that for the most part there isn't much separating such oped columns from the average blogger.  However had the NY Times not put up the paywall I probably would still be reading their oped columns regularly.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I used to read Thomas Friedman 's oped column regularly until the NY Times put him behind their paywall .
Eventually they dropped the paywall but by then I was too late .
I just did n't care that much any more .
The few times I did pick up his column I realized that except for his columns on the middle east ( his field of expertise ) there was n't much that he had to say that was incredibly relevant .
I 'm probably one of the few people that found his book , " the World is Flat " to be incredibly uninsightful.The paywall made me realize that for the most part there is n't much separating such oped columns from the average blogger .
However had the NY Times not put up the paywall I probably would still be reading their oped columns regularly .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I used to read Thomas Friedman's oped column regularly until the NY Times put him behind their paywall.
Eventually they dropped the paywall but by then I was too late.
I just didn't care that much any more.
The few times I did pick up his column I realized that except for his columns on the middle east (his field of expertise) there wasn't much that he had to say that was incredibly relevant.
I'm probably one of the few people that found his book, "the World is Flat" to be incredibly uninsightful.The paywall made me realize that for the most part there isn't much separating such oped columns from the average blogger.
However had the NY Times not put up the paywall I probably would still be reading their oped columns regularly.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_168232.29952492</id>
	<title>How to put laid off journalists to work</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257188280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Let's hire these journalists to document our code!  There must be billions of uncommented lines out there for which they could craft elegant explanatory prose, and help us out in the process.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Let 's hire these journalists to document our code !
There must be billions of uncommented lines out there for which they could craft elegant explanatory prose , and help us out in the process .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Let's hire these journalists to document our code!
There must be billions of uncommented lines out there for which they could craft elegant explanatory prose, and help us out in the process.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_168232.29952370</id>
	<title>Re:Reporters are basically bloggers then</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257187680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Reading this, it strikes me that news sites are just big blogging sites.  No blogger would want their content hidden behind a paywall, and reporters are more and more just professional bloggers.</p></div><p>You're talking about columnists, not reporters. They are different.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Reading this , it strikes me that news sites are just big blogging sites .
No blogger would want their content hidden behind a paywall , and reporters are more and more just professional bloggers.You 're talking about columnists , not reporters .
They are different .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Reading this, it strikes me that news sites are just big blogging sites.
No blogger would want their content hidden behind a paywall, and reporters are more and more just professional bloggers.You're talking about columnists, not reporters.
They are different.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_168232.29952250</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_168232.29953214</id>
	<title>Re:Used to read NY Times oped before paywall</title>
	<author>CrashNBrn</author>
	<datestamp>1257191940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I think that train of thought could apply to many things. I used to be an avid Daily Show &amp; Colbert viewer. Then I had no regular access to TV for an extended period of time. When I finally had the opportunity again and the free time I found I just didn't care for it (now) -- I'd rather "tivo" The Late Late Show (Craig Ferguson).</htmltext>
<tokenext>I think that train of thought could apply to many things .
I used to be an avid Daily Show &amp; Colbert viewer .
Then I had no regular access to TV for an extended period of time .
When I finally had the opportunity again and the free time I found I just did n't care for it ( now ) -- I 'd rather " tivo " The Late Late Show ( Craig Ferguson ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I think that train of thought could apply to many things.
I used to be an avid Daily Show &amp; Colbert viewer.
Then I had no regular access to TV for an extended period of time.
When I finally had the opportunity again and the free time I found I just didn't care for it (now) -- I'd rather "tivo" The Late Late Show (Craig Ferguson).</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_168232.29952880</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_168232.29954318</id>
	<title>Have you SEEN the Newsday site?</title>
	<author>PingXao</author>
	<datestamp>1257153300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You should take a look at <a href="http://www.newsday.com/" title="newsday.com">this abomination of a news website</a> [newsday.com].  It's laughable to think that ANYONE in their right mind would pay for access to such a thing.  Of course, it's owned by the same guys who own the Madison Square Garden NYC sports teams and a big suburban NYC cable company, so they think they know it all.  javascript<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:: Newsday as NY Knicks<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:: Pro Basketball</p><p>I stopped going there earlier this year when they rolled out their new look.  Seriously, they would have to pay me to visit that site on a regular basis.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You should take a look at this abomination of a news website [ newsday.com ] .
It 's laughable to think that ANYONE in their right mind would pay for access to such a thing .
Of course , it 's owned by the same guys who own the Madison Square Garden NYC sports teams and a big suburban NYC cable company , so they think they know it all .
javascript : : Newsday as NY Knicks : : Pro BasketballI stopped going there earlier this year when they rolled out their new look .
Seriously , they would have to pay me to visit that site on a regular basis .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You should take a look at this abomination of a news website [newsday.com].
It's laughable to think that ANYONE in their right mind would pay for access to such a thing.
Of course, it's owned by the same guys who own the Madison Square Garden NYC sports teams and a big suburban NYC cable company, so they think they know it all.
javascript :: Newsday as NY Knicks :: Pro BasketballI stopped going there earlier this year when they rolled out their new look.
Seriously, they would have to pay me to visit that site on a regular basis.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_168232.29952366</id>
	<title>tough life for writers</title>
	<author>rwv</author>
	<datestamp>1257187680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>
<p>The fact is that writing as a profession has such low barriers to entry these days these days (all you need is a keyboard, an internet connection, and a deal in place to host your published ideas), and the concept that ideas from certain writers are more valuable than others seems to be misguided.

</p><p>Instead, sites should focus on improving their most worthwhile content by making sure their best writers are writing IN DEPTH INVESTIGATIVE STORIES that elevate the nationwide discussion.  For what it's worth, the strategy of publishing mounds of opinionated drivel is being demonstrated to lead to minimal success.

</p><p>Though, while we're here I'd like to plug my own source of potentially opinionated drivel at <a href="http://www.robertvandyk.com/roblog" title="robertvandyk.com" rel="nofollow">my site</a> [robertvandyk.com] and invite anybody who thinks my ideas are worthwhile to help me get some of my ideas published in the mainstream media (which unrelentlessly still controls 90\% of the power within the news publication game).</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The fact is that writing as a profession has such low barriers to entry these days these days ( all you need is a keyboard , an internet connection , and a deal in place to host your published ideas ) , and the concept that ideas from certain writers are more valuable than others seems to be misguided .
Instead , sites should focus on improving their most worthwhile content by making sure their best writers are writing IN DEPTH INVESTIGATIVE STORIES that elevate the nationwide discussion .
For what it 's worth , the strategy of publishing mounds of opinionated drivel is being demonstrated to lead to minimal success .
Though , while we 're here I 'd like to plug my own source of potentially opinionated drivel at my site [ robertvandyk.com ] and invite anybody who thinks my ideas are worthwhile to help me get some of my ideas published in the mainstream media ( which unrelentlessly still controls 90 \ % of the power within the news publication game ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>
The fact is that writing as a profession has such low barriers to entry these days these days (all you need is a keyboard, an internet connection, and a deal in place to host your published ideas), and the concept that ideas from certain writers are more valuable than others seems to be misguided.
Instead, sites should focus on improving their most worthwhile content by making sure their best writers are writing IN DEPTH INVESTIGATIVE STORIES that elevate the nationwide discussion.
For what it's worth, the strategy of publishing mounds of opinionated drivel is being demonstrated to lead to minimal success.
Though, while we're here I'd like to plug my own source of potentially opinionated drivel at my site [robertvandyk.com] and invite anybody who thinks my ideas are worthwhile to help me get some of my ideas published in the mainstream media (which unrelentlessly still controls 90\% of the power within the news publication game).</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_168232.29957428</id>
	<title>Re:Opinion columnists are like bloggers</title>
	<author>jrumney</author>
	<datestamp>1257168600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>That's not how the editors see it. The news is just the news - you can get it from another paper and it will be basically the same.  The real value in a newspaper is in the columnists, who provide a view that is unique to the paper, so if they lock up the news and leave the columnists open for all to read, noone will buy a subscription (unless they have specialist coverage of news that people are willing to pay for, like the Financial Times and Wall St Journal).</htmltext>
<tokenext>That 's not how the editors see it .
The news is just the news - you can get it from another paper and it will be basically the same .
The real value in a newspaper is in the columnists , who provide a view that is unique to the paper , so if they lock up the news and leave the columnists open for all to read , noone will buy a subscription ( unless they have specialist coverage of news that people are willing to pay for , like the Financial Times and Wall St Journal ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That's not how the editors see it.
The news is just the news - you can get it from another paper and it will be basically the same.
The real value in a newspaper is in the columnists, who provide a view that is unique to the paper, so if they lock up the news and leave the columnists open for all to read, noone will buy a subscription (unless they have specialist coverage of news that people are willing to pay for, like the Financial Times and Wall St Journal).</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_168232.29952258</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_168232.29952634</id>
	<title>Re:Reporters are basically bloggers then</title>
	<author>Itchyeyes</author>
	<datestamp>1257189120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>You're talking about columnists, not reporters. They <b>used to be</b> different.</p></div><p>Fixed it for you</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>You 're talking about columnists , not reporters .
They used to be different.Fixed it for you</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You're talking about columnists, not reporters.
They used to be different.Fixed it for you
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_168232.29952370</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_168232.29954632</id>
	<title>Re:The Return of the Pamphleteer</title>
	<author>prockcore</author>
	<datestamp>1257154740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I agree.  People say they want non-biased news, but they don't.  What they want is news that matches their own biases.</p><p>No one ever writes an angry letter saying "while I agree with everything you're saying, you're letting your bias show"</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I agree .
People say they want non-biased news , but they do n't .
What they want is news that matches their own biases.No one ever writes an angry letter saying " while I agree with everything you 're saying , you 're letting your bias show "</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I agree.
People say they want non-biased news, but they don't.
What they want is news that matches their own biases.No one ever writes an angry letter saying "while I agree with everything you're saying, you're letting your bias show"</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_168232.29952390</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_168232.29956054</id>
	<title>reliability and bias</title>
	<author>michaelhawk</author>
	<datestamp>1257161160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>I appreciate your analysis, but would like to add a few things.
