<article>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#article09_10_28_2131236</id>
	<title>Decline In US Newspaper Readership Accelerates</title>
	<author>timothy</author>
	<datestamp>1256723040000</datestamp>
	<htmltext><a href="http://hughpickens.com/" rel="nofollow">Hugh Pickens</a> writes <i>"The Washington Post reports that US <a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/10/26/AR2009102603272.html">newspaper circulation has hit its lowest level in seven decades</a>, as papers across the country lost 10.6 percent of their paying readers from April through September, compared with a year earlier. Online, newspapers are still a success &mdash; but only in readership, not in profit. Ads on newspaper Internet sites sell for pennies on the dollar compared with ads in their ink-on-paper cousins. 'Newspapers have <a href="http://newsosaur.blogspot.com/2009/10/newspapers-mass-less-mass-medium.html">ceased to be a mass medium by any stretch of the imagination</a>,' says Alan D. Mutter, a former journalist and cable television executive who now consults and writes a blog called Reflections of a Newsosaur. According to Mutter only 13 percent of Americans, or about 39 million, now buy a daily newspaper, down from 31 percent in 1940. 'Publishers who think their businesses are going to live or die according to the number of bellybuttons they can deliver probably will see their businesses die,' writes Mutter. 'The smart ones will get busy on Plan B, assuming there is a Plan B and it's not already too late.' Almost without exception, the papers that lost the least readers or even gained readership are the nation's smallest daily newspapers which <a href="http://www.leader-vindicator.com/site/news.cfm?newsid=20382685&amp;BRD=2758&amp;PAG=461&amp;dept\_id=572980&amp;rfi=6">tend to focus almost all of their limited resources on highly local news</a> that is not covered by larger outside organizations and have a lock on local ad markets."</i></htmltext>
<tokenext>Hugh Pickens writes " The Washington Post reports that US newspaper circulation has hit its lowest level in seven decades , as papers across the country lost 10.6 percent of their paying readers from April through September , compared with a year earlier .
Online , newspapers are still a success    but only in readership , not in profit .
Ads on newspaper Internet sites sell for pennies on the dollar compared with ads in their ink-on-paper cousins .
'Newspapers have ceased to be a mass medium by any stretch of the imagination, ' says Alan D. Mutter , a former journalist and cable television executive who now consults and writes a blog called Reflections of a Newsosaur .
According to Mutter only 13 percent of Americans , or about 39 million , now buy a daily newspaper , down from 31 percent in 1940 .
'Publishers who think their businesses are going to live or die according to the number of bellybuttons they can deliver probably will see their businesses die, ' writes Mutter .
'The smart ones will get busy on Plan B , assuming there is a Plan B and it 's not already too late .
' Almost without exception , the papers that lost the least readers or even gained readership are the nation 's smallest daily newspapers which tend to focus almost all of their limited resources on highly local news that is not covered by larger outside organizations and have a lock on local ad markets .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Hugh Pickens writes "The Washington Post reports that US newspaper circulation has hit its lowest level in seven decades, as papers across the country lost 10.6 percent of their paying readers from April through September, compared with a year earlier.
Online, newspapers are still a success — but only in readership, not in profit.
Ads on newspaper Internet sites sell for pennies on the dollar compared with ads in their ink-on-paper cousins.
'Newspapers have ceased to be a mass medium by any stretch of the imagination,' says Alan D. Mutter, a former journalist and cable television executive who now consults and writes a blog called Reflections of a Newsosaur.
According to Mutter only 13 percent of Americans, or about 39 million, now buy a daily newspaper, down from 31 percent in 1940.
'Publishers who think their businesses are going to live or die according to the number of bellybuttons they can deliver probably will see their businesses die,' writes Mutter.
'The smart ones will get busy on Plan B, assuming there is a Plan B and it's not already too late.
' Almost without exception, the papers that lost the least readers or even gained readership are the nation's smallest daily newspapers which tend to focus almost all of their limited resources on highly local news that is not covered by larger outside organizations and have a lock on local ad markets.
"</sentencetext>
</article>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2131236.29903713</id>
	<title>Re:Evolve or die.....</title>
	<author>icebike</author>
	<datestamp>1256730240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>The problem is, newspapers isn't being replaced by anything superior. </p></div><p>In six months you will.</p><p>Apple is set to release their new iTablet (or Slate, depending on what leaked name you want to believe).</p><p>They have been in negotiations with newspapers all over, and will be doing for the news print business what iTunes did for the music distribution business.</p><p>Your newspaper will await you when you pick up the device, silently downloaded and updated in the background over 3G/wifi without the need for a carrier contract.</p><p>Apple is building a huge data center on the east coast to handle the load, the subscription services, and the actual distribution.</p><p>Expect others to jump into this market, maybe even Google, but Apple will be the firstest withe the mostest.</p><p>If successful, this model will be the first remake of print news media since it first appeared and may arrive just in time.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>The problem is , newspapers is n't being replaced by anything superior .
In six months you will.Apple is set to release their new iTablet ( or Slate , depending on what leaked name you want to believe ) .They have been in negotiations with newspapers all over , and will be doing for the news print business what iTunes did for the music distribution business.Your newspaper will await you when you pick up the device , silently downloaded and updated in the background over 3G/wifi without the need for a carrier contract.Apple is building a huge data center on the east coast to handle the load , the subscription services , and the actual distribution.Expect others to jump into this market , maybe even Google , but Apple will be the firstest withe the mostest.If successful , this model will be the first remake of print news media since it first appeared and may arrive just in time .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The problem is, newspapers isn't being replaced by anything superior.
In six months you will.Apple is set to release their new iTablet (or Slate, depending on what leaked name you want to believe).They have been in negotiations with newspapers all over, and will be doing for the news print business what iTunes did for the music distribution business.Your newspaper will await you when you pick up the device, silently downloaded and updated in the background over 3G/wifi without the need for a carrier contract.Apple is building a huge data center on the east coast to handle the load, the subscription services, and the actual distribution.Expect others to jump into this market, maybe even Google, but Apple will be the firstest withe the mostest.If successful, this model will be the first remake of print news media since it first appeared and may arrive just in time.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2131236.29903337</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2131236.29904029</id>
	<title>Re:It's their own fault</title>
	<author>mrmeval</author>
	<datestamp>1256732160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The local biased rag is dying. They lost most of the good local coverage reporters when they Gannett ate them. They kept shrinking the comics which is the only other reason besides local coverage to buy them now. All you get is regurgitated AP/AFP papblum. And recently they shaved so much off the width that it does not fill the width of the newspaper box *window*.</p><p>Editorials and opinion pieces were center with a mild conservative bias except in social areas, now that Gannett owns it they're biased left and boarderline looney at times.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The local biased rag is dying .
They lost most of the good local coverage reporters when they Gannett ate them .
They kept shrinking the comics which is the only other reason besides local coverage to buy them now .
All you get is regurgitated AP/AFP papblum .
And recently they shaved so much off the width that it does not fill the width of the newspaper box * window * .Editorials and opinion pieces were center with a mild conservative bias except in social areas , now that Gannett owns it they 're biased left and boarderline looney at times .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The local biased rag is dying.
They lost most of the good local coverage reporters when they Gannett ate them.
They kept shrinking the comics which is the only other reason besides local coverage to buy them now.
All you get is regurgitated AP/AFP papblum.
And recently they shaved so much off the width that it does not fill the width of the newspaper box *window*.Editorials and opinion pieces were center with a mild conservative bias except in social areas, now that Gannett owns it they're biased left and boarderline looney at times.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2131236.29903325</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2131236.29904503</id>
	<title>Re:Any alternatives?</title>
	<author>hairyfeet</author>
	<datestamp>1256735160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The problem is, at least the way I've been seeing it, is that papers just <em>don't do that</em> stuff anymore. They have now become some piece of supergiantmegacorp.inc and just regurgitate what the wire says with whatever spin their masters support, usually to the point of birther ridiculousness.</p><p>I personally quit buying my own state and local papers when the right hand spin got SO bad that anything i read in them reminded me of that old joke from Airplane II "Four alarm fire makes way for GLORIOUS new tractor factory!". If I'm reading a local or state paper, call me weird, but i want to read about things that <em>actually happened</em> locally or state wide, not have a bunch of wire stories with spin so hard in one direction or another it sounds like it was written by birthers. Just give me the who, the what, and the where, and save the why for the opinion columns where you can spew for whatever side makes you go rah rah.</p><p>

At least with the Internet i can read the stories straight from the wire, or if I have to read the story spun both directions and use my own judgment to separate the story from the BS. Reading a selection of papers in my local doc's office the other month they ALL felt like they were nothing but propaganda for one side or the other. And I get enough propaganda without actually going out and wasting cash for it, thanks anyway.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The problem is , at least the way I 've been seeing it , is that papers just do n't do that stuff anymore .
They have now become some piece of supergiantmegacorp.inc and just regurgitate what the wire says with whatever spin their masters support , usually to the point of birther ridiculousness.I personally quit buying my own state and local papers when the right hand spin got SO bad that anything i read in them reminded me of that old joke from Airplane II " Four alarm fire makes way for GLORIOUS new tractor factory ! " .
If I 'm reading a local or state paper , call me weird , but i want to read about things that actually happened locally or state wide , not have a bunch of wire stories with spin so hard in one direction or another it sounds like it was written by birthers .
Just give me the who , the what , and the where , and save the why for the opinion columns where you can spew for whatever side makes you go rah rah .
At least with the Internet i can read the stories straight from the wire , or if I have to read the story spun both directions and use my own judgment to separate the story from the BS .
Reading a selection of papers in my local doc 's office the other month they ALL felt like they were nothing but propaganda for one side or the other .
And I get enough propaganda without actually going out and wasting cash for it , thanks anyway .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The problem is, at least the way I've been seeing it, is that papers just don't do that stuff anymore.
They have now become some piece of supergiantmegacorp.inc and just regurgitate what the wire says with whatever spin their masters support, usually to the point of birther ridiculousness.I personally quit buying my own state and local papers when the right hand spin got SO bad that anything i read in them reminded me of that old joke from Airplane II "Four alarm fire makes way for GLORIOUS new tractor factory!".
If I'm reading a local or state paper, call me weird, but i want to read about things that actually happened locally or state wide, not have a bunch of wire stories with spin so hard in one direction or another it sounds like it was written by birthers.
Just give me the who, the what, and the where, and save the why for the opinion columns where you can spew for whatever side makes you go rah rah.
At least with the Internet i can read the stories straight from the wire, or if I have to read the story spun both directions and use my own judgment to separate the story from the BS.
Reading a selection of papers in my local doc's office the other month they ALL felt like they were nothing but propaganda for one side or the other.
And I get enough propaganda without actually going out and wasting cash for it, thanks anyway.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2131236.29903235</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2131236.29903103</id>
	<title>Evolve or die.....</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256726940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>It's the way the world works.   When the telephone came around did telegraph operators keep their business methods - or did they evolve to use the new technology?</htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's the way the world works .
When the telephone came around did telegraph operators keep their business methods - or did they evolve to use the new technology ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's the way the world works.
When the telephone came around did telegraph operators keep their business methods - or did they evolve to use the new technology?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2131236.29907763</id>
	<title>You think like a ReThuglican Jew</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256809380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You think like a ReThuglican Jew</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You think like a ReThuglican Jew</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You think like a ReThuglican Jew</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2131236.29905043</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2131236.29903839</id>
	<title>Are people actually getting smarter?</title>
	<author>xiando</author>
	<datestamp>1256730960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>The amount of pure propaganda in the mainstream newspapers have exploded since the US started rapidly increasing false flag terrorism operations in the late 90s while the amount of actual real news have steadily declined. Could it be that people are getting smarter and are actually seeing through the propaganda now? I personally see no need to subscribe to newspapers anymore, they contain almost nothing but propaganda and blogs give a far more accurate impression of what is actually going on in the real world.</htmltext>
<tokenext>The amount of pure propaganda in the mainstream newspapers have exploded since the US started rapidly increasing false flag terrorism operations in the late 90s while the amount of actual real news have steadily declined .
Could it be that people are getting smarter and are actually seeing through the propaganda now ?
I personally see no need to subscribe to newspapers anymore , they contain almost nothing but propaganda and blogs give a far more accurate impression of what is actually going on in the real world .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The amount of pure propaganda in the mainstream newspapers have exploded since the US started rapidly increasing false flag terrorism operations in the late 90s while the amount of actual real news have steadily declined.
Could it be that people are getting smarter and are actually seeing through the propaganda now?
I personally see no need to subscribe to newspapers anymore, they contain almost nothing but propaganda and blogs give a far more accurate impression of what is actually going on in the real world.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2131236.29908041</id>
	<title>Re:Evolve or die.....</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256813580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I am a long way from the US, but our papers are having the same problem.</p><p>"It's all opinion posing as news<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... "</p><p>Your opinion still poses as news? Your lucky. We just get 'Lifestyle' - or 'what I had for breakfast' journalism. I wouldn't mind opinion if it was from people who knew what they were talking about. Unfortunately being on TV and having a lot of spare time seem to be the only qualifications required.</p><p>We get a paper every day, and I prefer it to a screen. Fold it up, carry it around without worrying about it. Easier to read too.</p><p>Pity there is not a lot worth reading.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I am a long way from the US , but our papers are having the same problem .