<p>-</p><p>
You said:</p><blockquote><div><p>The deciding factor is therefore the reliability of the product. Unfortunately, the news industry has made several very bad decisions regarding this:
</p><p>
First, was catering to certain groups (liberals, conservatives, etc.) and following the demographics rather than the story. While this improves profitibility over the short term, it sets things up for a diminishing returns cycle -- to maintain the higher profitibility the product must be targeted more with each iteration, leading to an alienation of those who do not share the increasingly-restricted viewpoint. That is to say, they become aware of the bias and lose confidence in the product. This "short sell" ideology permeates many industries -- in some cases, the results are more dramatic and immediate than other cases.</p></div></blockquote><p>
Thesis: The MSM has to deal with an audience that is polarized, distracted, transient, and lazy.  The appropriate product for that audience is biased, sensationalized, cheap, and simplified.  The thougthful online audience doesn't pay the bills.  This leads the MSM to pander to the polarized, lazy audience, resulting in a product whose content and style alienates thoughtful people.  A vicious circle that results in a gradual loss of reliability.
</p><p>
1) The polarization of the audience is a pressure <i>external</i> to the MSM to which the big papers and television have had to adapt.  <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Culture\_war" title="wikipedia.org" rel="nofollow">Culture War</a> [wikipedia.org] is a term that describes the aggressive, polarized public sphere America has been experiencing for about 30 or 40 years.  The idea that America is at war with itself has appealed to political activists who promote extreme rhetoric advocating their point of view.  We have seen the rise of privately funded "think tanks" producing analysis and science that c/overtly promotes a certain line of thinking.  The MSM has been met by the non-MSM, like conservative talk radio, which has taught millions of people the New York Times is a commie rag.  This is the atmosphere to which a MSM news organization has to adapt.  The MSM papers are caught up in a whirlpool of accusations of bias from 2 sides (and more) from which it is very difficult to escape.  Read the comments sections of many papers for signs of the insanity, especially on articles linked from the DrudgeReport.
</p><p>
You have called this a loss of reliability of the news paper.  We might call it a loss of reliability of the reader who is so consumed by his point of view that he interprets every alternative point of view as a declaration of war.  These readers can no longer be trusted to demand quality journalism.  Instead they want affirmative journalism. This leads to a lowest-common-denominator media analysis that screams bias everywhere it goes.
</p><p>
2) The MSM no longer has a lock on the attention of the average person.  Hard news is hard to make and hard to consume, and most people don't bother.</p><blockquote><div><p>Just over four in 10 adults said they had read a newspaper, in print or online, the previous day, compared with 58 percent in 1994. The number of people who read a newspaper online only was relatively small, though it has kept the total from slipping further.
</p><p>...
But young adults also are more likely to not follow the news at all &mdash; an ominous reminder of the challenge still facing the industry.
</p><p>...
The number of people who regularly watch nightly network news is down to 28 percent, half the total from 1993.
</p><p>...
For example, 7 percent of those polled get news from new technologies such as cell phones, personal digital assistants and podcasts. Among those age 18-29, the number is 13 percent, according to the poll of 3,204 adults conducted from April 27 to May 22. The margin of sampling error is plus or minus 2 percentage points.
</p><p>
With all these new options, people spend about the same time keeping up on the news &mdash; just over an hour in a given day &mdash; as they did a decade ago.</p></div>
</blockquote><p>
<a href="http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/14109032/" title="msn.com" rel="nofollow">http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/14109032/</a> [msn.com]
</p><p>
This readership is transient and oriented to what is easy.  The MSM responds to this.  Articles are shorter to fit into the new devices and the attention span of readers.  They push stories about celebrities, anything sensational like abductions, and the human interest angle.  They render simplified versions of world events, turning everything into good and evil.
</p><p>
3) What about the thoughtful news audience?  It is becoming increasingly difficult for the MSM to maintain a reliable audience of thoughtful people.  These are the ones clever enough to gather their own news, from 100 sources.  Even readers of a powerhouse like the NYT will go elsewhere.  Their reading time is fractured across many more papers now.  Web ads were supposed to do make this kind of readership pay the bills, but it has failed for the most part.  That is why we are seeing paywalls.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I appreciate your analysis , but would like to add a few things .
- You said : The deciding factor is therefore the reliability of the product .
Unfortunately , the news industry has made several very bad decisions regarding this : First , was catering to certain groups ( liberals , conservatives , etc .
) and following the demographics rather than the story .
While this improves profitibility over the short term , it sets things up for a diminishing returns cycle -- to maintain the higher profitibility the product must be targeted more with each iteration , leading to an alienation of those who do not share the increasingly-restricted viewpoint .
That is to say , they become aware of the bias and lose confidence in the product .
This " short sell " ideology permeates many industries -- in some cases , the results are more dramatic and immediate than other cases .
Thesis : The MSM has to deal with an audience that is polarized , distracted , transient , and lazy .
The appropriate product for that audience is biased , sensationalized , cheap , and simplified .
The thougthful online audience does n't pay the bills .
This leads the MSM to pander to the polarized , lazy audience , resulting in a product whose content and style alienates thoughtful people .
A vicious circle that results in a gradual loss of reliability .
1 ) The polarization of the audience is a pressure external to the MSM to which the big papers and television have had to adapt .
Culture War [ wikipedia.org ] is a term that describes the aggressive , polarized public sphere America has been experiencing for about 30 or 40 years .
The idea that America is at war with itself has appealed to political activists who promote extreme rhetoric advocating their point of view .
We have seen the rise of privately funded " think tanks " producing analysis and science that c/overtly promotes a certain line of thinking .
The MSM has been met by the non-MSM , like conservative talk radio , which has taught millions of people the New York Times is a commie rag .
This is the atmosphere to which a MSM news organization has to adapt .
The MSM papers are caught up in a whirlpool of accusations of bias from 2 sides ( and more ) from which it is very difficult to escape .
Read the comments sections of many papers for signs of the insanity , especially on articles linked from the DrudgeReport .
You have called this a loss of reliability of the news paper .
We might call it a loss of reliability of the reader who is so consumed by his point of view that he interprets every alternative point of view as a declaration of war .
These readers can no longer be trusted to demand quality journalism .
Instead they want affirmative journalism .
This leads to a lowest-common-denominator media analysis that screams bias everywhere it goes .
2 ) The MSM no longer has a lock on the attention of the average person .
Hard news is hard to make and hard to consume , and most people do n't bother.Just over four in 10 adults said they had read a newspaper , in print or online , the previous day , compared with 58 percent in 1994 .
The number of people who read a newspaper online only was relatively small , though it has kept the total from slipping further .
.. . But young adults also are more likely to not follow the news at all    an ominous reminder of the challenge still facing the industry .
.. . The number of people who regularly watch nightly network news is down to 28 percent , half the total from 1993 .
.. . For example , 7 percent of those polled get news from new technologies such as cell phones , personal digital assistants and podcasts .
Among those age 18-29 , the number is 13 percent , according to the poll of 3,204 adults conducted from April 27 to May 22 .
The margin of sampling error is plus or minus 2 percentage points .
With all these new options , people spend about the same time keeping up on the news    just over an hour in a given day    as they did a decade ago .
http : //www.msnbc.msn.com/id/14109032/ [ msn.com ] This readership is transient and oriented to what is easy .
The MSM responds to this .
Articles are shorter to fit into the new devices and the attention span of readers .
They push stories about celebrities , anything sensational like abductions , and the human interest angle .
They render simplified versions of world events , turning everything into good and evil .
3 ) What about the thoughtful news audience ?
It is becoming increasingly difficult for the MSM to maintain a reliable audience of thoughtful people .
These are the ones clever enough to gather their own news , from 100 sources .
Even readers of a powerhouse like the NYT will go elsewhere .
Their reading time is fractured across many more papers now .
Web ads were supposed to do make this kind of readership pay the bills , but it has failed for the most part .
That is why we are seeing paywalls .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I appreciate your analysis, but would like to add a few things.
-
You said:The deciding factor is therefore the reliability of the product.
Unfortunately, the news industry has made several very bad decisions regarding this:

First, was catering to certain groups (liberals, conservatives, etc.
) and following the demographics rather than the story.
While this improves profitibility over the short term, it sets things up for a diminishing returns cycle -- to maintain the higher profitibility the product must be targeted more with each iteration, leading to an alienation of those who do not share the increasingly-restricted viewpoint.
That is to say, they become aware of the bias and lose confidence in the product.
This "short sell" ideology permeates many industries -- in some cases, the results are more dramatic and immediate than other cases.
Thesis: The MSM has to deal with an audience that is polarized, distracted, transient, and lazy.
The appropriate product for that audience is biased, sensationalized, cheap, and simplified.
The thougthful online audience doesn't pay the bills.
This leads the MSM to pander to the polarized, lazy audience, resulting in a product whose content and style alienates thoughtful people.
A vicious circle that results in a gradual loss of reliability.
1) The polarization of the audience is a pressure external to the MSM to which the big papers and television have had to adapt.
Culture War [wikipedia.org] is a term that describes the aggressive, polarized public sphere America has been experiencing for about 30 or 40 years.
The idea that America is at war with itself has appealed to political activists who promote extreme rhetoric advocating their point of view.
We have seen the rise of privately funded "think tanks" producing analysis and science that c/overtly promotes a certain line of thinking.
The MSM has been met by the non-MSM, like conservative talk radio, which has taught millions of people the New York Times is a commie rag.
This is the atmosphere to which a MSM news organization has to adapt.
The MSM papers are caught up in a whirlpool of accusations of bias from 2 sides (and more) from which it is very difficult to escape.
Read the comments sections of many papers for signs of the insanity, especially on articles linked from the DrudgeReport.
You have called this a loss of reliability of the news paper.
We might call it a loss of reliability of the reader who is so consumed by his point of view that he interprets every alternative point of view as a declaration of war.
These readers can no longer be trusted to demand quality journalism.
Instead they want affirmative journalism.
This leads to a lowest-common-denominator media analysis that screams bias everywhere it goes.
2) The MSM no longer has a lock on the attention of the average person.
Hard news is hard to make and hard to consume, and most people don't bother.Just over four in 10 adults said they had read a newspaper, in print or online, the previous day, compared with 58 percent in 1994.
The number of people who read a newspaper online only was relatively small, though it has kept the total from slipping further.
...
But young adults also are more likely to not follow the news at all — an ominous reminder of the challenge still facing the industry.
...
The number of people who regularly watch nightly network news is down to 28 percent, half the total from 1993.
...
For example, 7 percent of those polled get news from new technologies such as cell phones, personal digital assistants and podcasts.
Among those age 18-29, the number is 13 percent, according to the poll of 3,204 adults conducted from April 27 to May 22.
The margin of sampling error is plus or minus 2 percentage points.
With all these new options, people spend about the same time keeping up on the news — just over an hour in a given day — as they did a decade ago.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/14109032/ [msn.com]

This readership is transient and oriented to what is easy.
The MSM responds to this.
Articles are shorter to fit into the new devices and the attention span of readers.
They push stories about celebrities, anything sensational like abductions, and the human interest angle.
They render simplified versions of world events, turning everything into good and evil.
3) What about the thoughtful news audience?
It is becoming increasingly difficult for the MSM to maintain a reliable audience of thoughtful people.
These are the ones clever enough to gather their own news, from 100 sources.
Even readers of a powerhouse like the NYT will go elsewhere.
Their reading time is fractured across many more papers now.
Web ads were supposed to do make this kind of readership pay the bills, but it has failed for the most part.
That is why we are seeing paywalls.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_168232.29952502</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_168232.29952610</id>
	<title>Re:Brief delay might work; Consolidation WILL happ</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257188940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>&gt;There is a glut of news organizations, and consolidation WILL happen.</p><p>I think it HAS happened, not will happen. But only if you consider the big media conglomerates are actual news organizations rather than infotainment.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>&gt; There is a glut of news organizations , and consolidation WILL happen.I think it HAS happened , not will happen .
But only if you consider the big media conglomerates are actual news organizations rather than infotainment .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>&gt;There is a glut of news organizations, and consolidation WILL happen.I think it HAS happened, not will happen.
But only if you consider the big media conglomerates are actual news organizations rather than infotainment.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_168232.29952426</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_168232.29952392</id>
	<title>Look for heads to roll and mergers to occur</title>
	<author>abbynormal brain</author>
	<datestamp>1257187800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>From a mile-high view I believe that the swelling of "news" organizations since techno-social growth will - naturally - shrink to a manageable size. Those in control of the news in this downsizing will have (sorry<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... *should have*) a responsibility to us (as the consumers) to report more news and less opinion.</p><p>Either way, times will still be trying for the ones that remain and my recommendation to them is to partner and merge with "access" technologies - such as the iPod, Blackberry, and other smart connect / convenience technologies.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>From a mile-high view I believe that the swelling of " news " organizations since techno-social growth will - naturally - shrink to a manageable size .
Those in control of the news in this downsizing will have ( sorry ... * should have * ) a responsibility to us ( as the consumers ) to report more news and less opinion.Either way , times will still be trying for the ones that remain and my recommendation to them is to partner and merge with " access " technologies - such as the iPod , Blackberry , and other smart connect / convenience technologies .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>From a mile-high view I believe that the swelling of "news" organizations since techno-social growth will - naturally - shrink to a manageable size.
Those in control of the news in this downsizing will have (sorry ... *should have*) a responsibility to us (as the consumers) to report more news and less opinion.Either way, times will still be trying for the ones that remain and my recommendation to them is to partner and merge with "access" technologies - such as the iPod, Blackberry, and other smart connect / convenience technologies.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_168232.29954974</id>
	<title>Re:Opinion columnists are like bloggers</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257156360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Okay, so your argument can be broken down to "some employees of large, greedy, corporations who happen to disagree with some of the worst actions of the corporations are just like this group of people we hate so they don't count."</p><p>Wow.  You voted Republican, didn't you.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Okay , so your argument can be broken down to " some employees of large , greedy , corporations who happen to disagree with some of the worst actions of the corporations are just like this group of people we hate so they do n't count. " Wow .
You voted Republican , did n't you .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Okay, so your argument can be broken down to "some employees of large, greedy, corporations who happen to disagree with some of the worst actions of the corporations are just like this group of people we hate so they don't count."Wow.
You voted Republican, didn't you.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_168232.29952258</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_168232.29952422</id>
	<title>newspapers commit suicide with poor pricing</title>
	<author>peter303</author>
	<datestamp>1257187980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>I'd support up to a dollar per week, 20\% discount for year-paid, for a couple of may favorite online news sites.  But not $250 a year.  Printing and distribution costs are nearly negligible then.  All the money would go to paying reportors and editors.  It sounds like the print media did not learn the "Goldilocks" online music tale: CDs too much, napster too little and iTunes about right.  When you get it right you'll have paying customers.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'd support up to a dollar per week , 20 \ % discount for year-paid , for a couple of may favorite online news sites .
But not $ 250 a year .
Printing and distribution costs are nearly negligible then .
All the money would go to paying reportors and editors .
It sounds like the print media did not learn the " Goldilocks " online music tale : CDs too much , napster too little and iTunes about right .
When you get it right you 'll have paying customers .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'd support up to a dollar per week, 20\% discount for year-paid, for a couple of may favorite online news sites.
But not $250 a year.
Printing and distribution costs are nearly negligible then.
All the money would go to paying reportors and editors.
It sounds like the print media did not learn the "Goldilocks" online music tale: CDs too much, napster too little and iTunes about right.
When you get it right you'll have paying customers.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_168232.29952502</id>
	<title>wall building</title>
	<author>girlintraining</author>
	<datestamp>1257188280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Modern news distribution derives its value from two things: First, the <i>reliability</i> of its product. Second, the <i>timeliness</i> of its product. Newspapers and magazines fail the test because they are release daily, weekly, or even monthly -- whereas other distribution mediums can do it in seconds or minutes. This is not, however, what killed them. The deciding factor is therefore the <i>reliability</i> of the product. Unfortunately, the news industry has made several very bad decisions regarding this:</p><p>First, was catering to certain groups (liberals, conservatives, etc.) and following the demographics rather than the story. While this improves profitibility over the short term, it sets things up for a diminishing returns cycle -- to maintain the higher profitibility the product must be targeted more with each iteration, leading to an alienation of those who do not share the increasingly-restricted viewpoint. That is to say, they become aware of the bias and lose confidence in the product. This "short sell" ideology permeates many industries -- in some cases, the results are more dramatic and immediate than other cases.</p><p>Second, was the packaging of such information. Even leading up to the 9/11 media event, packaging of information from major news sources was being called into question. Scandals rocked the New York Times, Washington Post, and all major television networks within a three-year timespan -- why? In every case, the rush to get the information to press caused errors to be made. In other words, a lack of process control. The coverage of 9/11 -- with its constant flood of meaningless and un-contextualized data overloaded people. Simply put, anything that's "hot" is over-saturated and in their rush to deliver the latest "news" they bury people in a crap-flood of information -- there was a loss of impact.</p><p>The third factor in the loss of reliability of major media organizations was a lack of peer review. Because most of the media distribution in this country is owned by a select few individuals and/or corporations, the industry homogenized. There was no further innovation. In the quest for profitibility, only methods of reporting and investigation were used that guaranteed eyeballs. As history has shown time and time again, the key to the long-term survival of a business, or industry, is adapability. This was sacrificed when the industry homogenized into only a few major corporate players -- leading to formulaic products that were too similar to one another.</p><p>Finally, the rise of social networking and the internet proved that word of mouth is the most effective way of spreading information that is <i>NOT</i> time-sensitive. Ironically, the random churning of information on the internet was better at distributing stories than decades-old systems of distribution: Why? Because the information had been separated out into a free-format. Like CDs, where you have to purchase the entire album in order to get that one song -- this was how the media operated. No longer -- and the result was that over a period of days or weeks, many millions more would see a given product because of referrals by friends. The news industry failed to capitalize upon this by creating stand-alone product that could be distributed between people and remain intact (for example, with its advertising or "related" content hooks, perhaps in something similar to PDF).</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Modern news distribution derives its value from two things : First , the reliability of its product .
Second , the timeliness of its product .
Newspapers and magazines fail the test because they are release daily , weekly , or even monthly -- whereas other distribution mediums can do it in seconds or minutes .
This is not , however , what killed them .
The deciding factor is therefore the reliability of the product .
Unfortunately , the news industry has made several very bad decisions regarding this : First , was catering to certain groups ( liberals , conservatives , etc .
) and following the demographics rather than the story .
While this improves profitibility over the short term , it sets things up for a diminishing returns cycle -- to maintain the higher profitibility the product must be targeted more with each iteration , leading to an alienation of those who do not share the increasingly-restricted viewpoint .
That is to say , they become aware of the bias and lose confidence in the product .
This " short sell " ideology permeates many industries -- in some cases , the results are more dramatic and immediate than other cases.Second , was the packaging of such information .
Even leading up to the 9/11 media event , packaging of information from major news sources was being called into question .
Scandals rocked the New York Times , Washington Post , and all major television networks within a three-year timespan -- why ?
In every case , the rush to get the information to press caused errors to be made .
In other words , a lack of process control .
The coverage of 9/11 -- with its constant flood of meaningless and un-contextualized data overloaded people .
Simply put , anything that 's " hot " is over-saturated and in their rush to deliver the latest " news " they bury people in a crap-flood of information -- there was a loss of impact.The third factor in the loss of reliability of major media organizations was a lack of peer review .
Because most of the media distribution in this country is owned by a select few individuals and/or corporations , the industry homogenized .
There was no further innovation .
In the quest for profitibility , only methods of reporting and investigation were used that guaranteed eyeballs .
As history has shown time and time again , the key to the long-term survival of a business , or industry , is adapability .
This was sacrificed when the industry homogenized into only a few major corporate players -- leading to formulaic products that were too similar to one another.Finally , the rise of social networking and the internet proved that word of mouth is the most effective way of spreading information that is NOT time-sensitive .
Ironically , the random churning of information on the internet was better at distributing stories than decades-old systems of distribution : Why ?
Because the information had been separated out into a free-format .
Like CDs , where you have to purchase the entire album in order to get that one song -- this was how the media operated .
No longer -- and the result was that over a period of days or weeks , many millions more would see a given product because of referrals by friends .
The news industry failed to capitalize upon this by creating stand-alone product that could be distributed between people and remain intact ( for example , with its advertising or " related " content hooks , perhaps in something similar to PDF ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Modern news distribution derives its value from two things: First, the reliability of its product.
Second, the timeliness of its product.
Newspapers and magazines fail the test because they are release daily, weekly, or even monthly -- whereas other distribution mediums can do it in seconds or minutes.
This is not, however, what killed them.
The deciding factor is therefore the reliability of the product.
Unfortunately, the news industry has made several very bad decisions regarding this:First, was catering to certain groups (liberals, conservatives, etc.
) and following the demographics rather than the story.
While this improves profitibility over the short term, it sets things up for a diminishing returns cycle -- to maintain the higher profitibility the product must be targeted more with each iteration, leading to an alienation of those who do not share the increasingly-restricted viewpoint.
That is to say, they become aware of the bias and lose confidence in the product.
This "short sell" ideology permeates many industries -- in some cases, the results are more dramatic and immediate than other cases.Second, was the packaging of such information.