" It 's all opinion posing as news ... " Your opinion still poses as news ?
Your lucky .
We just get 'Lifestyle ' - or 'what I had for breakfast ' journalism .
I would n't mind opinion if it was from people who knew what they were talking about .
Unfortunately being on TV and having a lot of spare time seem to be the only qualifications required.We get a paper every day , and I prefer it to a screen .
Fold it up , carry it around without worrying about it .
Easier to read too.Pity there is not a lot worth reading .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I am a long way from the US, but our papers are having the same problem.
"It's all opinion posing as news ... "Your opinion still poses as news?
Your lucky.
We just get 'Lifestyle' - or 'what I had for breakfast' journalism.
I wouldn't mind opinion if it was from people who knew what they were talking about.
Unfortunately being on TV and having a lot of spare time seem to be the only qualifications required.We get a paper every day, and I prefer it to a screen.
Fold it up, carry it around without worrying about it.
Easier to read too.Pity there is not a lot worth reading.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2131236.29905043</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2131236.29905221</id>
	<title>Re:Are you surprised?</title>
	<author>Seraphim\_72</author>
	<datestamp>1256739900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Buggy whip manufacturers were never referred to as the 4th branch of government. Do not mock something that is fundamental. Imagine a world of only Fox "news" and its left counterpart. If this keeps up  - you wont ave to imagine for much longer.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Buggy whip manufacturers were never referred to as the 4th branch of government .
Do not mock something that is fundamental .
Imagine a world of only Fox " news " and its left counterpart .
If this keeps up - you wont ave to imagine for much longer .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Buggy whip manufacturers were never referred to as the 4th branch of government.
Do not mock something that is fundamental.
Imagine a world of only Fox "news" and its left counterpart.
If this keeps up  - you wont ave to imagine for much longer.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2131236.29903123</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2131236.29904139</id>
	<title>Re:Advertising Price Difference</title>
	<author>nbauman</author>
	<datestamp>1256732940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Even today, when I'm looking for a movie with my friends, we'll look in the newspaper.</p><p>In the New York Times, I can see all the movies displayed, in proportion to how heavily the studio is buying ads to promote it, by flipping through just a few pages, and I can see which ones are playing in my neighborhood. I can circle the ones I'm interested in and decide which one to go to at the end.</p><p>In principle, I should be able to do the same thing online. In reality, it's not as easy. <a href="http://movies.nytimes.com/pages/movies/index.html" title="nytimes.com">http://movies.nytimes.com/pages/movies/index.html</a> [nytimes.com] It's funny, when it finally comes down to deciding which movie to go to, I actually prefer the ads.</p><p>Similarly, I picked up a Sunday newspaper the other day and it had <i>advertising sections</i>. I forgot how convenient they were to look through. I could see the latest printers, how much Best Buy was selling netbooks for, etc. I really can't get that from the online web sites. <a href="http://www.bestbuy.com/" title="bestbuy.com">http://www.bestbuy.com/</a> [bestbuy.com]</p><p>Newspapers are great for browsing and deciding what you might want to buy. That's a seller's dream, and they're willing to pay for it.</p><p>Of course, when I know exactly what I want, like a specific product, I can find it more easily online,</p><p>I'm sure there will be a time when we'll have portable displays equal to or better than a newspaper page. I'm sure we'll have better user interfaces to help me pick out movies. But I don't see anything ten years out.</p><p>Maybe people growing up with the Internet will have different preferences.</p><p>Those Egyptians did a good job with paper. It's had a long run.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Even today , when I 'm looking for a movie with my friends , we 'll look in the newspaper.In the New York Times , I can see all the movies displayed , in proportion to how heavily the studio is buying ads to promote it , by flipping through just a few pages , and I can see which ones are playing in my neighborhood .
I can circle the ones I 'm interested in and decide which one to go to at the end.In principle , I should be able to do the same thing online .
In reality , it 's not as easy .
http : //movies.nytimes.com/pages/movies/index.html [ nytimes.com ] It 's funny , when it finally comes down to deciding which movie to go to , I actually prefer the ads.Similarly , I picked up a Sunday newspaper the other day and it had advertising sections .
I forgot how convenient they were to look through .
I could see the latest printers , how much Best Buy was selling netbooks for , etc .
I really ca n't get that from the online web sites .
http : //www.bestbuy.com/ [ bestbuy.com ] Newspapers are great for browsing and deciding what you might want to buy .
That 's a seller 's dream , and they 're willing to pay for it.Of course , when I know exactly what I want , like a specific product , I can find it more easily online,I 'm sure there will be a time when we 'll have portable displays equal to or better than a newspaper page .
I 'm sure we 'll have better user interfaces to help me pick out movies .
But I do n't see anything ten years out.Maybe people growing up with the Internet will have different preferences.Those Egyptians did a good job with paper .
It 's had a long run .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Even today, when I'm looking for a movie with my friends, we'll look in the newspaper.In the New York Times, I can see all the movies displayed, in proportion to how heavily the studio is buying ads to promote it, by flipping through just a few pages, and I can see which ones are playing in my neighborhood.
I can circle the ones I'm interested in and decide which one to go to at the end.In principle, I should be able to do the same thing online.
In reality, it's not as easy.
http://movies.nytimes.com/pages/movies/index.html [nytimes.com] It's funny, when it finally comes down to deciding which movie to go to, I actually prefer the ads.Similarly, I picked up a Sunday newspaper the other day and it had advertising sections.
I forgot how convenient they were to look through.
I could see the latest printers, how much Best Buy was selling netbooks for, etc.
I really can't get that from the online web sites.
http://www.bestbuy.com/ [bestbuy.com]Newspapers are great for browsing and deciding what you might want to buy.
That's a seller's dream, and they're willing to pay for it.Of course, when I know exactly what I want, like a specific product, I can find it more easily online,I'm sure there will be a time when we'll have portable displays equal to or better than a newspaper page.
I'm sure we'll have better user interfaces to help me pick out movies.
But I don't see anything ten years out.Maybe people growing up with the Internet will have different preferences.Those Egyptians did a good job with paper.
It's had a long run.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2131236.29903477</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2131236.29906213</id>
	<title>Something to think about</title>
	<author>tuxgeek</author>
	<datestamp>1256747400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>One day soon newspapers are gone<br>
the only way to get daily news is the internet<br>
You have to pay to get news<br>
Nobody is paying for internet news, why bother, just the same 'ol shit day after day</p><p>
News peddlers are now on the streets selling local news<br>
"Hey buddy, want to know whats going on today?"<br>
"Sure, why not"<br>
"Give me 50 cents and I'll tell you"<br>
"Here you go, 50 cents, so, what is new?"<br>
"Well, guy A killed guy B, guy C killed guy D, guy C killed guy A for killing guy B, etc, etc, etc"</p><p>SSDD</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>One day soon newspapers are gone the only way to get daily news is the internet You have to pay to get news Nobody is paying for internet news , why bother , just the same 'ol shit day after day News peddlers are now on the streets selling local news " Hey buddy , want to know whats going on today ?
" " Sure , why not " " Give me 50 cents and I 'll tell you " " Here you go , 50 cents , so , what is new ?
" " Well , guy A killed guy B , guy C killed guy D , guy C killed guy A for killing guy B , etc , etc , etc " SSDD</tokentext>
<sentencetext>One day soon newspapers are gone
the only way to get daily news is the internet
You have to pay to get news
Nobody is paying for internet news, why bother, just the same 'ol shit day after day
News peddlers are now on the streets selling local news
"Hey buddy, want to know whats going on today?
"
"Sure, why not"
"Give me 50 cents and I'll tell you"
"Here you go, 50 cents, so, what is new?
"
"Well, guy A killed guy B, guy C killed guy D, guy C killed guy A for killing guy B, etc, etc, etc"SSDD</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2131236.29903089</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2131236.29903997</id>
	<title>Obsolete</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256731980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>In related news, blacksmithing has posted yet another year of steadily declining sales.</htmltext>
<tokenext>In related news , blacksmithing has posted yet another year of steadily declining sales .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>In related news, blacksmithing has posted yet another year of steadily declining sales.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2131236.29904021</id>
	<title>There are working alternatives already</title>
	<author>SuperKendall</author>
	<datestamp>1256732100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>Question: would Wired and the Huffington Post have broken the Watergate scandal?</i></p><p><a href="http://biggovernment.com/" title="biggovernment.com">Big Government</a> [biggovernment.com] broke the ACORN scandal, and the stuff around the NEA pushing a government message through art funding.  That's at roughly the same level in that it's national news that had an impact on congress (they voted to shut of funding for ACORN).</p><p><i>Newspapers have failed to adapt, but they do have a number of useful features which IMHO the web has so far failed to replicate, such as strong editorial structures, proper investigative journalism (not just "in today's blog blog, we blog about a blog about something which someone wrong somewhere else"), accountability</i></p><p>Newspapers are an absolute joke for accountability.  At best you may get a retraction so small and buried no-one will ever see it.  At worst they simply ignore the fact they incorrectly reported on something and carry on as if what they said was the truth.</p><p>The blog standard is far superior, where usually the incorrect section is stricken through (but left readable) with a statement right below saying what they got wrong.  The key is that the correction is attached to the original media, far stronger a correction.</p><p>And there are real investigative journalists today.  Look at people like Micheal Totten and <a href="http://www.michaelyon-online.com/" title="michaelyon-online.com">Micheal Yon</a> [michaelyon-online.com] for excellent independent and pragmatic war coverage of all the major theaters.   We'll see more of that as newspapers continue to falter, and more people look for oversight of the government.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Question : would Wired and the Huffington Post have broken the Watergate scandal ? Big Government [ biggovernment.com ] broke the ACORN scandal , and the stuff around the NEA pushing a government message through art funding .
That 's at roughly the same level in that it 's national news that had an impact on congress ( they voted to shut of funding for ACORN ) .Newspapers have failed to adapt , but they do have a number of useful features which IMHO the web has so far failed to replicate , such as strong editorial structures , proper investigative journalism ( not just " in today 's blog blog , we blog about a blog about something which someone wrong somewhere else " ) , accountabilityNewspapers are an absolute joke for accountability .
At best you may get a retraction so small and buried no-one will ever see it .
At worst they simply ignore the fact they incorrectly reported on something and carry on as if what they said was the truth.The blog standard is far superior , where usually the incorrect section is stricken through ( but left readable ) with a statement right below saying what they got wrong .
The key is that the correction is attached to the original media , far stronger a correction.And there are real investigative journalists today .
Look at people like Micheal Totten and Micheal Yon [ michaelyon-online.com ] for excellent independent and pragmatic war coverage of all the major theaters .
We 'll see more of that as newspapers continue to falter , and more people look for oversight of the government .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Question: would Wired and the Huffington Post have broken the Watergate scandal?Big Government [biggovernment.com] broke the ACORN scandal, and the stuff around the NEA pushing a government message through art funding.
That's at roughly the same level in that it's national news that had an impact on congress (they voted to shut of funding for ACORN).Newspapers have failed to adapt, but they do have a number of useful features which IMHO the web has so far failed to replicate, such as strong editorial structures, proper investigative journalism (not just "in today's blog blog, we blog about a blog about something which someone wrong somewhere else"), accountabilityNewspapers are an absolute joke for accountability.
At best you may get a retraction so small and buried no-one will ever see it.
At worst they simply ignore the fact they incorrectly reported on something and carry on as if what they said was the truth.The blog standard is far superior, where usually the incorrect section is stricken through (but left readable) with a statement right below saying what they got wrong.
The key is that the correction is attached to the original media, far stronger a correction.And there are real investigative journalists today.
Look at people like Micheal Totten and Micheal Yon [michaelyon-online.com] for excellent independent and pragmatic war coverage of all the major theaters.
We'll see more of that as newspapers continue to falter, and more people look for oversight of the government.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2131236.29903425</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2131236.29903283</id>
	<title>I heard the WaPo online guy speak a while back</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256727780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>His talk was on hyperlocality, ie covering things in your back yard (well, not literally, although if he could help this winter... err, wait).  Shortly after this, WaPo launched a section on Loudon County (a suburb VA county outside of DC).  It was a flop.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>His talk was on hyperlocality , ie covering things in your back yard ( well , not literally , although if he could help this winter... err , wait ) .
Shortly after this , WaPo launched a section on Loudon County ( a suburb VA county outside of DC ) .
It was a flop .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>His talk was on hyperlocality, ie covering things in your back yard (well, not literally, although if he could help this winter... err, wait).
Shortly after this, WaPo launched a section on Loudon County (a suburb VA county outside of DC).
It was a flop.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2131236.29903385</id>
	<title>Re:Why are ads so much cheaper online though?</title>
	<author>nate nice</author>
	<datestamp>1256728260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I often wonder the same thing.  I don't even understand the advertising model for the Internet.  everything is still a link to this day.  Why?  Why aren't there just plain Coke and Pepsi ads.  Why haven't tobacco companies advertised more on the Internet.  Is it illegal for them?</p><p>But mainly why is everything a link to another Website?  Why aren't there more ads that are just ads for every day consumer things we see in magazines and papers?  Why not small, unobstructive ads all over the place?  Just little corporate logos wherever?</p><p>I think the advertising and journalism industries need to get together and hammer this out.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I often wonder the same thing .