Even leading up to the 9/11 media event, packaging of information from major news sources was being called into question.
Scandals rocked the New York Times, Washington Post, and all major television networks within a three-year timespan -- why?
In every case, the rush to get the information to press caused errors to be made.
In other words, a lack of process control.
The coverage of 9/11 -- with its constant flood of meaningless and un-contextualized data overloaded people.
Simply put, anything that's "hot" is over-saturated and in their rush to deliver the latest "news" they bury people in a crap-flood of information -- there was a loss of impact.The third factor in the loss of reliability of major media organizations was a lack of peer review.
Because most of the media distribution in this country is owned by a select few individuals and/or corporations, the industry homogenized.
There was no further innovation.
In the quest for profitibility, only methods of reporting and investigation were used that guaranteed eyeballs.
As history has shown time and time again, the key to the long-term survival of a business, or industry, is adapability.
This was sacrificed when the industry homogenized into only a few major corporate players -- leading to formulaic products that were too similar to one another.Finally, the rise of social networking and the internet proved that word of mouth is the most effective way of spreading information that is NOT time-sensitive.
Ironically, the random churning of information on the internet was better at distributing stories than decades-old systems of distribution: Why?
Because the information had been separated out into a free-format.
Like CDs, where you have to purchase the entire album in order to get that one song -- this was how the media operated.
No longer -- and the result was that over a period of days or weeks, many millions more would see a given product because of referrals by friends.
The news industry failed to capitalize upon this by creating stand-alone product that could be distributed between people and remain intact (for example, with its advertising or "related" content hooks, perhaps in something similar to PDF).</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_168232.29954532</id>
	<title>Re:Reporters are basically bloggers then</title>
	<author>buchner.johannes</author>
	<datestamp>1257154260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I frequently hear that newspapers should adapt their 'business model' to the Internet. But what are their options really? Since the salary is not free, consumers will have to pay for content that isn't just what any blogger can read from his tea leaves.<br>Otherwise we won't have investigative journalism anymore and stories that go deep.<br>I think I would consider paying for investigative stories that provide background.</p><p>For example, newspapers could come up with free articles that introduce to the topic and awake interest. That should cover what bloggers also cover. But then provide a link to the article that gives deep background knowledge (and charge for it).</p><p>Ok, maybe this is what they are trying to do already, I'm going to RTFA now...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I frequently hear that newspapers should adapt their 'business model ' to the Internet .
But what are their options really ?
Since the salary is not free , consumers will have to pay for content that is n't just what any blogger can read from his tea leaves.Otherwise we wo n't have investigative journalism anymore and stories that go deep.I think I would consider paying for investigative stories that provide background.For example , newspapers could come up with free articles that introduce to the topic and awake interest .
That should cover what bloggers also cover .
But then provide a link to the article that gives deep background knowledge ( and charge for it ) .Ok , maybe this is what they are trying to do already , I 'm going to RTFA now.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I frequently hear that newspapers should adapt their 'business model' to the Internet.
But what are their options really?
Since the salary is not free, consumers will have to pay for content that isn't just what any blogger can read from his tea leaves.Otherwise we won't have investigative journalism anymore and stories that go deep.I think I would consider paying for investigative stories that provide background.For example, newspapers could come up with free articles that introduce to the topic and awake interest.
That should cover what bloggers also cover.
But then provide a link to the article that gives deep background knowledge (and charge for it).Ok, maybe this is what they are trying to do already, I'm going to RTFA now...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_168232.29952370</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_168232.29961920</id>
	<title>Main Stream Media is dying</title>
	<author>LeepII</author>
	<datestamp>1257251640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>With the invention of the internet the main stream media companies are being caught more and more in their lies.  From the lies that got us into the Iraq war to the photoshopped picture of the London bombers, the internet is exposing lie after lie.  Is it any wonder that the more tech savvy generation realizes that most "news" is in fact just propaganda supporting a particular world view?  And who is dumb enough to pay for propaganda?</htmltext>
<tokenext>With the invention of the internet the main stream media companies are being caught more and more in their lies .
From the lies that got us into the Iraq war to the photoshopped picture of the London bombers , the internet is exposing lie after lie .
Is it any wonder that the more tech savvy generation realizes that most " news " is in fact just propaganda supporting a particular world view ?
And who is dumb enough to pay for propaganda ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>With the invention of the internet the main stream media companies are being caught more and more in their lies.
From the lies that got us into the Iraq war to the photoshopped picture of the London bombers, the internet is exposing lie after lie.
Is it any wonder that the more tech savvy generation realizes that most "news" is in fact just propaganda supporting a particular world view?
And who is dumb enough to pay for propaganda?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_168232.29953440</id>
	<title>Newsday site</title>
	<author>rand0mbits</author>
	<datestamp>1257192840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Just went to check out the Newsday site. It's so ugly and hard on the eyes that I'm not sure I'd visit it if they paid me for it.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Just went to check out the Newsday site .
It 's so ugly and hard on the eyes that I 'm not sure I 'd visit it if they paid me for it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Just went to check out the Newsday site.
It's so ugly and hard on the eyes that I'm not sure I'd visit it if they paid me for it.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_168232.29956966</id>
	<title>Re:wall building</title>
	<author>massysett</author>
	<datestamp>1257166500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Modern news distribution derives its value from two things: First, the reliability of its product. Second, the timeliness of its product. Newspapers and magazines fail the test because they are release daily, weekly, or even monthly -- whereas other distribution mediums can do it in seconds or minutes. This is not, however, what killed them. The deciding factor is therefore the reliability of the product.</p></div><p>All the reasons you give in your post have to do with the quality of the content that major media organizations put out. That quality, or lack thereof, has little to do with the downfall of newspapers.</p><p>Like many you seem to assume that, as a reader of a newspaper, you are the newspaper's customer. This is false. During the print era, what you paid for a paper copy only covered the cost of printing and distributing the paper. During the web era, you don't even pay for what you read on the website.</p><p>You pay practically nothing; you are not the customer. No, the <i>advertisers</i> are the customers. Quite simply, the advertisers found better, lower-cost ways to advertise their products. Classified ads were a huge source of revenue for newspapers. That's been decimated by the Internet. Cars go to cars.com; real estate goes to trulia.com; jobs go to monster.com; everything goes to craigslist. Display ads have taken a huge hit too, which has been made worse by the economic downturn.</p><p>If your "low quality news has led to fewer readers" hypothesis were true, then people would not be reading the newspapers' Web products. To the contrary: the newspapers are drawing huge Web audiences. The problem for the newspapers is that advertisers aren't willing to pay nearly as much for Web ads as they will for print ads.</p><p>A lot of people are saying that newspapers aren't relevant for their readers, or they aren't credible sources anymore. Even if this is true (and Web traffic tells a different story) it simply ignores the business realities. Remember that readers don't pay for newspapers. They never have. Advertisers pay for newspapers. It is the advertising market that has changed, not the quality of what's in the newspapers and not the relevance or timeliness of what's in the newspapers.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Modern news distribution derives its value from two things : First , the reliability of its product .
Second , the timeliness of its product .
Newspapers and magazines fail the test because they are release daily , weekly , or even monthly -- whereas other distribution mediums can do it in seconds or minutes .
This is not , however , what killed them .
The deciding factor is therefore the reliability of the product.All the reasons you give in your post have to do with the quality of the content that major media organizations put out .
That quality , or lack thereof , has little to do with the downfall of newspapers.Like many you seem to assume that , as a reader of a newspaper , you are the newspaper 's customer .
This is false .
During the print era , what you paid for a paper copy only covered the cost of printing and distributing the paper .
During the web era , you do n't even pay for what you read on the website.You pay practically nothing ; you are not the customer .
No , the advertisers are the customers .
Quite simply , the advertisers found better , lower-cost ways to advertise their products .
Classified ads were a huge source of revenue for newspapers .
That 's been decimated by the Internet .
Cars go to cars.com ; real estate goes to trulia.com ; jobs go to monster.com ; everything goes to craigslist .
Display ads have taken a huge hit too , which has been made worse by the economic downturn.If your " low quality news has led to fewer readers " hypothesis were true , then people would not be reading the newspapers ' Web products .
To the contrary : the newspapers are drawing huge Web audiences .
The problem for the newspapers is that advertisers are n't willing to pay nearly as much for Web ads as they will for print ads.A lot of people are saying that newspapers are n't relevant for their readers , or they are n't credible sources anymore .
Even if this is true ( and Web traffic tells a different story ) it simply ignores the business realities .
Remember that readers do n't pay for newspapers .
They never have .
Advertisers pay for newspapers .
It is the advertising market that has changed , not the quality of what 's in the newspapers and not the relevance or timeliness of what 's in the newspapers .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Modern news distribution derives its value from two things: First, the reliability of its product.
Second, the timeliness of its product.
Newspapers and magazines fail the test because they are release daily, weekly, or even monthly -- whereas other distribution mediums can do it in seconds or minutes.
This is not, however, what killed them.
The deciding factor is therefore the reliability of the product.All the reasons you give in your post have to do with the quality of the content that major media organizations put out.
That quality, or lack thereof, has little to do with the downfall of newspapers.Like many you seem to assume that, as a reader of a newspaper, you are the newspaper's customer.
This is false.
During the print era, what you paid for a paper copy only covered the cost of printing and distributing the paper.
During the web era, you don't even pay for what you read on the website.You pay practically nothing; you are not the customer.
No, the advertisers are the customers.
Quite simply, the advertisers found better, lower-cost ways to advertise their products.
Classified ads were a huge source of revenue for newspapers.
That's been decimated by the Internet.
Cars go to cars.com; real estate goes to trulia.com; jobs go to monster.com; everything goes to craigslist.
Display ads have taken a huge hit too, which has been made worse by the economic downturn.If your "low quality news has led to fewer readers" hypothesis were true, then people would not be reading the newspapers' Web products.
To the contrary: the newspapers are drawing huge Web audiences.
The problem for the newspapers is that advertisers aren't willing to pay nearly as much for Web ads as they will for print ads.A lot of people are saying that newspapers aren't relevant for their readers, or they aren't credible sources anymore.
Even if this is true (and Web traffic tells a different story) it simply ignores the business realities.
Remember that readers don't pay for newspapers.
They never have.
Advertisers pay for newspapers.
It is the advertising market that has changed, not the quality of what's in the newspapers and not the relevance or timeliness of what's in the newspapers.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_168232.29952502</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_168232.29952390</id>
	<title>The Return of the Pamphleteer</title>
	<author>R2.0</author>
	<datestamp>1257187800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I think the meme that everyone is having such trouble shaking off is the idea of "objective" news.  While I would argue that there has never been such an animal, the future definitely belongs to viewpoint-specific publications.  There may well be a market for the AP/Reuters news service model, but after that I just don't see the rest surviving.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I think the meme that everyone is having such trouble shaking off is the idea of " objective " news .
While I would argue that there has never been such an animal , the future definitely belongs to viewpoint-specific publications .
There may well be a market for the AP/Reuters news service model , but after that I just do n't see the rest surviving .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I think the meme that everyone is having such trouble shaking off is the idea of "objective" news.
While I would argue that there has never been such an animal, the future definitely belongs to viewpoint-specific publications.
There may well be a market for the AP/Reuters news service model, but after that I just don't see the rest surviving.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_168232.29952558</id>
	<title>Re:Reporters are basically bloggers then</title>
	<author>Monkeedude1212</author>
	<datestamp>1257188640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The difference between a blog and a news site is that I expect (to some degree) a news site to be credible, I want reporters to do their fact checking, relevant research, etc etc when they pick up a story. Whereas a Blogger might have been there to experience it first hand they generally aren't bound by the same rules that require a journalist to be accurate and reliable.</p><p>If I'm checking out CNN.com I expect the articles to be a little bit better than a bloggers because the journalist is typically getting paid to write them.</p><p>Now personally, I'm not going to shell out 5 dollars a week just to check out a news site, but they have to make money somehow - so it was only time before this happened. Journalists who write to be read will leave. Journalists who write to get paid will stay.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The difference between a blog and a news site is that I expect ( to some degree ) a news site to be credible , I want reporters to do their fact checking , relevant research , etc etc when they pick up a story .
Whereas a Blogger might have been there to experience it first hand they generally are n't bound by the same rules that require a journalist to be accurate and reliable.If I 'm checking out CNN.com I expect the articles to be a little bit better than a bloggers because the journalist is typically getting paid to write them.Now personally , I 'm not going to shell out 5 dollars a week just to check out a news site , but they have to make money somehow - so it was only time before this happened .
Journalists who write to be read will leave .
Journalists who write to get paid will stay .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The difference between a blog and a news site is that I expect (to some degree) a news site to be credible, I want reporters to do their fact checking, relevant research, etc etc when they pick up a story.
Whereas a Blogger might have been there to experience it first hand they generally aren't bound by the same rules that require a journalist to be accurate and reliable.If I'm checking out CNN.com I expect the articles to be a little bit better than a bloggers because the journalist is typically getting paid to write them.Now personally, I'm not going to shell out 5 dollars a week just to check out a news site, but they have to make money somehow - so it was only time before this happened.
Journalists who write to be read will leave.
Journalists who write to get paid will stay.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_168232.29952250</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_168232.29952534</id>
	<title>Sounds like a perfect solution.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257188520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This sounds like the perfect way to solve their financial issues. Why, just the other day I had a fire burning in my back yard. I did what any other sound-minded individual would do: I poured gasoline on the fire. You see, if I make things worse by increasing the rate at which the fire is burning, eventually there will be nothing left to burn and the fire will be gone.</p><p>In the same regard, by alienating their employees and consumers, these people will eventually stop taking part in the traditional (and failing) news system. If there are no whining consumers or disgruntled employees, then the problem will be solved! It will burn itself out!</p><p>I fail to see any flaws in the plan.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This sounds like the perfect way to solve their financial issues .
Why , just the other day I had a fire burning in my back yard .
I did what any other sound-minded individual would do : I poured gasoline on the fire .
You see , if I make things worse by increasing the rate at which the fire is burning , eventually there will be nothing left to burn and the fire will be gone.In the same regard , by alienating their employees and consumers , these people will eventually stop taking part in the traditional ( and failing ) news system .
If there are no whining consumers or disgruntled employees , then the problem will be solved !
It will burn itself out ! I fail to see any flaws in the plan .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This sounds like the perfect way to solve their financial issues.
Why, just the other day I had a fire burning in my back yard.
I did what any other sound-minded individual would do: I poured gasoline on the fire.
You see, if I make things worse by increasing the rate at which the fire is burning, eventually there will be nothing left to burn and the fire will be gone.In the same regard, by alienating their employees and consumers, these people will eventually stop taking part in the traditional (and failing) news system.
If there are no whining consumers or disgruntled employees, then the problem will be solved!
It will burn itself out!I fail to see any flaws in the plan.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_168232.29953146</id>
	<title>Re:Net Neutrality</title>
	<author>the\_lesser\_gatsby</author>
	<datestamp>1257191520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Try this:

Would any of the currently proposed net neutrality laws prevent Cablevision from charging other people for cable tv that it gives to its own ISP customers for free? Or is this considered an acceptable competitive practice?</htmltext>
<tokenext>Try this : Would any of the currently proposed net neutrality laws prevent Cablevision from charging other people for cable tv that it gives to its own ISP customers for free ?
Or is this considered an acceptable competitive practice ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Try this:

Would any of the currently proposed net neutrality laws prevent Cablevision from charging other people for cable tv that it gives to its own ISP customers for free?
Or is this considered an acceptable competitive practice?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_168232.29952274</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_168232.29959946</id>
	<title>Re:Reporters are basically bloggers then</title>
	<author>lonecrow</author>
	<datestamp>1257184320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Of course columnists are just bloggers. But, they are bloggers with lawyers and editors leaning over their shoulders ready to can their asses if they make shit up, liable anyone, or otherwise mis-represent the truth (well the editors version of truth anyway<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:).</htmltext>
<tokenext>Of course columnists are just bloggers .
But , they are bloggers with lawyers and editors leaning over their shoulders ready to can their asses if they make shit up , liable anyone , or otherwise mis-represent the truth ( well the editors version of truth anyway : ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Of course columnists are just bloggers.
But, they are bloggers with lawyers and editors leaning over their shoulders ready to can their asses if they make shit up, liable anyone, or otherwise mis-represent the truth (well the editors version of truth anyway :).</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_168232.29952250</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_168232.29954530</id>
	<title>Re:Opinion columnists are like bloggers</title>
	<author>nametaken</author>
	<datestamp>1257154260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I think the Wall Street Journal has been tempting the rest of them a little too well.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I think the Wall Street Journal has been tempting the rest of them a little too well .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I think the Wall Street Journal has been tempting the rest of them a little too well.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_168232.29952258</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_168232.29952376</id>
	<title>Not "Reporters" or "Journalists"!</title>
	<author>DragonWriter</author>
	<datestamp>1257187740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Both the Newsday columnist who resigned over the Newsday paywall and the NY Times columnists who protested the NY Times paywall are just that: <i>columnists</i>, not reporters or journalists.</p><p>Columnists are people for whom the newspaper is a vehicle for the broad distribution of their writings, which are not even notionally constrained by the standards of fact reporting, or even news analysis. Columns are vehicles by which the columnists ideas, pet causes, ideology, other products (like books), etc., are promoted. The interests of columnists may be very different than the interests of journalists with regard to paywalls.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Both the Newsday columnist who resigned over the Newsday paywall and the NY Times columnists who protested the NY Times paywall are just that : columnists , not reporters or journalists.Columnists are people for whom the newspaper is a vehicle for the broad distribution of their writings , which are not even notionally constrained by the standards of fact reporting , or even news analysis .
Columns are vehicles by which the columnists ideas , pet causes , ideology , other products ( like books ) , etc. , are promoted .
The interests of columnists may be very different than the interests of journalists with regard to paywalls .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Both the Newsday columnist who resigned over the Newsday paywall and the NY Times columnists who protested the NY Times paywall are just that: columnists, not reporters or journalists.Columnists are people for whom the newspaper is a vehicle for the broad distribution of their writings, which are not even notionally constrained by the standards of fact reporting, or even news analysis.
Columns are vehicles by which the columnists ideas, pet causes, ideology, other products (like books), etc., are promoted.
The interests of columnists may be very different than the interests of journalists with regard to paywalls.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_168232.29960378</id>
	<title>Internet is the New Medium</title>
	<author>dave87656</author>
	<datestamp>1257188220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>In the olden days the subscription costs basically paid for the cost of delivering the paper but most or all of the additional revenue came from advertising. Now that the delivery can be done for free there's no need to pay subsrciptions. I think it's basically just greedy newspaper owners who figured they could pocket some extra money now that they don't have to pay for delivery.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>In the olden days the subscription costs basically paid for the cost of delivering the paper but most or all of the additional revenue came from advertising .
Now that the delivery can be done for free there 's no need to pay subsrciptions .
I think it 's basically just greedy newspaper owners who figured they could pocket some extra money now that they do n't have to pay for delivery .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>In the olden days the subscription costs basically paid for the cost of delivering the paper but most or all of the additional revenue came from advertising.
Now that the delivery can be done for free there's no need to pay subsrciptions.
I think it's basically just greedy newspaper owners who figured they could pocket some extra money now that they don't have to pay for delivery.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_168232.29952510</id>
	<title>Re:Rumor</title>
	<author>Ethanol-fueled</author>
	<datestamp>1257188340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Personally, I don't give a shit. If what you're saying is true then many I'd have been beaten mercilessly by gangs of angry Negroes, Hispanics, Jews, Southerners, Homosexuals, and then jailed years ago for bogus "online hate speech" or "harassment" or something. <br> <br>

I'm actually surprised that it hasn't yet happened, because the Slashdot staff are a bunch of Boy Scouts and would probably roll over everytime somebody flashes a badge. Because trolling is a threat to national security<nobr> <wbr></nobr>;)</htmltext>
<tokenext>Personally , I do n't give a shit .
If what you 're saying is true then many I 'd have been beaten mercilessly by gangs of angry Negroes , Hispanics , Jews , Southerners , Homosexuals , and then jailed years ago for bogus " online hate speech " or " harassment " or something .
I 'm actually surprised that it has n't yet happened , because the Slashdot staff are a bunch of Boy Scouts and would probably roll over everytime somebody flashes a badge .
Because trolling is a threat to national security ; )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Personally, I don't give a shit.
If what you're saying is true then many I'd have been beaten mercilessly by gangs of angry Negroes, Hispanics, Jews, Southerners, Homosexuals, and then jailed years ago for bogus "online hate speech" or "harassment" or something.
I'm actually surprised that it hasn't yet happened, because the Slashdot staff are a bunch of Boy Scouts and would probably roll over everytime somebody flashes a badge.