I do n't even understand the advertising model for the Internet .
everything is still a link to this day .
Why ? Why are n't there just plain Coke and Pepsi ads .
Why have n't tobacco companies advertised more on the Internet .
Is it illegal for them ? But mainly why is everything a link to another Website ?
Why are n't there more ads that are just ads for every day consumer things we see in magazines and papers ?
Why not small , unobstructive ads all over the place ?
Just little corporate logos wherever ? I think the advertising and journalism industries need to get together and hammer this out .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I often wonder the same thing.
I don't even understand the advertising model for the Internet.
everything is still a link to this day.
Why?  Why aren't there just plain Coke and Pepsi ads.
Why haven't tobacco companies advertised more on the Internet.
Is it illegal for them?But mainly why is everything a link to another Website?
Why aren't there more ads that are just ads for every day consumer things we see in magazines and papers?
Why not small, unobstructive ads all over the place?
Just little corporate logos wherever?I think the advertising and journalism industries need to get together and hammer this out.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2131236.29903313</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2131236.29903477</id>
	<title>Advertising Price Difference</title>
	<author>smclean</author>
	<datestamp>1256728740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>It seems strange to me that the advertising price is so different, can anyone give me a good explanation why an advertiser's paper advertisement would be more successful than the same advertisement on the web?

The only good argument I can come up with is AdBlock, but given AdBlock's install base, I don't see this as being enough of a factor to account for the difference.

Why would a printed ad be more successful than an online ad?</htmltext>
<tokenext>It seems strange to me that the advertising price is so different , can anyone give me a good explanation why an advertiser 's paper advertisement would be more successful than the same advertisement on the web ?
The only good argument I can come up with is AdBlock , but given AdBlock 's install base , I do n't see this as being enough of a factor to account for the difference .
Why would a printed ad be more successful than an online ad ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It seems strange to me that the advertising price is so different, can anyone give me a good explanation why an advertiser's paper advertisement would be more successful than the same advertisement on the web?
The only good argument I can come up with is AdBlock, but given AdBlock's install base, I don't see this as being enough of a factor to account for the difference.
Why would a printed ad be more successful than an online ad?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2131236.29905189</id>
	<title>Re:I think this is the first time...</title>
	<author>Trepidity</author>
	<datestamp>1256739600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It's somewhat ambiguous, but the more likely interpretation is as a second derivative: "decline accelerates" usually means "the rate of decline has increased", not "the rate of increase of the rate of decline has increased".</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's somewhat ambiguous , but the more likely interpretation is as a second derivative : " decline accelerates " usually means " the rate of decline has increased " , not " the rate of increase of the rate of decline has increased " .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's somewhat ambiguous, but the more likely interpretation is as a second derivative: "decline accelerates" usually means "the rate of decline has increased", not "the rate of increase of the rate of decline has increased".</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2131236.29903749</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2131236.29908391</id>
	<title>Re:Evolve or die.....</title>
	<author>misexistentialist</author>
	<datestamp>1256819220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>You probably just have a new delivery person. Newspapers have always used "contractors" so have limited quality control over delivery, though it has gotten worse since contractors took on larger routes, and stopped collecting subscription fees decades ago.</htmltext>
<tokenext>You probably just have a new delivery person .
Newspapers have always used " contractors " so have limited quality control over delivery , though it has gotten worse since contractors took on larger routes , and stopped collecting subscription fees decades ago .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You probably just have a new delivery person.
Newspapers have always used "contractors" so have limited quality control over delivery, though it has gotten worse since contractors took on larger routes, and stopped collecting subscription fees decades ago.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2131236.29903247</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2131236.29907251</id>
	<title>Re:Evolve or die.....</title>
	<author>Thrymm</author>
	<datestamp>1256758560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Exactly.....</p><p>Hasn't this been the trend for the past 10 years? I live in NJ, and had been working in NYC before the stimulus kicked in... However even before taking the train each morning, I would access the local newspaper in my area online for free, read what I wanted to, and then drive over to the train station. I would buy myself a NY Daily News, mostly for the sports section and that was that. During a few quick breaks in the office, going over to the web sites of the same publications, I wouldn't need an evening edition to read.</p><p>Almost without RSS feeds, I wouldnt need to click on<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/. , dailytech, or others. So isn't RSS kinda doing the same thing?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Exactly.....Has n't this been the trend for the past 10 years ?
I live in NJ , and had been working in NYC before the stimulus kicked in... However even before taking the train each morning , I would access the local newspaper in my area online for free , read what I wanted to , and then drive over to the train station .
I would buy myself a NY Daily News , mostly for the sports section and that was that .
During a few quick breaks in the office , going over to the web sites of the same publications , I would n't need an evening edition to read.Almost without RSS feeds , I wouldnt need to click on / .
, dailytech , or others .
So is n't RSS kinda doing the same thing ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Exactly.....Hasn't this been the trend for the past 10 years?
I live in NJ, and had been working in NYC before the stimulus kicked in... However even before taking the train each morning, I would access the local newspaper in my area online for free, read what I wanted to, and then drive over to the train station.
I would buy myself a NY Daily News, mostly for the sports section and that was that.
During a few quick breaks in the office, going over to the web sites of the same publications, I wouldn't need an evening edition to read.Almost without RSS feeds, I wouldnt need to click on /.
, dailytech, or others.
So isn't RSS kinda doing the same thing?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2131236.29903103</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2131236.29904477</id>
	<title>What is "news" anyway?</title>
	<author>gilgongo</author>
	<datestamp>1256734920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I'm an avid newspaper reader. Yet I'm also a newspaper hater. Reading a newspaper is like taking drugs: you look forward to it because you think you'll get something out of it, that it's somehow good for you, or otherwise solves some problem, but you realise too late that it's just a load of shite.</p><p>I mean, really - most new stories I read, even in respected broadsheet papers, are just inconsequential babbling about nothing. President Obama may be doing this, he might do that, somebody flew in a balloon, a movie star has offered an opinion on global warming, a European head of state has been fined for corruption, how to make a quick and easy omlette from 14 ingredients I would have to go out and buy specially<nobr> <wbr></nobr>...</p><p>Big friggin' deal. I don't think I've ever put down a newspaper and thought "Now I feel really informed and stimulated - I can go into the world and act as a better person because of it." Mostly I just feel disappointed, or bored, and slightly soiled, because I find myself thinking whether any of it is true, or how much of it is half-true, or how much stuff I'm not being told, etc. etc.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm an avid newspaper reader .
Yet I 'm also a newspaper hater .
Reading a newspaper is like taking drugs : you look forward to it because you think you 'll get something out of it , that it 's somehow good for you , or otherwise solves some problem , but you realise too late that it 's just a load of shite.I mean , really - most new stories I read , even in respected broadsheet papers , are just inconsequential babbling about nothing .
President Obama may be doing this , he might do that , somebody flew in a balloon , a movie star has offered an opinion on global warming , a European head of state has been fined for corruption , how to make a quick and easy omlette from 14 ingredients I would have to go out and buy specially ...Big friggin ' deal .
I do n't think I 've ever put down a newspaper and thought " Now I feel really informed and stimulated - I can go into the world and act as a better person because of it .
" Mostly I just feel disappointed , or bored , and slightly soiled , because I find myself thinking whether any of it is true , or how much of it is half-true , or how much stuff I 'm not being told , etc .
etc .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm an avid newspaper reader.
Yet I'm also a newspaper hater.
Reading a newspaper is like taking drugs: you look forward to it because you think you'll get something out of it, that it's somehow good for you, or otherwise solves some problem, but you realise too late that it's just a load of shite.I mean, really - most new stories I read, even in respected broadsheet papers, are just inconsequential babbling about nothing.
President Obama may be doing this, he might do that, somebody flew in a balloon, a movie star has offered an opinion on global warming, a European head of state has been fined for corruption, how to make a quick and easy omlette from 14 ingredients I would have to go out and buy specially ...Big friggin' deal.
I don't think I've ever put down a newspaper and thought "Now I feel really informed and stimulated - I can go into the world and act as a better person because of it.
" Mostly I just feel disappointed, or bored, and slightly soiled, because I find myself thinking whether any of it is true, or how much of it is half-true, or how much stuff I'm not being told, etc.
etc.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2131236.29905957</id>
	<title>I read local newspapers</title>
	<author>aceofspades1217</author>
	<datestamp>1256745180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I completely agree with this article. We have a local free newspaper here in South Florida called the New Times that is incredibly popular. It usually has local news about corruption and hotspots in South Florida. In addition it has an occasional national article (it just had an article talking about how the government is doing nothing to the big wigs involved with the banking collapse) and it has some interesting movie reviews. Overall it has actually become more popular in South Florida and has gained more prominence and readership. Pretty much every single business has a New Times drop box in their waiting room and the community college I go to probably has more than 10 drop boxes which are always empty about a day after the papers are dropped off.</p><p>I mean if local newspapers just focused on good exciting journalism they would get plenty of readers. I mean I read a ton of news on online and I haven't picked up a national newspaper in years, yet every monday I sit down and read the New Times while sipping on a cafe con leche and having some rice and beans at lunch at my favorite Latin restaurant.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I completely agree with this article .
We have a local free newspaper here in South Florida called the New Times that is incredibly popular .
It usually has local news about corruption and hotspots in South Florida .
In addition it has an occasional national article ( it just had an article talking about how the government is doing nothing to the big wigs involved with the banking collapse ) and it has some interesting movie reviews .
Overall it has actually become more popular in South Florida and has gained more prominence and readership .
Pretty much every single business has a New Times drop box in their waiting room and the community college I go to probably has more than 10 drop boxes which are always empty about a day after the papers are dropped off.I mean if local newspapers just focused on good exciting journalism they would get plenty of readers .
I mean I read a ton of news on online and I have n't picked up a national newspaper in years , yet every monday I sit down and read the New Times while sipping on a cafe con leche and having some rice and beans at lunch at my favorite Latin restaurant .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I completely agree with this article.
We have a local free newspaper here in South Florida called the New Times that is incredibly popular.
It usually has local news about corruption and hotspots in South Florida.
In addition it has an occasional national article (it just had an article talking about how the government is doing nothing to the big wigs involved with the banking collapse) and it has some interesting movie reviews.
Overall it has actually become more popular in South Florida and has gained more prominence and readership.
Pretty much every single business has a New Times drop box in their waiting room and the community college I go to probably has more than 10 drop boxes which are always empty about a day after the papers are dropped off.I mean if local newspapers just focused on good exciting journalism they would get plenty of readers.
I mean I read a ton of news on online and I haven't picked up a national newspaper in years, yet every monday I sit down and read the New Times while sipping on a cafe con leche and having some rice and beans at lunch at my favorite Latin restaurant.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2131236.29903325</id>
	<title>It's their own fault</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256727960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I don't really intend this to be politically controversial, though that is probably inevitable. Of course newspapers have been challenged by the Internet, but this is not the first competition they've had. TV has been competing with newspapers for decades and they survived just fine. It isn't that newspapers have lost a competitive edge; they've lost a monopoloistic edge. It used to be they were the only game in town. A rare city had two newspapers. If you wanted to sell your car or post a job, the Classifieds was your only choice. Ever tried to sell a car through the Classifieds lately? Yowzaa! $100 easy just for an ad too tiny to read! But put it on cars.com for $24.95 with a bunch of pictures, and whaddya know, it sells. Happened to me anyway two years ago.</p><p>The second issue is that newspapers once stood for something. They were either avowedly and unabashedly partisan in their outlook, or they proclaimed journalistic objectivity. I think that no matter where you stand on the political spectrum, the Internet has allowed you to broaden your horizons, and THAT has lead to a realization that 'journalistic objectivity' is an oxymoron. It's not so much that newspapers lean one direction or another--though my local one never seems to like a Republican candidate, even for innocuous posts, but that you can see "sins of ommission." The real power of a newspaper is in what they choose to publish. They get a tremendous amount of information 'over the wire' and then they choose which stories to print, ignoring the stories they don't wish to print.</p><p>When you suddenly have the Net and a tremendous number of news sources to choose from, you can see this. You can see what the newspapers have been leaving out, so the newspaper becomes less relevant to your 'news needs' and you drop it. I dropped my paper because they couldn't seem to get it in the box. After continual complaints of poor service I finally decided I really didn't need it. I don't miss it.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I do n't really intend this to be politically controversial , though that is probably inevitable .
Of course newspapers have been challenged by the Internet , but this is not the first competition they 've had .
TV has been competing with newspapers for decades and they survived just fine .
It is n't that newspapers have lost a competitive edge ; they 've lost a monopoloistic edge .
It used to be they were the only game in town .
A rare city had two newspapers .
If you wanted to sell your car or post a job , the Classifieds was your only choice .
Ever tried to sell a car through the Classifieds lately ?
Yowzaa ! $ 100 easy just for an ad too tiny to read !
But put it on cars.com for $ 24.95 with a bunch of pictures , and whaddya know , it sells .