Because trolling is a threat to national security ;)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_168232.29952252</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_168232.29952596</id>
	<title>Re:Opinion columnists are like bloggers</title>
	<author>AlexBirch</author>
	<datestamp>1257188880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>The difference should be in the quality and depth of analysis. If they don't offer than quality then you needn't pay. <br>
It's akin to saying professional basketball players don't provide anything different than high school basketball players do.</htmltext>
<tokenext>The difference should be in the quality and depth of analysis .
If they do n't offer than quality then you need n't pay .
It 's akin to saying professional basketball players do n't provide anything different than high school basketball players do .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The difference should be in the quality and depth of analysis.
If they don't offer than quality then you needn't pay.
It's akin to saying professional basketball players don't provide anything different than high school basketball players do.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_168232.29952258</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_168232.29955882</id>
	<title>I'm looking forward at charging Friedman</title>
	<author>fluor2</author>
	<datestamp>1257160440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Every time he writes about me, even if I am in a car accidents or similar. I want to have a piece of his income.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Every time he writes about me , even if I am in a car accidents or similar .
I want to have a piece of his income .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Every time he writes about me, even if I am in a car accidents or similar.
I want to have a piece of his income.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_168232.29952706</id>
	<title>Why can they not lower prices?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257189540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Holy tardmagnetism batman, why are they charging $5 a week!! That is almost as much or more than most people pay for the goddamn internet each month (most being on dialup or dsl that is). Are they flaming umbrella eaters? Also, it costs more to deliver and print a newspaper than it does to host web content, they don't seem to be factoring that into the savings. It looks to me as they are trying to charge real-life newspaper delivery charges ($0.70/day) on delivering web content. Now if they charge like $4 or $5 a month you might do it right for premium news content written by professional writers. Most wouldn't be it would get a lot more attention than trying to rape someone for $5 a week.</p><p>Heck Netflix delivers on the rather expensive business of renting videos (having to pay royalties to MPAA and buy/package/deliver discs constantly, not to mention paying developers/IT to manage a more complicated website than a news site) and their cheapest plan is $5/month. Then again, they don't have to produce the movies we see, so their costs aren't high in that regard though they are passing the costs the movie industry sees fit onto us. I'm guessing they have very narrow profit margins, but they manage to stay successful and relevant unlike newspapers.</p><p>Right now they make some advertising cash off the websites which probably accounts for quite a bit of money but far from the amount they would need to maintain salaries they are used to based on what they've made in the past. However, charging causes viewership to go down which will impact the amount made off of advertising. Maybe this $5/week is considered to be the point at which the subscriptions would make more than the advertising and any less than that would scare away enough readers as to make free more lucrative. But, my guess is that they just wanted to charge as much as they do for real-life delivery because they don't know how to approach the internet because they're geriatric old farts.</p><p>What is more, they charge $0.50 if you get it from the news stand, which would only be $2.50 a week not including overcharging us on Sunday for around $2.00 an issue. Assuming six Sundays around $12.00 + $10 worth of daily issues, that's $22 a month if you buy from news stands. However, these brilliant leaders of industry are going to charge you $20/mo to view it on the internet? Hilarious.</p><p>I remember just a decade ago, they were only charging a 25 cents for a paper, the increase to double that seems to be arbitrary and unnecessary to me. It looks like greed pure and simple, and when the internet came around they essentially shot themselves in the foot because it looks way cheaper to not pay for news at all now. Of course, free will always be more appealing, but 25 cents was low enough to make newspaper content desirable. Therefore, if they want 90\% (20 / 22) of what they would realistically charge in real life, which I posit should be $7 rounded (0.25 * 30, assuming we would not be charged any differently for Sunday papers) a month not $22, then they would charge about 21 cents a day instead. That comes out to $1.47 a week, starting to look a little more realistic? Like, something you wouldn't mind paying if you knew the content was backed by quality journalism?</p><p>It is pretty obvious they didn't give much thought to any of this. I've given it far more time in a<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/. comment, lolwaffles.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Holy tardmagnetism batman , why are they charging $ 5 a week ! !
That is almost as much or more than most people pay for the goddamn internet each month ( most being on dialup or dsl that is ) .
Are they flaming umbrella eaters ?
Also , it costs more to deliver and print a newspaper than it does to host web content , they do n't seem to be factoring that into the savings .
It looks to me as they are trying to charge real-life newspaper delivery charges ( $ 0.70/day ) on delivering web content .
Now if they charge like $ 4 or $ 5 a month you might do it right for premium news content written by professional writers .
Most would n't be it would get a lot more attention than trying to rape someone for $ 5 a week.Heck Netflix delivers on the rather expensive business of renting videos ( having to pay royalties to MPAA and buy/package/deliver discs constantly , not to mention paying developers/IT to manage a more complicated website than a news site ) and their cheapest plan is $ 5/month .
Then again , they do n't have to produce the movies we see , so their costs are n't high in that regard though they are passing the costs the movie industry sees fit onto us .
I 'm guessing they have very narrow profit margins , but they manage to stay successful and relevant unlike newspapers.Right now they make some advertising cash off the websites which probably accounts for quite a bit of money but far from the amount they would need to maintain salaries they are used to based on what they 've made in the past .
However , charging causes viewership to go down which will impact the amount made off of advertising .
Maybe this $ 5/week is considered to be the point at which the subscriptions would make more than the advertising and any less than that would scare away enough readers as to make free more lucrative .
But , my guess is that they just wanted to charge as much as they do for real-life delivery because they do n't know how to approach the internet because they 're geriatric old farts.What is more , they charge $ 0.50 if you get it from the news stand , which would only be $ 2.50 a week not including overcharging us on Sunday for around $ 2.00 an issue .
Assuming six Sundays around $ 12.00 + $ 10 worth of daily issues , that 's $ 22 a month if you buy from news stands .
However , these brilliant leaders of industry are going to charge you $ 20/mo to view it on the internet ?
Hilarious.I remember just a decade ago , they were only charging a 25 cents for a paper , the increase to double that seems to be arbitrary and unnecessary to me .
It looks like greed pure and simple , and when the internet came around they essentially shot themselves in the foot because it looks way cheaper to not pay for news at all now .
Of course , free will always be more appealing , but 25 cents was low enough to make newspaper content desirable .
Therefore , if they want 90 \ % ( 20 / 22 ) of what they would realistically charge in real life , which I posit should be $ 7 rounded ( 0.25 * 30 , assuming we would not be charged any differently for Sunday papers ) a month not $ 22 , then they would charge about 21 cents a day instead .
That comes out to $ 1.47 a week , starting to look a little more realistic ?
Like , something you would n't mind paying if you knew the content was backed by quality journalism ? It is pretty obvious they did n't give much thought to any of this .
I 've given it far more time in a / .
comment , lolwaffles .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Holy tardmagnetism batman, why are they charging $5 a week!!
That is almost as much or more than most people pay for the goddamn internet each month (most being on dialup or dsl that is).
Are they flaming umbrella eaters?
Also, it costs more to deliver and print a newspaper than it does to host web content, they don't seem to be factoring that into the savings.
It looks to me as they are trying to charge real-life newspaper delivery charges ($0.70/day) on delivering web content.
Now if they charge like $4 or $5 a month you might do it right for premium news content written by professional writers.
Most wouldn't be it would get a lot more attention than trying to rape someone for $5 a week.Heck Netflix delivers on the rather expensive business of renting videos (having to pay royalties to MPAA and buy/package/deliver discs constantly, not to mention paying developers/IT to manage a more complicated website than a news site) and their cheapest plan is $5/month.
Then again, they don't have to produce the movies we see, so their costs aren't high in that regard though they are passing the costs the movie industry sees fit onto us.
I'm guessing they have very narrow profit margins, but they manage to stay successful and relevant unlike newspapers.Right now they make some advertising cash off the websites which probably accounts for quite a bit of money but far from the amount they would need to maintain salaries they are used to based on what they've made in the past.
However, charging causes viewership to go down which will impact the amount made off of advertising.
Maybe this $5/week is considered to be the point at which the subscriptions would make more than the advertising and any less than that would scare away enough readers as to make free more lucrative.
But, my guess is that they just wanted to charge as much as they do for real-life delivery because they don't know how to approach the internet because they're geriatric old farts.What is more, they charge $0.50 if you get it from the news stand, which would only be $2.50 a week not including overcharging us on Sunday for around $2.00 an issue.
Assuming six Sundays around $12.00 + $10 worth of daily issues, that's $22 a month if you buy from news stands.
However, these brilliant leaders of industry are going to charge you $20/mo to view it on the internet?
Hilarious.I remember just a decade ago, they were only charging a 25 cents for a paper, the increase to double that seems to be arbitrary and unnecessary to me.
It looks like greed pure and simple, and when the internet came around they essentially shot themselves in the foot because it looks way cheaper to not pay for news at all now.
Of course, free will always be more appealing, but 25 cents was low enough to make newspaper content desirable.
Therefore, if they want 90\% (20 / 22) of what they would realistically charge in real life, which I posit should be $7 rounded (0.25 * 30, assuming we would not be charged any differently for Sunday papers) a month not $22, then they would charge about 21 cents a day instead.
That comes out to $1.47 a week, starting to look a little more realistic?
Like, something you wouldn't mind paying if you knew the content was backed by quality journalism?It is pretty obvious they didn't give much thought to any of this.
I've given it far more time in a /.
comment, lolwaffles.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_168232.29952252</id>
	<title>Rumor</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257187080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>i heard any AC remark you've made while logged in can be made public, as they are all recorded. Any concerns?</htmltext>
<tokenext>i heard any AC remark you 've made while logged in can be made public , as they are all recorded .
Any concerns ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>i heard any AC remark you've made while logged in can be made public, as they are all recorded.
Any concerns?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_168232.29957112</id>
	<title>They did listen to their contributors...</title>
	<author>frank\_adrian314159</author>
	<datestamp>1257167340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I actually let Paul Krugman know that the NY Times had put his stuff behind a paywall (this was about six years ago when the Times tried to do this for a couple of years) via his Princeton email.  I let him know I'd probably have to stop reading his columns because the subscription to the Times website wasn't worth it to me (I wasn't going to pay good money to read idiots like Friedman or Brooks) and, because of that, I wouldn't have access.  He wrote back to me and seemed genuinely unaware that this was happening, although that's not surprising - he just sent his columns in, got paid, and assumed that the Times knew what it was doing in distributing his material.  This is something that authors need to look at a lot more closely these days.  And, BTW, Krugman is a really gracious and forthcoming guy.  He took the time to answer email from a random stranger and engaged in a couple of back and forth messages about the issue.  I was impressed with the guy's candor and responsiveness.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I actually let Paul Krugman know that the NY Times had put his stuff behind a paywall ( this was about six years ago when the Times tried to do this for a couple of years ) via his Princeton email .