Happened to me anyway two years ago.The second issue is that newspapers once stood for something .
They were either avowedly and unabashedly partisan in their outlook , or they proclaimed journalistic objectivity .
I think that no matter where you stand on the political spectrum , the Internet has allowed you to broaden your horizons , and THAT has lead to a realization that 'journalistic objectivity ' is an oxymoron .
It 's not so much that newspapers lean one direction or another--though my local one never seems to like a Republican candidate , even for innocuous posts , but that you can see " sins of ommission .
" The real power of a newspaper is in what they choose to publish .
They get a tremendous amount of information 'over the wire ' and then they choose which stories to print , ignoring the stories they do n't wish to print.When you suddenly have the Net and a tremendous number of news sources to choose from , you can see this .
You can see what the newspapers have been leaving out , so the newspaper becomes less relevant to your 'news needs ' and you drop it .
I dropped my paper because they could n't seem to get it in the box .
After continual complaints of poor service I finally decided I really did n't need it .
I do n't miss it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I don't really intend this to be politically controversial, though that is probably inevitable.
Of course newspapers have been challenged by the Internet, but this is not the first competition they've had.
TV has been competing with newspapers for decades and they survived just fine.
It isn't that newspapers have lost a competitive edge; they've lost a monopoloistic edge.
It used to be they were the only game in town.
A rare city had two newspapers.
If you wanted to sell your car or post a job, the Classifieds was your only choice.
Ever tried to sell a car through the Classifieds lately?
Yowzaa! $100 easy just for an ad too tiny to read!
But put it on cars.com for $24.95 with a bunch of pictures, and whaddya know, it sells.
Happened to me anyway two years ago.The second issue is that newspapers once stood for something.
They were either avowedly and unabashedly partisan in their outlook, or they proclaimed journalistic objectivity.
I think that no matter where you stand on the political spectrum, the Internet has allowed you to broaden your horizons, and THAT has lead to a realization that 'journalistic objectivity' is an oxymoron.
It's not so much that newspapers lean one direction or another--though my local one never seems to like a Republican candidate, even for innocuous posts, but that you can see "sins of ommission.
" The real power of a newspaper is in what they choose to publish.
They get a tremendous amount of information 'over the wire' and then they choose which stories to print, ignoring the stories they don't wish to print.When you suddenly have the Net and a tremendous number of news sources to choose from, you can see this.
You can see what the newspapers have been leaving out, so the newspaper becomes less relevant to your 'news needs' and you drop it.
I dropped my paper because they couldn't seem to get it in the box.
After continual complaints of poor service I finally decided I really didn't need it.
I don't miss it.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2131236.29904371</id>
	<title>Re:Evolve or die.....</title>
	<author>couchslug</author>
	<datestamp>1256734320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>[quote]<br>The problem is, newspapers isn't being replaced by anything superior. I really don't see blogs and sites like digg and slashdot taking over journalism. They are great for commentary but don't produce original news, unless if there is an agenda.<br>[/quote]</p><p>I for one miss the dispassionate professionalism of our print media overlords, and am nostalgic for the Good Old Days:</p><p><a href="http://www.humboldt.edu/~jcb10/spanwar.shtml" title="humboldt.edu">http://www.humboldt.edu/~jcb10/spanwar.shtml</a> [humboldt.edu]</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>[ quote ] The problem is , newspapers is n't being replaced by anything superior .
I really do n't see blogs and sites like digg and slashdot taking over journalism .
They are great for commentary but do n't produce original news , unless if there is an agenda .
[ /quote ] I for one miss the dispassionate professionalism of our print media overlords , and am nostalgic for the Good Old Days : http : //www.humboldt.edu/ ~ jcb10/spanwar.shtml [ humboldt.edu ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>[quote]The problem is, newspapers isn't being replaced by anything superior.
I really don't see blogs and sites like digg and slashdot taking over journalism.
They are great for commentary but don't produce original news, unless if there is an agenda.
[/quote]I for one miss the dispassionate professionalism of our print media overlords, and am nostalgic for the Good Old Days:http://www.humboldt.edu/~jcb10/spanwar.shtml [humboldt.edu]
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2131236.29903337</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2131236.29904053</id>
	<title>Re:Any alternatives?</title>
	<author>PRMan</author>
	<datestamp>1256732280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>We don't need that, because instead of quality journalists, we have quantity journalists.</p><p>Who broke most of the stories that have been big lately?</p><p>AT&amp;T spying... Blogger</p><p>Sony rookit... Blogger</p><p>Heck, on the 2 stories above alone, it took WEEKS for the salaried journalists to even NOTICE that there was a story.</p><p>The correct question isn't who is going to break all these stories.  The correct question is which of the million bloggers is going to break one important story today.</p><p>Slashdot and Techdirt and related sites don't break stories, they filter them, thereby raising awareness of the important ones.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>We do n't need that , because instead of quality journalists , we have quantity journalists.Who broke most of the stories that have been big lately ? AT&amp;T spying... BloggerSony rookit... BloggerHeck , on the 2 stories above alone , it took WEEKS for the salaried journalists to even NOTICE that there was a story.The correct question is n't who is going to break all these stories .
The correct question is which of the million bloggers is going to break one important story today.Slashdot and Techdirt and related sites do n't break stories , they filter them , thereby raising awareness of the important ones .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>We don't need that, because instead of quality journalists, we have quantity journalists.Who broke most of the stories that have been big lately?AT&amp;T spying... BloggerSony rookit... BloggerHeck, on the 2 stories above alone, it took WEEKS for the salaried journalists to even NOTICE that there was a story.The correct question isn't who is going to break all these stories.
The correct question is which of the million bloggers is going to break one important story today.Slashdot and Techdirt and related sites don't break stories, they filter them, thereby raising awareness of the important ones.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2131236.29903235</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2131236.29908805</id>
	<title>Re:Evolve or die.....</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256823780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>EXACTLY!</p><p>It's not the medium used but the content delivered.</p><p>Whether you use a fork or a spoon to feed me crap, you're still trying to feed me crap I don't want to eat.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>EXACTLY ! It 's not the medium used but the content delivered.Whether you use a fork or a spoon to feed me crap , you 're still trying to feed me crap I do n't want to eat .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>EXACTLY!It's not the medium used but the content delivered.Whether you use a fork or a spoon to feed me crap, you're still trying to feed me crap I don't want to eat.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2131236.29905043</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2131236.29906321</id>
	<title>Re:No integrity</title>
	<author>evilviper</author>
	<datestamp>1256748300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>For months the New York Times (as well as other "legitimate" news outlets (I'm not counting the Fox network)) beat the drums of war. They helped stampede the US into the Iraqi invasion and discounted dissenting opinion and facts.</p></div></blockquote><p>The big-three TV networks all spent their air time debunking every bit of faulty evidence supplied by the White House.  What more could you expect than that?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>For months the New York Times ( as well as other " legitimate " news outlets ( I 'm not counting the Fox network ) ) beat the drums of war .
They helped stampede the US into the Iraqi invasion and discounted dissenting opinion and facts.The big-three TV networks all spent their air time debunking every bit of faulty evidence supplied by the White House .
What more could you expect than that ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>For months the New York Times (as well as other "legitimate" news outlets (I'm not counting the Fox network)) beat the drums of war.
They helped stampede the US into the Iraqi invasion and discounted dissenting opinion and facts.The big-three TV networks all spent their air time debunking every bit of faulty evidence supplied by the White House.
What more could you expect than that?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2131236.29904005</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2131236.29903247</id>
	<title>Re:Evolve or die.....</title>
	<author>omeomi</author>
	<datestamp>1256727540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>I still enjoy reading the paper. I've been a daily subscriber to the Chicago Tribune for the past 8 years. However, in the past few months, their delivery service has taken a major turn for the worse. The paper is supposed to be on my driveway by 6:30AM, and it absolutely never is. I leave for the train at 7:00AM, and it took weeks of calling and threatening to cancel my subscription just to get them to start getting me the paper before 7:00. I still call most days to complain that it's not there by 6:30. I get a credit for the days that I call, so they're not making much money off of my subscription at this point. Overall, if anything is going to cause me to cancel my subscription, it's that the delivery service that used to be fantastic has become abysmal. Mostly I'm probably waiting for the larger, magazine-sized Kindle (or some competitor) to come out.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I still enjoy reading the paper .
I 've been a daily subscriber to the Chicago Tribune for the past 8 years .
However , in the past few months , their delivery service has taken a major turn for the worse .
The paper is supposed to be on my driveway by 6 : 30AM , and it absolutely never is .
I leave for the train at 7 : 00AM , and it took weeks of calling and threatening to cancel my subscription just to get them to start getting me the paper before 7 : 00 .
I still call most days to complain that it 's not there by 6 : 30 .
I get a credit for the days that I call , so they 're not making much money off of my subscription at this point .
Overall , if anything is going to cause me to cancel my subscription , it 's that the delivery service that used to be fantastic has become abysmal .
Mostly I 'm probably waiting for the larger , magazine-sized Kindle ( or some competitor ) to come out .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I still enjoy reading the paper.
I've been a daily subscriber to the Chicago Tribune for the past 8 years.
However, in the past few months, their delivery service has taken a major turn for the worse.
The paper is supposed to be on my driveway by 6:30AM, and it absolutely never is.
I leave for the train at 7:00AM, and it took weeks of calling and threatening to cancel my subscription just to get them to start getting me the paper before 7:00.
I still call most days to complain that it's not there by 6:30.
I get a credit for the days that I call, so they're not making much money off of my subscription at this point.
Overall, if anything is going to cause me to cancel my subscription, it's that the delivery service that used to be fantastic has become abysmal.
Mostly I'm probably waiting for the larger, magazine-sized Kindle (or some competitor) to come out.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2131236.29903103</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2131236.29904077</id>
	<title>Re:Any alternatives?</title>
	<author>whoop</author>
	<datestamp>1256732460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>How about James O'Keefe and Hanna Giles (the ACORN undercover videos)?  Granted, they weren't salaried, but the Internet can produce a good story.  Without Youtube, blogs, etc their story would have not gotten the press it did.  It will probably be a few years yet before these sort of Internet journalists get more practice and find the right niche, but it's a start.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>How about James O'Keefe and Hanna Giles ( the ACORN undercover videos ) ?
Granted , they were n't salaried , but the Internet can produce a good story .
Without Youtube , blogs , etc their story would have not gotten the press it did .
It will probably be a few years yet before these sort of Internet journalists get more practice and find the right niche , but it 's a start .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>How about James O'Keefe and Hanna Giles (the ACORN undercover videos)?
Granted, they weren't salaried, but the Internet can produce a good story.
Without Youtube, blogs, etc their story would have not gotten the press it did.
It will probably be a few years yet before these sort of Internet journalists get more practice and find the right niche, but it's a start.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2131236.29903235</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2131236.29906991</id>
	<title>Old-school journalism</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256755500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>There are still a small handful of old-school, honest journalists out there. Seymour Hersch and Robert Fisk come to mind. (Unfortunately, that's all I can think of.)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>There are still a small handful of old-school , honest journalists out there .
Seymour Hersch and Robert Fisk come to mind .
( Unfortunately , that 's all I can think of .
)</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There are still a small handful of old-school, honest journalists out there.
Seymour Hersch and Robert Fisk come to mind.
(Unfortunately, that's all I can think of.
)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2131236.29903943</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2131236.29903591</id>
	<title>Money</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256729280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>So the biggest recession for decades has nothing at all to do with it ? Considering that the locals have been gaining readers, I suspect that more people are looking for jobs close to home, and thinking FTW.</htmltext>
<tokenext>So the biggest recession for decades has nothing at all to do with it ?
Considering that the locals have been gaining readers , I suspect that more people are looking for jobs close to home , and thinking FTW .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So the biggest recession for decades has nothing at all to do with it ?
Considering that the locals have been gaining readers, I suspect that more people are looking for jobs close to home, and thinking FTW.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2131236.29907667</id>
	<title>Re:Any alternatives?</title>
	<author>Nyeerrmm</author>
	<datestamp>1256807760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>What about weeklies (Time, Newsweek, the Economist, etc.)?</p><p>I'm the type who prefers the quick fix of internet news to see if anything big has happened during the day, and a paying for a daily paper doesn't make sense for me, because I don't necessarily have time every day for anything more than a quick skim. However, I have subscriptions to the those three magazines, and I can usually find the time to read through those throughout the week.</p><p>If you separate the time-sensitive immediate news, provided by wire services on the internet, from the deeper analysis and real journalism from weekly publications, I think you may have a workable model that provides the benefits of both.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>What about weeklies ( Time , Newsweek , the Economist , etc .
) ? I 'm the type who prefers the quick fix of internet news to see if anything big has happened during the day , and a paying for a daily paper does n't make sense for me , because I do n't necessarily have time every day for anything more than a quick skim .
However , I have subscriptions to the those three magazines , and I can usually find the time to read through those throughout the week.If you separate the time-sensitive immediate news , provided by wire services on the internet , from the deeper analysis and real journalism from weekly publications , I think you may have a workable model that provides the benefits of both .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What about weeklies (Time, Newsweek, the Economist, etc.
)?I'm the type who prefers the quick fix of internet news to see if anything big has happened during the day, and a paying for a daily paper doesn't make sense for me, because I don't necessarily have time every day for anything more than a quick skim.
However, I have subscriptions to the those three magazines, and I can usually find the time to read through those throughout the week.If you separate the time-sensitive immediate news, provided by wire services on the internet, from the deeper analysis and real journalism from weekly publications, I think you may have a workable model that provides the benefits of both.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2131236.29903235</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2131236.29903257</id>
	<title>The bright side</title>
	<author>oldspewey</author>
	<datestamp>1256727660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>At least there are some <a href="http://www.theonion.com/content/news/report\_majority\_of\_newspapers\_now" title="theonion.com" rel="nofollow">robust areas</a> [theonion.com] in the declining newspaper market.</htmltext>
<tokenext>At least there are some robust areas [ theonion.com ] in the declining newspaper market .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>At least there are some robust areas [theonion.com] in the declining newspaper market.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2131236.29908675</id>
	<title>Re:Why are ads so much cheaper online though?</title>
	<author>VendettaMF</author>
	<datestamp>1256822520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Because anyone who's been online more than 20 minutes knows that if a company has resorted to advertising online then that is a company best avoided.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Because anyone who 's been online more than 20 minutes knows that if a company has resorted to advertising online then that is a company best avoided .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Because anyone who's been online more than 20 minutes knows that if a company has resorted to advertising online then that is a company best avoided.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2131236.29903313</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2131236.29903087</id>
	<title>How small is it?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256726880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Offtopic</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Rob Malda's penis is so small that when he was at the glory hole last night, his penis was confused with that of a toddler's.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Rob Malda 's penis is so small that when he was at the glory hole last night , his penis was confused with that of a toddler 's .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Rob Malda's penis is so small that when he was at the glory hole last night, his penis was confused with that of a toddler's.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2131236.29905123</id>
	<title>Re:Any alternatives?</title>
	<author>jabster</author>
	<datestamp>1256739060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>James O'Keefe . Zombie (www.zombietime.com) are the first two that just jump to mind. Then there's the ACORN scandals, the Kevin Jennings scandal, Van Jones, Valerie Jarrett the slum lord, Michelle Obama and her hospital's practice of shoving poor patients to other hospitals.</p><p>Like we need more fake Rush Limbaugh quotes, fact-checking of SNL skits, or another Rathergate.</p><p>-john</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>James O'Keefe .
Zombie ( www.zombietime.com ) are the first two that just jump to mind .
Then there 's the ACORN scandals , the Kevin Jennings scandal , Van Jones , Valerie Jarrett the slum lord , Michelle Obama and her hospital 's practice of shoving poor patients to other hospitals.Like we need more fake Rush Limbaugh quotes , fact-checking of SNL skits , or another Rathergate.-john</tokentext>
<sentencetext>James O'Keefe .
Zombie (www.zombietime.com) are the first two that just jump to mind.
Then there's the ACORN scandals, the Kevin Jennings scandal, Van Jones, Valerie Jarrett the slum lord, Michelle Obama and her hospital's practice of shoving poor patients to other hospitals.Like we need more fake Rush Limbaugh quotes, fact-checking of SNL skits, or another Rathergate.-john</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2131236.29903235</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2131236.29904083</id>
	<title>Re:Evolve or die.....</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256732520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Ah yes, the current edition of the printed Trib. I don't have the delivery problem, yet what's there not to love?</p><ul> <li>More than half is ad copy. I'd say a good two-thirds is. Might be useful if you're into coupons, but mostly meh. (Really, if there's that much ads, why isn't it free? Seems something isn't right in the cost schedule.)</li><li>The good sections have been reduced.</li><li>To many format changes in the last couple years. I liked it when there was separate sections, you could split the newpaper with the rest of the family and still read through an article. So what was wrong with separate sections?</li><li>The comics have gotten smaller. Should I need a magnifying glass just for them?</li><li>The weekend paper is less fun than it was. Smart is no Q. And Rides has less articles than Transportation did.</li><li>Sloppy proofreading. I'm sure Tribune Corp. can afford to use freakin' spell-check and have extra eyes go over the grammar.</li><li>Sloppy layout editing. Ok, black text bleeding over a dark background picture? So how am I to read that?</li><li>Lazier journalism than in years past. May as well be doing copy-pasta from some local blog in some cases.</li></ul><p>I'm sure there's more, but I don't really need to go on. And I can't say the other local papers in Chicago area are really much better. So why not turn to the internet for news when the newpaper's benchmark for quality seems to be out there in the blogosphere? And the local online community forums also seem to provide a better scoop on police blotter stuff and the backstories behind political dealings, even if the trustworthyness is harder to verify.</p><p>If they want to get the readership back, they've really got their work cut out for them. And it's nothing to do with the format the media is delivered in, but rather the content. (Although the convienience factor of competing online media doesn't help any.)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Ah yes , the current edition of the printed Trib .
I do n't have the delivery problem , yet what 's there not to love ?
More than half is ad copy .
I 'd say a good two-thirds is .
Might be useful if you 're into coupons , but mostly meh .
( Really , if there 's that much ads , why is n't it free ?
Seems something is n't right in the cost schedule .
) The good sections have been reduced.To many format changes in the last couple years .
I liked it when there was separate sections , you could split the newpaper with the rest of the family and still read through an article .
So what was wrong with separate sections ? The comics have gotten smaller .
Should I need a magnifying glass just for them ? The weekend paper is less fun than it was .
Smart is no Q. And Rides has less articles than Transportation did.Sloppy proofreading .
I 'm sure Tribune Corp. can afford to use freakin ' spell-check and have extra eyes go over the grammar.Sloppy layout editing .
Ok , black text bleeding over a dark background picture ?
So how am I to read that ? Lazier journalism than in years past .
May as well be doing copy-pasta from some local blog in some cases.I 'm sure there 's more , but I do n't really need to go on .
And I ca n't say the other local papers in Chicago area are really much better .
So why not turn to the internet for news when the newpaper 's benchmark for quality seems to be out there in the blogosphere ?
And the local online community forums also seem to provide a better scoop on police blotter stuff and the backstories behind political dealings , even if the trustworthyness is harder to verify.If they want to get the readership back , they 've really got their work cut out for them .
And it 's nothing to do with the format the media is delivered in , but rather the content .
( Although the convienience factor of competing online media does n't help any .
)</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Ah yes, the current edition of the printed Trib.
I don't have the delivery problem, yet what's there not to love?
More than half is ad copy.
I'd say a good two-thirds is.
Might be useful if you're into coupons, but mostly meh.
(Really, if there's that much ads, why isn't it free?
Seems something isn't right in the cost schedule.
)The good sections have been reduced.To many format changes in the last couple years.
I liked it when there was separate sections, you could split the newpaper with the rest of the family and still read through an article.
So what was wrong with separate sections?The comics have gotten smaller.
Should I need a magnifying glass just for them?The weekend paper is less fun than it was.
Smart is no Q. And Rides has less articles than Transportation did.Sloppy proofreading.
I'm sure Tribune Corp. can afford to use freakin' spell-check and have extra eyes go over the grammar.Sloppy layout editing.
Ok, black text bleeding over a dark background picture?
So how am I to read that?Lazier journalism than in years past.
May as well be doing copy-pasta from some local blog in some cases.I'm sure there's more, but I don't really need to go on.
And I can't say the other local papers in Chicago area are really much better.
So why not turn to the internet for news when the newpaper's benchmark for quality seems to be out there in the blogosphere?
And the local online community forums also seem to provide a better scoop on police blotter stuff and the backstories behind political dealings, even if the trustworthyness is harder to verify.If they want to get the readership back, they've really got their work cut out for them.
And it's nothing to do with the format the media is delivered in, but rather the content.
(Although the convienience factor of competing online media doesn't help any.
)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2131236.29903247</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2131236.29912653</id>
	<title>Re:Evolve or die.....</title>
	<author>SnarfQuest</author>
	<datestamp>1256839560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>What about the investigative journalism that revealed the existence of the so-called "torture memos", or the secret CIA prisons, or the NSA's warrantless wiretapping program, or the neglect of injured veterans at the VA?</p></div><p>What about the "investigative" journalism that suddenly brings up quotes from Rush Limbaugh from many years ago that everyone has missed all these years (because he never said them)?</p><p>What about the "investigative" journalism that found military papers from the 1970's about George Bush, that were typed up using Word 2003?</p><p>How about the way all of these journalists will all suddenly come up with an unusual word to describe someone, like gravatas? It's almost like they all receive their stories from one source.</p><p>What you call "investigative journalism", I'd call propaganda. It's amazing how they can be so one-sided in their hatred, and still claim to be independent. How can you believe anything these people say?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>What about the investigative journalism that revealed the existence of the so-called " torture memos " , or the secret CIA prisons , or the NSA 's warrantless wiretapping program , or the neglect of injured veterans at the VA ? What about the " investigative " journalism that suddenly brings up quotes from Rush Limbaugh from many years ago that everyone has missed all these years ( because he never said them ) ? What about the " investigative " journalism that found military papers from the 1970 's about George Bush , that were typed up using Word 2003 ? How about the way all of these journalists will all suddenly come up with an unusual word to describe someone , like gravatas ?
It 's almost like they all receive their stories from one source.What you call " investigative journalism " , I 'd call propaganda .
It 's amazing how they can be so one-sided in their hatred , and still claim to be independent .
How can you believe anything these people say ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What about the investigative journalism that revealed the existence of the so-called "torture memos", or the secret CIA prisons, or the NSA's warrantless wiretapping program, or the neglect of injured veterans at the VA?What about the "investigative" journalism that suddenly brings up quotes from Rush Limbaugh from many years ago that everyone has missed all these years (because he never said them)?What about the "investigative" journalism that found military papers from the 1970's about George Bush, that were typed up using Word 2003?How about the way all of these journalists will all suddenly come up with an unusual word to describe someone, like gravatas?
It's almost like they all receive their stories from one source.What you call "investigative journalism", I'd call propaganda.
It's amazing how they can be so one-sided in their hatred, and still claim to be independent.
How can you believe anything these people say?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2131236.29906559</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2131236.29918997</id>
	<title>Re:Are people actually getting smarter?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256823240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I think the transfer of ownership from smaller groups, often families, to corporate conglomerates which upped the emphasis on profits has as much to do with the decline as anything.  This is true of most of the MSM.  They report what their corporate masters want us to see for the most part.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I think the transfer of ownership from smaller groups , often families , to corporate conglomerates which upped the emphasis on profits has as much to do with the decline as anything .
This is true of most of the MSM .
They report what their corporate masters want us to see for the most part .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I think the transfer of ownership from smaller groups, often families, to corporate conglomerates which upped the emphasis on profits has as much to do with the decline as anything.
This is true of most of the MSM.
They report what their corporate masters want us to see for the most part.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2131236.29903839</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2131236.29905043</id>
	<title>Re:Evolve or die.....</title>
	<author>jmorris42</author>
	<datestamp>1256738280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>&gt; The problem is, newspapers isn't being replaced by anything superior.</p><p>No you, like almost everyone in the legacy media, miss the root of the problem.  The overhead of dead tree distribution is a problem for newspapers.  But it isn't THE problem.  Otherwise the other parts of the legacy media such as the big three network newscasts wouldn't be suffering the same decline.  Hollywood is having trouble selling both movie tickets and DVDs, the music industry is declining.  Network television has been in decline for decades.  The Internet isn't the problem.  It's the content, stupid!</p><p>People are dropping newspaper subscriptions because there is nothing in them anymore that can't be read online.  If you think there is journalism in a newspaper these days it is because you haven't picked one up lately and actually read it.  It's all opinion posing as news, press releases reprinted as gospel, rumors and gossip and what doesn't fit into one of above categories it is probably inaccurate anyway.  And that damnation is even before bringing up the political bias that has become so blatant the blind can now see it.  But even worse than the lies, distortions and faked news is what they leave out of the news because it doesn't fit their prefab storylines</p><p>Thought experiment.  Most reading here are tech types.  Read a legacy media story about a tech issue and note how many inacuracies you can spot.  It isn't just tech, it is your ability to spot errors in that field that is greater.  The error rate in every other section is as great or greater.  If you asked a doctor about medical coverage he would give you just as many horror stories.  Mass media always had the problem of trying to dumb down stories for a mass audience, but years of budget slashing and general decline in overall education means it is now semi-literate reporters reporting for morons.</p><p>Now go read a couple stories from a major source, say the NYT or CNN.  Note how many basic grammar errors you find, assuming you yourself are clueful enough to do this.  They SAY the reason to trust the MSM over bloggers in their underwear is they have vetting, fact checking and editors.  Jason Blair puts paid to vetting, the test above should remove all doubt as to fact checking and if there are still real editors in the newsroom how do so many basic spelling and grammar errors make it into print?  If they aren't even bothering to proofread the damned copy are we to believe they are calling back all the sources and checking the quotes and going to authoritative sources to confirm every fact and figure in a story?  And unlike most bloggers, they don't even bother running a correction unless someone important makes a fuss or threatens legal action.</p><p>And it isn't the Internet or piracy that is killing Hollywood, it is the fact that have been pumping out crap for years.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>&gt; The problem is , newspapers is n't being replaced by anything superior.No you , like almost everyone in the legacy media , miss the root of the problem .