I let him know I 'd probably have to stop reading his columns because the subscription to the Times website was n't worth it to me ( I was n't going to pay good money to read idiots like Friedman or Brooks ) and , because of that , I would n't have access .
He wrote back to me and seemed genuinely unaware that this was happening , although that 's not surprising - he just sent his columns in , got paid , and assumed that the Times knew what it was doing in distributing his material .
This is something that authors need to look at a lot more closely these days .
And , BTW , Krugman is a really gracious and forthcoming guy .
He took the time to answer email from a random stranger and engaged in a couple of back and forth messages about the issue .
I was impressed with the guy 's candor and responsiveness .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I actually let Paul Krugman know that the NY Times had put his stuff behind a paywall (this was about six years ago when the Times tried to do this for a couple of years) via his Princeton email.
I let him know I'd probably have to stop reading his columns because the subscription to the Times website wasn't worth it to me (I wasn't going to pay good money to read idiots like Friedman or Brooks) and, because of that, I wouldn't have access.
He wrote back to me and seemed genuinely unaware that this was happening, although that's not surprising - he just sent his columns in, got paid, and assumed that the Times knew what it was doing in distributing his material.
This is something that authors need to look at a lot more closely these days.
And, BTW, Krugman is a really gracious and forthcoming guy.
He took the time to answer email from a random stranger and engaged in a couple of back and forth messages about the issue.
I was impressed with the guy's candor and responsiveness.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_168232.29952764</id>
	<title>Re:career advancement?</title>
	<author>eln</author>
	<datestamp>1257189780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>The great thing about being old is you can do things purely for the principle of it without worrying about how it's going to affect your career.  He is making a strong statement with his actions, but no one is going to listen until the young up-and-coming journalists start to do the same thing.  Given the intense competition in that field, I'm not holding my breath on that happening.</htmltext>
<tokenext>The great thing about being old is you can do things purely for the principle of it without worrying about how it 's going to affect your career .
He is making a strong statement with his actions , but no one is going to listen until the young up-and-coming journalists start to do the same thing .
Given the intense competition in that field , I 'm not holding my breath on that happening .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The great thing about being old is you can do things purely for the principle of it without worrying about how it's going to affect your career.
He is making a strong statement with his actions, but no one is going to listen until the young up-and-coming journalists start to do the same thing.
Given the intense competition in that field, I'm not holding my breath on that happening.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_168232.29952272</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_168232.29952664</id>
	<title>Do they prefer the alternative?</title>
	<author>ceswiedler</author>
	<datestamp>1257189240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Reporters may leave if their newspaper starts charging for content, yes. However, I think a few more reporters might leave if the newspaper goes bankrupt. People aren't buying newspapers any more. They may not want to pay for online content now, but that's mostly because the 'free' online content is being subsidized by papers which are rather quickly going out of business. As that happens, the remaining papers will end up charging for online content (since how else will they make any money) and people will either pay for it (because there's no other option for getting good journalism) or not pay for it (because they'd rather read free blogosphere crap). But if there's one thing I'll lay odds on, it's that expensive content (like good journalism) isn't going to be available for free. TANSTAAFL, you know.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Reporters may leave if their newspaper starts charging for content , yes .
However , I think a few more reporters might leave if the newspaper goes bankrupt .
People are n't buying newspapers any more .
They may not want to pay for online content now , but that 's mostly because the 'free ' online content is being subsidized by papers which are rather quickly going out of business .
As that happens , the remaining papers will end up charging for online content ( since how else will they make any money ) and people will either pay for it ( because there 's no other option for getting good journalism ) or not pay for it ( because they 'd rather read free blogosphere crap ) .
But if there 's one thing I 'll lay odds on , it 's that expensive content ( like good journalism ) is n't going to be available for free .
TANSTAAFL , you know .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Reporters may leave if their newspaper starts charging for content, yes.
However, I think a few more reporters might leave if the newspaper goes bankrupt.
People aren't buying newspapers any more.
They may not want to pay for online content now, but that's mostly because the 'free' online content is being subsidized by papers which are rather quickly going out of business.
As that happens, the remaining papers will end up charging for online content (since how else will they make any money) and people will either pay for it (because there's no other option for getting good journalism) or not pay for it (because they'd rather read free blogosphere crap).
But if there's one thing I'll lay odds on, it's that expensive content (like good journalism) isn't going to be available for free.
TANSTAAFL, you know.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_168232.29958152</id>
	<title>Re:Not "Reporters" or "Journalists"!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257171840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Well columnists are all they have left, they got rid of the real reports some time ago.  Unless you can't AP stories.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Well columnists are all they have left , they got rid of the real reports some time ago .
Unless you ca n't AP stories .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Well columnists are all they have left, they got rid of the real reports some time ago.
Unless you can't AP stories.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_168232.29952376</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_168232.29955920</id>
	<title>Re:Reporters are basically bloggers then</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257160560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>The difference between a blog and a news site is that I expect (to some degree) a news site to be credible, I want reporters to do their fact checking, relevant research, etc etc when they pick up a story.</p></div><p>When you find a site (or any outlet, online or otherwise) that does any of that, please let me know. Because I'm dying for such a thing and can't find it anywhere.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>The difference between a blog and a news site is that I expect ( to some degree ) a news site to be credible , I want reporters to do their fact checking , relevant research , etc etc when they pick up a story.When you find a site ( or any outlet , online or otherwise ) that does any of that , please let me know .
Because I 'm dying for such a thing and ca n't find it anywhere .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The difference between a blog and a news site is that I expect (to some degree) a news site to be credible, I want reporters to do their fact checking, relevant research, etc etc when they pick up a story.When you find a site (or any outlet, online or otherwise) that does any of that, please let me know.
Because I'm dying for such a thing and can't find it anywhere.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_168232.29952558</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_168232.29960998</id>
	<title>Re:Do they prefer the alternative?</title>
	<author>CodeBuster</author>
	<datestamp>1257281880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I like the model used by <i>The Economist</i> and the <i>Wall Street Journal</i>, where much of the content is available free and is actually original journalism or thorough research which proves the quality of the publication in general and makes the paid "premium" content all the more attractive. If the content is good enough then people will pay provided that the price is reasonable, but it must consistently add value and rise above the muck that is simply replaying the Reuters or BBC news wires split into too many pages of advertisements.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I like the model used by The Economist and the Wall Street Journal , where much of the content is available free and is actually original journalism or thorough research which proves the quality of the publication in general and makes the paid " premium " content all the more attractive .
If the content is good enough then people will pay provided that the price is reasonable , but it must consistently add value and rise above the muck that is simply replaying the Reuters or BBC news wires split into too many pages of advertisements .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I like the model used by The Economist and the Wall Street Journal, where much of the content is available free and is actually original journalism or thorough research which proves the quality of the publication in general and makes the paid "premium" content all the more attractive.
If the content is good enough then people will pay provided that the price is reasonable, but it must consistently add value and rise above the muck that is simply replaying the Reuters or BBC news wires split into too many pages of advertisements.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_168232.29952664</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_168232.29955706</id>
	<title>Having Your Cake and Eating It Too</title>
	<author>Stormy Dragon</author>
	<datestamp>1257159780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Seems the journalists in question want the best of both worlds: they want the steady and considerable income that comes with working for a major newspaper, but on the other hand they don't want to be involved with earning any of the revenue that makes that income possible.

Eventually they're going to have to choose one or the other (or the market will make the choice for them).</htmltext>
<tokenext>Seems the journalists in question want the best of both worlds : they want the steady and considerable income that comes with working for a major newspaper , but on the other hand they do n't want to be involved with earning any of the revenue that makes that income possible .
Eventually they 're going to have to choose one or the other ( or the market will make the choice for them ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Seems the journalists in question want the best of both worlds: they want the steady and considerable income that comes with working for a major newspaper, but on the other hand they don't want to be involved with earning any of the revenue that makes that income possible.
Eventually they're going to have to choose one or the other (or the market will make the choice for them).</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_168232.29953770</id>
	<title>pay for news?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257194220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Never!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Never !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Never!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_168232.29952892</id>
	<title>Re:Opinion columnists are like bloggers</title>
	<author>Attila Dimedici</author>
	<datestamp>1257190380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>The difference <strong>should</strong> be in the quality and depth of analysis. If they don't offer than quality then you needn't pay.</p></div><p>And there is the problem, the best newspaper columnists are no better than the best bloggers in the quality and depth of analysis. I would say that the reverse is true, the best bloggers have better quality and depth of analysis than the best newspaper columnists. The few newspaper columnists I can think of that are very good, are also bloggers.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>The difference should be in the quality and depth of analysis .
If they do n't offer than quality then you need n't pay.And there is the problem , the best newspaper columnists are no better than the best bloggers in the quality and depth of analysis .
I would say that the reverse is true , the best bloggers have better quality and depth of analysis than the best newspaper columnists .
The few newspaper columnists I can think of that are very good , are also bloggers .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The difference should be in the quality and depth of analysis.
If they don't offer than quality then you needn't pay.And there is the problem, the best newspaper columnists are no better than the best bloggers in the quality and depth of analysis.
I would say that the reverse is true, the best bloggers have better quality and depth of analysis than the best newspaper columnists.
The few newspaper columnists I can think of that are very good, are also bloggers.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_168232.29952596</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_168232.29952274</id>
	<title>Net Neutrality</title>
	<author>TonTonKill</author>
	<datestamp>1257187200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>From TFA:</p><p><div class="quote"><p>Customers of Cablevision, the cable and Internet provider that owns Newsday, and people who subscribe to Newsday in print will still be able to browse Newsday.com unfettered</p></div><p>Would any of the currently proposed net neutrality laws prevent Cablevision from charging other people for web content that it gives to its own ISP customers for free?  Or is this considered an acceptable competitive practice?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>From TFA : Customers of Cablevision , the cable and Internet provider that owns Newsday , and people who subscribe to Newsday in print will still be able to browse Newsday.com unfetteredWould any of the currently proposed net neutrality laws prevent Cablevision from charging other people for web content that it gives to its own ISP customers for free ?
Or is this considered an acceptable competitive practice ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>From TFA:Customers of Cablevision, the cable and Internet provider that owns Newsday, and people who subscribe to Newsday in print will still be able to browse Newsday.com unfetteredWould any of the currently proposed net neutrality laws prevent Cablevision from charging other people for web content that it gives to its own ISP customers for free?