The overhead of dead tree distribution is a problem for newspapers .
But it is n't THE problem .
Otherwise the other parts of the legacy media such as the big three network newscasts would n't be suffering the same decline .
Hollywood is having trouble selling both movie tickets and DVDs , the music industry is declining .
Network television has been in decline for decades .
The Internet is n't the problem .
It 's the content , stupid ! People are dropping newspaper subscriptions because there is nothing in them anymore that ca n't be read online .
If you think there is journalism in a newspaper these days it is because you have n't picked one up lately and actually read it .
It 's all opinion posing as news , press releases reprinted as gospel , rumors and gossip and what does n't fit into one of above categories it is probably inaccurate anyway .
And that damnation is even before bringing up the political bias that has become so blatant the blind can now see it .
But even worse than the lies , distortions and faked news is what they leave out of the news because it does n't fit their prefab storylinesThought experiment .
Most reading here are tech types .
Read a legacy media story about a tech issue and note how many inacuracies you can spot .
It is n't just tech , it is your ability to spot errors in that field that is greater .
The error rate in every other section is as great or greater .
If you asked a doctor about medical coverage he would give you just as many horror stories .
Mass media always had the problem of trying to dumb down stories for a mass audience , but years of budget slashing and general decline in overall education means it is now semi-literate reporters reporting for morons.Now go read a couple stories from a major source , say the NYT or CNN .
Note how many basic grammar errors you find , assuming you yourself are clueful enough to do this .
They SAY the reason to trust the MSM over bloggers in their underwear is they have vetting , fact checking and editors .
Jason Blair puts paid to vetting , the test above should remove all doubt as to fact checking and if there are still real editors in the newsroom how do so many basic spelling and grammar errors make it into print ?
If they are n't even bothering to proofread the damned copy are we to believe they are calling back all the sources and checking the quotes and going to authoritative sources to confirm every fact and figure in a story ?
And unlike most bloggers , they do n't even bother running a correction unless someone important makes a fuss or threatens legal action.And it is n't the Internet or piracy that is killing Hollywood , it is the fact that have been pumping out crap for years .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>&gt; The problem is, newspapers isn't being replaced by anything superior.No you, like almost everyone in the legacy media, miss the root of the problem.
The overhead of dead tree distribution is a problem for newspapers.
But it isn't THE problem.
Otherwise the other parts of the legacy media such as the big three network newscasts wouldn't be suffering the same decline.
Hollywood is having trouble selling both movie tickets and DVDs, the music industry is declining.
Network television has been in decline for decades.
The Internet isn't the problem.
It's the content, stupid!People are dropping newspaper subscriptions because there is nothing in them anymore that can't be read online.
If you think there is journalism in a newspaper these days it is because you haven't picked one up lately and actually read it.
It's all opinion posing as news, press releases reprinted as gospel, rumors and gossip and what doesn't fit into one of above categories it is probably inaccurate anyway.
And that damnation is even before bringing up the political bias that has become so blatant the blind can now see it.
But even worse than the lies, distortions and faked news is what they leave out of the news because it doesn't fit their prefab storylinesThought experiment.
Most reading here are tech types.
Read a legacy media story about a tech issue and note how many inacuracies you can spot.
It isn't just tech, it is your ability to spot errors in that field that is greater.
The error rate in every other section is as great or greater.
If you asked a doctor about medical coverage he would give you just as many horror stories.
Mass media always had the problem of trying to dumb down stories for a mass audience, but years of budget slashing and general decline in overall education means it is now semi-literate reporters reporting for morons.Now go read a couple stories from a major source, say the NYT or CNN.
Note how many basic grammar errors you find, assuming you yourself are clueful enough to do this.
They SAY the reason to trust the MSM over bloggers in their underwear is they have vetting, fact checking and editors.
Jason Blair puts paid to vetting, the test above should remove all doubt as to fact checking and if there are still real editors in the newsroom how do so many basic spelling and grammar errors make it into print?
If they aren't even bothering to proofread the damned copy are we to believe they are calling back all the sources and checking the quotes and going to authoritative sources to confirm every fact and figure in a story?
And unlike most bloggers, they don't even bother running a correction unless someone important makes a fuss or threatens legal action.And it isn't the Internet or piracy that is killing Hollywood, it is the fact that have been pumping out crap for years.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2131236.29903337</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2131236.29903421</id>
	<title>Re:Any alternatives?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256728440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>&gt;salaried journalists in national papers who are willing to dig in and develop a good story.</p><p>This is dying and has been for years. Editors, and more importantly their owners (http://www.thenation.com/special/bigten.html) prefer light, cheap puff pieces that don't disturb the citizenry or alert them to little things like the fact that the treasuries of the world are being looted by the worlds wealthy and that oil depletion issues are going to start rocking our world in an unpleasant way in the next decade or two.<br>.<br>So we get Yahoo and MSM, where the top stories are "10 ways to know if he/she's cheating on you!" and "How to tell if you're a f***king idiot." (Hint, you're reading Yahoo's front page.)<br>.<br>The internet, however, is still relatively free although who knows for how long. If net neutrality is withdrawn, you can forget that too.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>&gt; salaried journalists in national papers who are willing to dig in and develop a good story.This is dying and has been for years .
Editors , and more importantly their owners ( http : //www.thenation.com/special/bigten.html ) prefer light , cheap puff pieces that do n't disturb the citizenry or alert them to little things like the fact that the treasuries of the world are being looted by the worlds wealthy and that oil depletion issues are going to start rocking our world in an unpleasant way in the next decade or two..So we get Yahoo and MSM , where the top stories are " 10 ways to know if he/she 's cheating on you !
" and " How to tell if you 're a f * * * king idiot .
" ( Hint , you 're reading Yahoo 's front page .
) .The internet , however , is still relatively free although who knows for how long .
If net neutrality is withdrawn , you can forget that too .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>&gt;salaried journalists in national papers who are willing to dig in and develop a good story.This is dying and has been for years.
Editors, and more importantly their owners (http://www.thenation.com/special/bigten.html) prefer light, cheap puff pieces that don't disturb the citizenry or alert them to little things like the fact that the treasuries of the world are being looted by the worlds wealthy and that oil depletion issues are going to start rocking our world in an unpleasant way in the next decade or two..So we get Yahoo and MSM, where the top stories are "10 ways to know if he/she's cheating on you!
" and "How to tell if you're a f***king idiot.
" (Hint, you're reading Yahoo's front page.
).The internet, however, is still relatively free although who knows for how long.
If net neutrality is withdrawn, you can forget that too.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2131236.29903235</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2131236.29904355</id>
	<title>It's the same thing...</title>
	<author>QuincyDurant</author>
	<datestamp>1256734200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>...for all intensive purposes.</htmltext>
<tokenext>...for all intensive purposes .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>...for all intensive purposes.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2131236.29904001</id>
	<title>New media reduces the value of information</title>
	<author>dirkdodgers</author>
	<datestamp>1256731980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Newspapers provide a direct path for national and international news outlets to monetize information derived from real, on location, research and reporting around the world.</p><p>New media, and increasingly cable news, simply freeload off of information from other outlets and sources, and fill the rest of their time blocks and postings with uninformed opinion, speculation, and other filler.</p><p>This freeloading reduces the value of real information on the market because there are fewer and fewer entities willing to pay to receive the information from a primary a source, because they know that if they wait another 15 minutes they can get that information somewhere else for free, and for the same reason, even if they do pay for it, they have an increasingly difficult time profiting from it themselves.</p><p>I think in the future we will three a mix of outcomes:<br>A) Government owned information. Governments always have a need for up-to-date, in depth information from around the world, and would be more than happy for their populaces to turn to them as a source of information, where it will be appropriately spun and filtered.<br>B) Government backed information. Benevolent governments will provide the funding to support gathering and reporting of information that can not be effectively monetized. We will rely on the benevolence of publicly supported institutions to provide us accurate and timely information.<br>C) Global citizen journalist network. We are seeing this increasingly where private citizens on the ground where news is happening relay that information around the world free of charge, calling it as they see it, without any pretense of objectivity.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Newspapers provide a direct path for national and international news outlets to monetize information derived from real , on location , research and reporting around the world.New media , and increasingly cable news , simply freeload off of information from other outlets and sources , and fill the rest of their time blocks and postings with uninformed opinion , speculation , and other filler.This freeloading reduces the value of real information on the market because there are fewer and fewer entities willing to pay to receive the information from a primary a source , because they know that if they wait another 15 minutes they can get that information somewhere else for free , and for the same reason , even if they do pay for it , they have an increasingly difficult time profiting from it themselves.I think in the future we will three a mix of outcomes : A ) Government owned information .
Governments always have a need for up-to-date , in depth information from around the world , and would be more than happy for their populaces to turn to them as a source of information , where it will be appropriately spun and filtered.B ) Government backed information .
Benevolent governments will provide the funding to support gathering and reporting of information that can not be effectively monetized .
We will rely on the benevolence of publicly supported institutions to provide us accurate and timely information.C ) Global citizen journalist network .
We are seeing this increasingly where private citizens on the ground where news is happening relay that information around the world free of charge , calling it as they see it , without any pretense of objectivity .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Newspapers provide a direct path for national and international news outlets to monetize information derived from real, on location, research and reporting around the world.New media, and increasingly cable news, simply freeload off of information from other outlets and sources, and fill the rest of their time blocks and postings with uninformed opinion, speculation, and other filler.This freeloading reduces the value of real information on the market because there are fewer and fewer entities willing to pay to receive the information from a primary a source, because they know that if they wait another 15 minutes they can get that information somewhere else for free, and for the same reason, even if they do pay for it, they have an increasingly difficult time profiting from it themselves.I think in the future we will three a mix of outcomes:A) Government owned information.
Governments always have a need for up-to-date, in depth information from around the world, and would be more than happy for their populaces to turn to them as a source of information, where it will be appropriately spun and filtered.B) Government backed information.
Benevolent governments will provide the funding to support gathering and reporting of information that can not be effectively monetized.
We will rely on the benevolence of publicly supported institutions to provide us accurate and timely information.C) Global citizen journalist network.
We are seeing this increasingly where private citizens on the ground where news is happening relay that information around the world free of charge, calling it as they see it, without any pretense of objectivity.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2131236.29910607</id>
	<title>Re:Evolve or die.....</title>
	<author>camazotz</author>
	<datestamp>1256832180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I used to work in management for the circulation department of three major newspapers at various times in the past (jumped ship three years ago to a completely different field). I can safely tell you that in all likelihood your local paper attempted cost-cutting measures in their circulation department, reducing staff, salaries and probably a massive reduction in the number of independent contractors they rely on for morning distribution. This has been ongoing in the industry for the two decades I was involved in it, and led to an inevitable decline in service. When I worked for the Seattle Times in 2000, they had a slogan of "platinum service" to get the paper out to the customer how, when and where they wanted it. By 2005 when I took a voluntary layoff (before I might be forced to accept a lesser deal in one of what turned out to be three subsequent layoffs) the service motto had descended to "cheapest means of distribution possible, and good luck with that." If I recall correctly, I saw a reduction in staff from 2000-2005 from 200 to less than 80, and it was cut three more times after I left. Unfortunately, I don't think the newspaper industry was ever poised for success....they started dying in the early nineties, and what we're seeing now are more like death spasms.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I used to work in management for the circulation department of three major newspapers at various times in the past ( jumped ship three years ago to a completely different field ) .
I can safely tell you that in all likelihood your local paper attempted cost-cutting measures in their circulation department , reducing staff , salaries and probably a massive reduction in the number of independent contractors they rely on for morning distribution .
This has been ongoing in the industry for the two decades I was involved in it , and led to an inevitable decline in service .
When I worked for the Seattle Times in 2000 , they had a slogan of " platinum service " to get the paper out to the customer how , when and where they wanted it .
By 2005 when I took a voluntary layoff ( before I might be forced to accept a lesser deal in one of what turned out to be three subsequent layoffs ) the service motto had descended to " cheapest means of distribution possible , and good luck with that .
" If I recall correctly , I saw a reduction in staff from 2000-2005 from 200 to less than 80 , and it was cut three more times after I left .
Unfortunately , I do n't think the newspaper industry was ever poised for success....they started dying in the early nineties , and what we 're seeing now are more like death spasms .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I used to work in management for the circulation department of three major newspapers at various times in the past (jumped ship three years ago to a completely different field).
I can safely tell you that in all likelihood your local paper attempted cost-cutting measures in their circulation department, reducing staff, salaries and probably a massive reduction in the number of independent contractors they rely on for morning distribution.
This has been ongoing in the industry for the two decades I was involved in it, and led to an inevitable decline in service.
When I worked for the Seattle Times in 2000, they had a slogan of "platinum service" to get the paper out to the customer how, when and where they wanted it.
By 2005 when I took a voluntary layoff (before I might be forced to accept a lesser deal in one of what turned out to be three subsequent layoffs) the service motto had descended to "cheapest means of distribution possible, and good luck with that.
" If I recall correctly, I saw a reduction in staff from 2000-2005 from 200 to less than 80, and it was cut three more times after I left.
Unfortunately, I don't think the newspaper industry was ever poised for success....they started dying in the early nineties, and what we're seeing now are more like death spasms.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2131236.29903247</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2131236.29903445</id>
	<title>Re:first</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256728560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Undoing accidental +1 Interesting when I meant to hit -1 Offtopic.</p><p>(Can we have an "undo moderation" button that appears for 5 seconds?)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Undoing accidental + 1 Interesting when I meant to hit -1 Offtopic .
( Can we have an " undo moderation " button that appears for 5 seconds ?
)</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Undoing accidental +1 Interesting when I meant to hit -1 Offtopic.
(Can we have an "undo moderation" button that appears for 5 seconds?
)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2131236.29903095</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2131236.29903431</id>
	<title>Dinosaurmedia</title>
	<author>patrickthbold</author>
	<datestamp>1256728500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I saw the dinosaurmedia tag and thought this article was about something much cooler.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I saw the dinosaurmedia tag and thought this article was about something much cooler .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I saw the dinosaurmedia tag and thought this article was about something much cooler.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2131236.29904777</id>
	<title>I still read them, but for half price</title>
	<author>bobjr94</author>
	<datestamp>1256736660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>You can get the Sunday paper for 1$ at most walmarts or a dollar store. To get the Sunday paper delivered is like 8$ a month (Hummm 4 x 1$ = 4$)</htmltext>
<tokenext>You can get the Sunday paper for 1 $ at most walmarts or a dollar store .
To get the Sunday paper delivered is like 8 $ a month ( Hummm 4 x 1 $ = 4 $ )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You can get the Sunday paper for 1$ at most walmarts or a dollar store.
To get the Sunday paper delivered is like 8$ a month (Hummm 4 x 1$ = 4$)</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2131236.29905063</id>
	<title>Public notices are the classified of last resort</title>
	<author>HongPong</author>
	<datestamp>1256738580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I worked for a few years in independent &amp; corporate journalism, going from an independent (generally centrist) newsletter/news aggregation into a corporate newspaper company.</p><p>The culture clash between the digital style and the old print style was really right in the middle of things. And another key revenue factor that you can't get online: legally mandated classifieds, or 'public notice publishing,' in particular residential foreclosures.</p><p>If you're an electronic publisher you can't really capture the revenue stream from these government-mandated notices. They are a 20th century legacy and a major revenue source for smaller papers.</p><p>It is very successful to work on small niche audiences and develop long-running ad relationships with a few people. Going with bigger news 'targets' is a really tough proposition right now. Better to build sites in Drupal than try to make money in journalism, that's my new tack<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:-)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I worked for a few years in independent &amp; corporate journalism , going from an independent ( generally centrist ) newsletter/news aggregation into a corporate newspaper company.The culture clash between the digital style and the old print style was really right in the middle of things .
And another key revenue factor that you ca n't get online : legally mandated classifieds , or 'public notice publishing, ' in particular residential foreclosures.If you 're an electronic publisher you ca n't really capture the revenue stream from these government-mandated notices .
They are a 20th century legacy and a major revenue source for smaller papers.It is very successful to work on small niche audiences and develop long-running ad relationships with a few people .
Going with bigger news 'targets ' is a really tough proposition right now .
Better to build sites in Drupal than try to make money in journalism , that 's my new tack : - )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I worked for a few years in independent &amp; corporate journalism, going from an independent (generally centrist) newsletter/news aggregation into a corporate newspaper company.The culture clash between the digital style and the old print style was really right in the middle of things.
And another key revenue factor that you can't get online: legally mandated classifieds, or 'public notice publishing,' in particular residential foreclosures.If you're an electronic publisher you can't really capture the revenue stream from these government-mandated notices.
They are a 20th century legacy and a major revenue source for smaller papers.It is very successful to work on small niche audiences and develop long-running ad relationships with a few people.
Going with bigger news 'targets' is a really tough proposition right now.
Better to build sites in Drupal than try to make money in journalism, that's my new tack :-)</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2131236.29908611</id>
	<title>Re:By the time you read it ...</title>
	<author>unityofsaints</author>
	<datestamp>1256821800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>... which is one of the strengths of newspaper journalism! CNN, Fox etc. (both t.v. &amp; online) have this mad obsession with serving up "up-to-date, latest developments" that half of what they report gets contradicted half an hour later anyway. They throw out semi-speculation in the hope they'll "get it right" ahead of other stations but in the end it's just noise.
Newspapers can have this problem too, because they're coming up to a deadline, but usually they err on the side of caution and only include what's known to be true. The other good side effect of the deadline is that a certain amount of reflection can be included. You get a sense that it's the "bigger picture". T.V. and the internet just trips over itself with minute-by-minute updates.</p><p>
Don't get me wrong, sometimes you need to be in the known, like the Olympics 2016 voting (I followed the BBC blog for that) but more often than not I enjoy the distance papers put between the news item and the reader.</p><p>Another underrated advantage of the newspaper is the medium itself. Sure, it's awkward flicking through the pages of a broadsheet on a bus but there's big, high-quality photographs and an eye-friendly column size. Too often websites make columns too wide, resulting in eye-strain no matter what way you resize your browser. And please don't tell me a news photograph on your TFT looks as good as in print- if it does you must be a graphic designer with a 2,000$ screen. Besides, we spend most of our lives in front of screens anyway, do I really have to get my news off one?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>... which is one of the strengths of newspaper journalism !
CNN , Fox etc .
( both t.v .
&amp; online ) have this mad obsession with serving up " up-to-date , latest developments " that half of what they report gets contradicted half an hour later anyway .
They throw out semi-speculation in the hope they 'll " get it right " ahead of other stations but in the end it 's just noise .
Newspapers can have this problem too , because they 're coming up to a deadline , but usually they err on the side of caution and only include what 's known to be true .
The other good side effect of the deadline is that a certain amount of reflection can be included .
You get a sense that it 's the " bigger picture " .
T.V. and the internet just trips over itself with minute-by-minute updates .
Do n't get me wrong , sometimes you need to be in the known , like the Olympics 2016 voting ( I followed the BBC blog for that ) but more often than not I enjoy the distance papers put between the news item and the reader.Another underrated advantage of the newspaper is the medium itself .
Sure , it 's awkward flicking through the pages of a broadsheet on a bus but there 's big , high-quality photographs and an eye-friendly column size .
Too often websites make columns too wide , resulting in eye-strain no matter what way you resize your browser .
And please do n't tell me a news photograph on your TFT looks as good as in print- if it does you must be a graphic designer with a 2,000 $ screen .
Besides , we spend most of our lives in front of screens anyway , do I really have to get my news off one ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>... which is one of the strengths of newspaper journalism!
CNN, Fox etc.
(both t.v.
&amp; online) have this mad obsession with serving up "up-to-date, latest developments" that half of what they report gets contradicted half an hour later anyway.
They throw out semi-speculation in the hope they'll "get it right" ahead of other stations but in the end it's just noise.
Newspapers can have this problem too, because they're coming up to a deadline, but usually they err on the side of caution and only include what's known to be true.
The other good side effect of the deadline is that a certain amount of reflection can be included.
You get a sense that it's the "bigger picture".
T.V. and the internet just trips over itself with minute-by-minute updates.
Don't get me wrong, sometimes you need to be in the known, like the Olympics 2016 voting (I followed the BBC blog for that) but more often than not I enjoy the distance papers put between the news item and the reader.Another underrated advantage of the newspaper is the medium itself.
Sure, it's awkward flicking through the pages of a broadsheet on a bus but there's big, high-quality photographs and an eye-friendly column size.
Too often websites make columns too wide, resulting in eye-strain no matter what way you resize your browser.
And please don't tell me a news photograph on your TFT looks as good as in print- if it does you must be a graphic designer with a 2,000$ screen.
Besides, we spend most of our lives in front of screens anyway, do I really have to get my news off one?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2131236.29903203</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2131236.29908451</id>
	<title>Re:Any alternatives?</title>
	<author>Paradigma11</author>
	<datestamp>1256820000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I can't see modern journalism producing such people either.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I ca n't see modern journalism producing such people either .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I can't see modern journalism producing such people either.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2131236.29903235</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2131236.29903273</id>
	<title>Weakest Link</title>
	<author>mindbrane</author>
	<datestamp>1256727720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>My best guess is news outlets that have deep links and high tech will win out. My best back of the envelope strategy would be to embed news stories in elective layers of deepening context. Readers would be able to elect to go ever deeper into a news story and link to information nodes that would shed light on how news events impact their neighbourhood, income level, etc. You should be able to enter a news story at a world wide level and exit at the neighbourhood mall. The problem would be how to allow for in depth news reporting without the content being lost in a jungle of links. National news outlets have the ability to provide just such coverage. The News\_paper\_ is dead, news reporting has morphed and the readership has morphed to meet the new coverage. The message is still strong, it's the medium that needs to change.</htmltext>
<tokenext>My best guess is news outlets that have deep links and high tech will win out .
My best back of the envelope strategy would be to embed news stories in elective layers of deepening context .
Readers would be able to elect to go ever deeper into a news story and link to information nodes that would shed light on how news events impact their neighbourhood , income level , etc .
You should be able to enter a news story at a world wide level and exit at the neighbourhood mall .
The problem would be how to allow for in depth news reporting without the content being lost in a jungle of links .
National news outlets have the ability to provide just such coverage .
The News \ _paper \ _ is dead , news reporting has morphed and the readership has morphed to meet the new coverage .
The message is still strong , it 's the medium that needs to change .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>My best guess is news outlets that have deep links and high tech will win out.
My best back of the envelope strategy would be to embed news stories in elective layers of deepening context.
Readers would be able to elect to go ever deeper into a news story and link to information nodes that would shed light on how news events impact their neighbourhood, income level, etc.
You should be able to enter a news story at a world wide level and exit at the neighbourhood mall.
The problem would be how to allow for in depth news reporting without the content being lost in a jungle of links.
National news outlets have the ability to provide just such coverage.
The News\_paper\_ is dead, news reporting has morphed and the readership has morphed to meet the new coverage.
The message is still strong, it's the medium that needs to change.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2131236.29906919</id>
	<title>Re:Evolve or die.....</title>
	<author>Splab</author>
	<datestamp>1256754540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The reason why I don't buy newpapers is exactly because of the lack of intelligence and spelling, I feel dumber when I've read a newspaper.</p><p>Also, quite a lot of the danish newspapers are no better than bloggers, they pick up news from sites like Fark and translate them to danish, why would I pay for that?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The reason why I do n't buy newpapers is exactly because of the lack of intelligence and spelling , I feel dumber when I 've read a newspaper.Also , quite a lot of the danish newspapers are no better than bloggers , they pick up news from sites like Fark and translate them to danish , why would I pay for that ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The reason why I don't buy newpapers is exactly because of the lack of intelligence and spelling, I feel dumber when I've read a newspaper.Also, quite a lot of the danish newspapers are no better than bloggers, they pick up news from sites like Fark and translate them to danish, why would I pay for that?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2131236.29905043</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2131236.29949154</id>
	<title>Re:Evolve or die.....</title>
	<author>MightyDrunken</author>
	<datestamp>1257168540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>This sounds so cool. I dreamed of such a device when I delivered newspapers, especially on Sundays when only a few papers filled my bag. At the time I imagined delivering the content as memory chips, this was before most people had a mobile phone.

The question I have is who in Apple has these ideas? It sounds like something Google could have done, or even Microsoft.</htmltext>
<tokenext>This sounds so cool .
I dreamed of such a device when I delivered newspapers , especially on Sundays when only a few papers filled my bag .
At the time I imagined delivering the content as memory chips , this was before most people had a mobile phone .
The question I have is who in Apple has these ideas ?
It sounds like something Google could have done , or even Microsoft .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This sounds so cool.
I dreamed of such a device when I delivered newspapers, especially on Sundays when only a few papers filled my bag.
At the time I imagined delivering the content as memory chips, this was before most people had a mobile phone.
The question I have is who in Apple has these ideas?
It sounds like something Google could have done, or even Microsoft.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2131236.29903713</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2131236.29903757</id>
	<title>Re:Evolve or die.....</title>
	<author>PaganRitual</author>
	<datestamp>1256730480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>They are great for commentary but don't produce original news, unless if there is an agenda.</p></div><p>Yes, yes, but what about the newspaper alternatives?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>They are great for commentary but do n't produce original news , unless if there is an agenda.Yes , yes , but what about the newspaper alternatives ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>They are great for commentary but don't produce original news, unless if there is an agenda.Yes, yes, but what about the newspaper alternatives?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2131236.29903337</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2131236.29906875</id>
	<title>"inacuracies"</title>
	<author>seifried</author>
	<datestamp>1256753880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>If this was intentional; bravo. If not, HAA-HAA.</htmltext>
<tokenext>If this was intentional ; bravo .
If not , HAA-HAA .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If this was intentional; bravo.