Or is this considered an acceptable competitive practice?
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_168232.29953324</id>
	<title>Re:Used to read NY Times oped before paywall</title>
	<author>PCM2</author>
	<datestamp>1257192300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>I'm probably one of the few people that found his book, "the World is Flat" to be incredibly uninsightful.</p></div><p>You probably read the first edition. Try one of the later ones; he adds a hundred pages or so each time he revises it. For clarity, you understand.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm probably one of the few people that found his book , " the World is Flat " to be incredibly uninsightful.You probably read the first edition .
Try one of the later ones ; he adds a hundred pages or so each time he revises it .
For clarity , you understand .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm probably one of the few people that found his book, "the World is Flat" to be incredibly uninsightful.You probably read the first edition.
Try one of the later ones; he adds a hundred pages or so each time he revises it.
For clarity, you understand.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_168232.29952880</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_168232.29952250</id>
	<title>Reporters are basically bloggers then</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257187080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>Reading this, it strikes me that news sites are just big blogging sites.  No blogger would want their content hidden behind a paywall, and reporters are more and more just professional bloggers.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Reading this , it strikes me that news sites are just big blogging sites .
No blogger would want their content hidden behind a paywall , and reporters are more and more just professional bloggers .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Reading this, it strikes me that news sites are just big blogging sites.
No blogger would want their content hidden behind a paywall, and reporters are more and more just professional bloggers.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_168232.29954404</id>
	<title>Too bad, it's not free</title>
	<author>cdrguru</author>
	<datestamp>1257153660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>What people have come to expect on the Internet is "free".  If it isn't free, there must be someone else offering it, legally or not, for free.  And the modern Internet user is going to take it from where it is offered for free.</p><p>That pretty much means that newspaper classified ads aren't going to work - people just go to Craigslist.  It means that selling music online isn't going to work, because it is all out there for free, unless you need Apple to hold your hand and guide you through the process of filling up your iPod.</p><p>It certainly means that news, opinion and commentary aren't going to work if you want people to pay for them.</p><p>Unfortunately, if you are someone that was getting paid to produce textual material as news, opinion or commentary, you probably aren't going to get paid to do that any longer.  There just isn't any call for someone to get paid to do something that will generate zero revenue.  Similarly, with aggregation and Google, nobody needs to know where the original text came from, so you can't count on ad revenue supporting a site that in turn supports the writer.  The original site can't control the material any longer.  Google might tell you where it came from (not as a link, but just text) but what other sites are also copying the content and not attributing it.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>What people have come to expect on the Internet is " free " .
If it is n't free , there must be someone else offering it , legally or not , for free .
And the modern Internet user is going to take it from where it is offered for free.That pretty much means that newspaper classified ads are n't going to work - people just go to Craigslist .
It means that selling music online is n't going to work , because it is all out there for free , unless you need Apple to hold your hand and guide you through the process of filling up your iPod.It certainly means that news , opinion and commentary are n't going to work if you want people to pay for them.Unfortunately , if you are someone that was getting paid to produce textual material as news , opinion or commentary , you probably are n't going to get paid to do that any longer .
There just is n't any call for someone to get paid to do something that will generate zero revenue .
Similarly , with aggregation and Google , nobody needs to know where the original text came from , so you ca n't count on ad revenue supporting a site that in turn supports the writer .
The original site ca n't control the material any longer .
Google might tell you where it came from ( not as a link , but just text ) but what other sites are also copying the content and not attributing it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What people have come to expect on the Internet is "free".
If it isn't free, there must be someone else offering it, legally or not, for free.
And the modern Internet user is going to take it from where it is offered for free.That pretty much means that newspaper classified ads aren't going to work - people just go to Craigslist.
It means that selling music online isn't going to work, because it is all out there for free, unless you need Apple to hold your hand and guide you through the process of filling up your iPod.It certainly means that news, opinion and commentary aren't going to work if you want people to pay for them.Unfortunately, if you are someone that was getting paid to produce textual material as news, opinion or commentary, you probably aren't going to get paid to do that any longer.
There just isn't any call for someone to get paid to do something that will generate zero revenue.
Similarly, with aggregation and Google, nobody needs to know where the original text came from, so you can't count on ad revenue supporting a site that in turn supports the writer.
The original site can't control the material any longer.
Google might tell you where it came from (not as a link, but just text) but what other sites are also copying the content and not attributing it.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_168232.29952628</id>
	<title>Not true...</title>
	<author>MikeRT</author>
	<datestamp>1257189060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>You're talking about columnists, not reporters. They are different.</p></div>
</blockquote><p>

Not true for threereasons:
<br> <br>
1) Most reporters just regurgitate whatever their sources give them (do you ever read what they usually write in a follow up on a crime?)<br> <br>
2) There are bloggers like <a href="http://www.theagitator.com/" title="theagitator.com">Radley Balko</a> [theagitator.com] who have stronger reporter bona fides than most of the people who work at the NY Times.<br> <br>
3) There are many reporters who run blogs as part of their business.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>You 're talking about columnists , not reporters .
They are different .
Not true for threereasons : 1 ) Most reporters just regurgitate whatever their sources give them ( do you ever read what they usually write in a follow up on a crime ?
) 2 ) There are bloggers like Radley Balko [ theagitator.com ] who have stronger reporter bona fides than most of the people who work at the NY Times .
3 ) There are many reporters who run blogs as part of their business .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You're talking about columnists, not reporters.
They are different.
Not true for threereasons:
 
1) Most reporters just regurgitate whatever their sources give them (do you ever read what they usually write in a follow up on a crime?
) 
2) There are bloggers like Radley Balko [theagitator.com] who have stronger reporter bona fides than most of the people who work at the NY Times.
3) There are many reporters who run blogs as part of their business.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_168232.29952370</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_168232.29957840</id>
	<title>The tradition is over</title>
	<author>v(*\_*)vvvv</author>
	<datestamp>1257170340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>An all or nothing subscription model does not work online, and you sacrifice the interactivity and viral attributes of the internet - which to most is the most important.</p><p>Newspapers need to realize the paper is more of a tradition at this point. And the tradition is over.</p><p>Web 101:<br>- If one page out of a free book isn't free, we will skip that page.<br>- If pages require special steps to view them, you are censoring your own content from the web.<br>- We simply do not read whole sites. Most of us don't read an entire newspaper, but its way worse online. You cannot sell a whole site.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>An all or nothing subscription model does not work online , and you sacrifice the interactivity and viral attributes of the internet - which to most is the most important.Newspapers need to realize the paper is more of a tradition at this point .
And the tradition is over.Web 101 : - If one page out of a free book is n't free , we will skip that page.- If pages require special steps to view them , you are censoring your own content from the web.- We simply do not read whole sites .
Most of us do n't read an entire newspaper , but its way worse online .
You can not sell a whole site .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>An all or nothing subscription model does not work online, and you sacrifice the interactivity and viral attributes of the internet - which to most is the most important.Newspapers need to realize the paper is more of a tradition at this point.
And the tradition is over.Web 101:- If one page out of a free book isn't free, we will skip that page.- If pages require special steps to view them, you are censoring your own content from the web.- We simply do not read whole sites.
Most of us don't read an entire newspaper, but its way worse online.
You cannot sell a whole site.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_168232.29955330</id>
	<title>Re:Opinion columnists are like bloggers</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257157920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>They are just like bloggers.  Bloggers who can write.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>They are just like bloggers .
Bloggers who can write .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>They are just like bloggers.
Bloggers who can write.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_168232.29952258</parent>
</comment>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_02_168232_21</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_168232.29952628
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_168232.29952370
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_168232.29952250
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_02_168232_24</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_168232.29957428
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_168232.29952258
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_02_168232_2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_168232.29956966
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_168232.29952502
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_02_168232_9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_168232.29954530
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_168232.29952258
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_02_168232_12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_168232.29952892
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_168232.29952596
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_168232.29952258
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_02_168232_6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_168232.29954974
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_168232.29952258
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_02_168232_3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_168232.29955920
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_168232.29952558
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_168232.29952250
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_02_168232_16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_168232.29960998
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_168232.29952664
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_02_168232_7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_168232.29954632
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_168232.29952390
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_02_168232_1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_168232.29954532
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_168232.29952370
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_168232.29952250
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_02_168232_13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_168232.29957352
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_168232.29952274
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_02_168232_22</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_168232.29953324
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_168232.29952880
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_02_168232_4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_168232.29957488
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_168232.29952274
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_02_168232_14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_168232.29952610
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_168232.29952426
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_02_168232_10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_168232.29958152
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_168232.29952376
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_02_168232_17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_168232.29955330
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_168232.29952258
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_02_168232_8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_168232.29957014
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_168232.29952880
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_02_168232_11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_168232.29952764
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_168232.29952272
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_02_168232_18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_168232.29952634
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_168232.29952370
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_168232.29952250
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_02_168232_15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_168232.29959946
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_168232.29952250
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_02_168232_0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_168232.29952510
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_168232.29952252
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_02_168232_19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_168232.29953146
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_168232.29952274
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_02_168232_23</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_168232.29953214
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_168232.29952880
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_02_168232_20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_168232.29956054
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_168232.29952502
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_02_168232_5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_168232.29966646
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_168232.29952274
</commentlist>
</thread>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_02_168232.9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_168232.29952664
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_168232.29960998
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_02_168232.7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_168232.29952376
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_168232.29958152
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_02_168232.12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_168232.29952880
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_168232.29953324
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_168232.29953214
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_168232.29957014
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_02_168232.10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_168232.29952534
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_02_168232.13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_168232.29952252
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_168232.29952510
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_02_168232.8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_168232.29952426
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_168232.29952610
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_02_168232.5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_168232.29954318
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_02_168232.6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_168232.29952258
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_168232.29954530
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_168232.29954974
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_168232.29955330
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_168232.29957428
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_168232.29952596
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_168232.29952892
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_02_168232.14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_168232.29952390
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_168232.29954632
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_02_168232.11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_168232.29954404
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_02_168232.3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_168232.29955706
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_02_168232.15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_168232.29952274
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_168232.29957488
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_168232.29966646
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_168232.29957352
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_168232.29953146
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_02_168232.1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_168232.29952272
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_168232.29952764
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_02_168232.4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_168232.29952366
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_02_168232.2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_168232.29952502
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_168232.29956054
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_168232.29956966
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_02_168232.0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_168232.29952250
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_168232.29952558
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_168232.29955920
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_168232.29959946
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_168232.29952370
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_168232.29952634
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_168232.29952628
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_168232.29954532
</commentlist>
</conversation>