If not, HAA-HAA.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2131236.29905043</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2131236.29906999</id>
	<title>Re:No integrity</title>
	<author>Rocketship Underpant</author>
	<datestamp>1256755560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I call them the "legacy media" instead of mainstream, which they no longer are.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I call them the " legacy media " instead of mainstream , which they no longer are .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I call them the "legacy media" instead of mainstream, which they no longer are.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2131236.29904005</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2131236.29903229</id>
	<title>I'm ruined!</title>
	<author>sizzzzlerz</author>
	<datestamp>1256727480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Along with my investments in Trans-Atlantic Zeppelins and Amalgamated Spats, my newspaper stocks are worthless!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Along with my investments in Trans-Atlantic Zeppelins and Amalgamated Spats , my newspaper stocks are worthless !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Along with my investments in Trans-Atlantic Zeppelins and Amalgamated Spats, my newspaper stocks are worthless!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2131236.29908077</id>
	<title>Re:By the time you read it ...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256814420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>News - a deluge of unrelated assertions taken out of context and only related by the day they happened.</p><p>What's wrong with taking a day to check the 'facts' of politicians and business leaders, getting the opinions of experts and evaluating what people say. Even if it takes a day. News papers *could* do this.</p><p>These days we seem to get a self generating media shitstorm going before anyone has even verified the facts of a story. Then it is forgotten when the next media sensation comes along.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>News - a deluge of unrelated assertions taken out of context and only related by the day they happened.What 's wrong with taking a day to check the 'facts ' of politicians and business leaders , getting the opinions of experts and evaluating what people say .
Even if it takes a day .
News papers * could * do this.These days we seem to get a self generating media shitstorm going before anyone has even verified the facts of a story .
Then it is forgotten when the next media sensation comes along .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>News - a deluge of unrelated assertions taken out of context and only related by the day they happened.What's wrong with taking a day to check the 'facts' of politicians and business leaders, getting the opinions of experts and evaluating what people say.
Even if it takes a day.
News papers *could* do this.These days we seem to get a self generating media shitstorm going before anyone has even verified the facts of a story.
Then it is forgotten when the next media sensation comes along.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2131236.29903203</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2131236.29909285</id>
	<title>It's the economic decline and the pop culture.</title>
	<author>master\_p</author>
	<datestamp>1256826720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The economic decline has forced newspapers to limit true journalism, which requires extensive (and expensive) research.</p><p>A second reason for the decline of newspapers is the explosion of the pop culture. The majority of people no longer care about issues, they care about entertainment, and newspapers don't offer that.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The economic decline has forced newspapers to limit true journalism , which requires extensive ( and expensive ) research.A second reason for the decline of newspapers is the explosion of the pop culture .
The majority of people no longer care about issues , they care about entertainment , and newspapers do n't offer that .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The economic decline has forced newspapers to limit true journalism, which requires extensive (and expensive) research.A second reason for the decline of newspapers is the explosion of the pop culture.
The majority of people no longer care about issues, they care about entertainment, and newspapers don't offer that.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2131236.29903123</id>
	<title>Are you surprised?</title>
	<author>B5\_geek</author>
	<datestamp>1256727060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>In other news, water is wet.</p><p>The last Buggy-Whip manufacturer was heard gloating with his buddy the Spittoon manufacturer about how they had 100\% market share in their respected fields.</p><p>
&nbsp;</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>In other news , water is wet.The last Buggy-Whip manufacturer was heard gloating with his buddy the Spittoon manufacturer about how they had 100 \ % market share in their respected fields .
 </tokentext>
<sentencetext>In other news, water is wet.The last Buggy-Whip manufacturer was heard gloating with his buddy the Spittoon manufacturer about how they had 100\% market share in their respected fields.
 </sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2131236.29905359</id>
	<title>Re:I look forward to the edifying spectacle...</title>
	<author>SEE</author>
	<datestamp>1256741040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Question: would Wired and the Huffington Post have broken the Watergate scandal? Do they even have the resources?</p></div><p>What sort of resources do you need to re-write an investigation file handed you by an associate director of the FBI?  The legend of investigative journalism is just that--a legend.  We already have a fully-functional replacement for Woodward &amp; Bernstein, it's called Wikileaks.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Question : would Wired and the Huffington Post have broken the Watergate scandal ?
Do they even have the resources ? What sort of resources do you need to re-write an investigation file handed you by an associate director of the FBI ?
The legend of investigative journalism is just that--a legend .
We already have a fully-functional replacement for Woodward &amp; Bernstein , it 's called Wikileaks .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Question: would Wired and the Huffington Post have broken the Watergate scandal?
Do they even have the resources?What sort of resources do you need to re-write an investigation file handed you by an associate director of the FBI?
The legend of investigative journalism is just that--a legend.
We already have a fully-functional replacement for Woodward &amp; Bernstein, it's called Wikileaks.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2131236.29903425</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2131236.29906657</id>
	<title>Advertising Cost</title>
	<author>zodwallopp</author>
	<datestamp>1256751360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I don't understand why newspapers charge pennies on the dollar for ads.  Why not charge print ad prices?  It's up to them what they think the advertising is worth, and if readership is up online doesn't that support the case that it's worth more?  Blogs are not serious competition for a newspaper website, most people I know who are untech savvy but still read news online go directly to their local newspaper's site.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I do n't understand why newspapers charge pennies on the dollar for ads .
Why not charge print ad prices ?
It 's up to them what they think the advertising is worth , and if readership is up online does n't that support the case that it 's worth more ?
Blogs are not serious competition for a newspaper website , most people I know who are untech savvy but still read news online go directly to their local newspaper 's site .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I don't understand why newspapers charge pennies on the dollar for ads.
Why not charge print ad prices?
It's up to them what they think the advertising is worth, and if readership is up online doesn't that support the case that it's worth more?
Blogs are not serious competition for a newspaper website, most people I know who are untech savvy but still read news online go directly to their local newspaper's site.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2131236.29905889</id>
	<title>Re:I look forward to the edifying spectacle...</title>
	<author>DNS-and-BIND</author>
	<datestamp>1256744580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><i>I'd being willing to bet if Woodward and Bernstein were to try to break Watergate today, Nixon would call up the Washington Posts management/editors and it would be killed before it saw the light of day because the management of most papers today are pro establishment and pro corporate interests instead of a beacon of truth and freedom.</i> <p>A bright, shining lie.  Watergate has assumed mythical proportions and needs a good debunking, which it will of course never get.  Watergate was a disgruntled political appointee abusing his position to get petty revenge.  Nothing more.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'd being willing to bet if Woodward and Bernstein were to try to break Watergate today , Nixon would call up the Washington Posts management/editors and it would be killed before it saw the light of day because the management of most papers today are pro establishment and pro corporate interests instead of a beacon of truth and freedom .
A bright , shining lie .
Watergate has assumed mythical proportions and needs a good debunking , which it will of course never get .
Watergate was a disgruntled political appointee abusing his position to get petty revenge .
Nothing more .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'd being willing to bet if Woodward and Bernstein were to try to break Watergate today, Nixon would call up the Washington Posts management/editors and it would be killed before it saw the light of day because the management of most papers today are pro establishment and pro corporate interests instead of a beacon of truth and freedom.
A bright, shining lie.
Watergate has assumed mythical proportions and needs a good debunking, which it will of course never get.
Watergate was a disgruntled political appointee abusing his position to get petty revenge.
Nothing more.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2131236.29903943</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2131236.29906667</id>
	<title>Re:I look forward to the edifying spectacle...</title>
	<author>internic</author>
	<datestamp>1256751420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>The U.S. press was pretty much asleep at the wheel during Iraq, Patriot Act abuses, torture, warrantless spying on Americans on a massive scale, etc.</p></div>
</blockquote><p>
US newspapers broke stories on the torture memos, secret CIA prisons, extraordinary rendition, and warrantless wiretapping (off the top of my head).  Many of these required extensive investigative work.  I can certainly imagine that you might wish they'd done even more, but it isn't reasonable to ignore the work they did do.
</p><blockquote><div><p>The NY Times did break the warrantless wiretap story but only after it had been running for years.</p></div>
</blockquote><p>
So your argument is what?  Better never than late?  Was anyone else even close to revealing it?  Would we have found out from the Drudge Report, or the Huffington Post, or Meghan McCain's twitter feed?
</p><p>
Real long-term journalistic investigations are quite important to a properly functioning society.  From what I can see, newspapers are currently the only ones who really fill that role.  They may, indeed, do the job imperfectly, but if they go away without something else to take up the slack we will be worse off for it.
</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>The U.S. press was pretty much asleep at the wheel during Iraq , Patriot Act abuses , torture , warrantless spying on Americans on a massive scale , etc .
US newspapers broke stories on the torture memos , secret CIA prisons , extraordinary rendition , and warrantless wiretapping ( off the top of my head ) .
Many of these required extensive investigative work .
I can certainly imagine that you might wish they 'd done even more , but it is n't reasonable to ignore the work they did do .
The NY Times did break the warrantless wiretap story but only after it had been running for years .
So your argument is what ?
Better never than late ?
Was anyone else even close to revealing it ?
Would we have found out from the Drudge Report , or the Huffington Post , or Meghan McCain 's twitter feed ?
Real long-term journalistic investigations are quite important to a properly functioning society .
From what I can see , newspapers are currently the only ones who really fill that role .
They may , indeed , do the job imperfectly , but if they go away without something else to take up the slack we will be worse off for it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The U.S. press was pretty much asleep at the wheel during Iraq, Patriot Act abuses, torture, warrantless spying on Americans on a massive scale, etc.
US newspapers broke stories on the torture memos, secret CIA prisons, extraordinary rendition, and warrantless wiretapping (off the top of my head).
Many of these required extensive investigative work.
I can certainly imagine that you might wish they'd done even more, but it isn't reasonable to ignore the work they did do.
The NY Times did break the warrantless wiretap story but only after it had been running for years.
So your argument is what?
Better never than late?
Was anyone else even close to revealing it?
Would we have found out from the Drudge Report, or the Huffington Post, or Meghan McCain's twitter feed?
Real long-term journalistic investigations are quite important to a properly functioning society.
From what I can see, newspapers are currently the only ones who really fill that role.
They may, indeed, do the job imperfectly, but if they go away without something else to take up the slack we will be worse off for it.

	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2131236.29903943</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2131236.29903629</id>
	<title>Re:Evolve or die.....</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256729640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Bell offered the Telephone to Western Union --- who rejected it.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Bell offered the Telephone to Western Union --- who rejected it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Bell offered the Telephone to Western Union --- who rejected it.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2131236.29903103</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2131236.29906189</id>
	<title>Dying Journalism?</title>
	<author>DesScorp</author>
	<datestamp>1256747220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"<b>This is dying and has been for years.</b>"</p><p>Not really. Media outlets are just becoming more honest about their biases. Everyone still does real reporting. It never stopped. They just cover it from a favored angle. If anything, I'd say we're better off now. There's a network (sometimes more) for every point of view now. The British Press... the Times, the Guardian, etc, have been open about their opinions for years. But they still do quality journalism.  The American Press is basically adapting that model now.</p><p>"<b>Editors, and more importantly their owners (http://www.thenation.com/special/bigten.html) prefer light, cheap puff pieces </b>"</p><p>Sometimes. Puff pieces can be profitable too.</p><p>"<b>that don't disturb the citizenry</b>"</p><p>Oh please. "Disturbing the citizenry" is Job One for the press... <i>all</i> of it. Disturbing headlines sell the most papers and get the biggest ratings. Swine Flu, anyone? If anything, the press has become <i>more</i> hysterical at times like these.</p><p>"<b>alert them to little things like the fact that the treasuries of the world are being looted by the worlds wealthy</b>"</p><p>Really? Who are these guys that are looting the treasuries? You make it sound like the Gates and Buffetts of the world went in with guns and bags and a note for the teller. Treasuries <i>are</i> being depleted, but I see populations across the world that want more benefits without wanting to pay for them. By far the biggest expenditures in the US are the entitlement programs... social security and medicare. I'd hardly blame that on "the rich".</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" This is dying and has been for years .
" Not really .
Media outlets are just becoming more honest about their biases .
Everyone still does real reporting .
It never stopped .
They just cover it from a favored angle .
If anything , I 'd say we 're better off now .
There 's a network ( sometimes more ) for every point of view now .
The British Press... the Times , the Guardian , etc , have been open about their opinions for years .
But they still do quality journalism .
The American Press is basically adapting that model now .
" Editors , and more importantly their owners ( http : //www.thenation.com/special/bigten.html ) prefer light , cheap puff pieces " Sometimes .
Puff pieces can be profitable too .
" that do n't disturb the citizenry " Oh please .
" Disturbing the citizenry " is Job One for the press... all of it .
Disturbing headlines sell the most papers and get the biggest ratings .
Swine Flu , anyone ?
If anything , the press has become more hysterical at times like these .
" alert them to little things like the fact that the treasuries of the world are being looted by the worlds wealthy " Really ?
Who are these guys that are looting the treasuries ?
You make it sound like the Gates and Buffetts of the world went in with guns and bags and a note for the teller .
Treasuries are being depleted , but I see populations across the world that want more benefits without wanting to pay for them .
By far the biggest expenditures in the US are the entitlement programs... social security and medicare .
I 'd hardly blame that on " the rich " .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"This is dying and has been for years.
"Not really.
Media outlets are just becoming more honest about their biases.
Everyone still does real reporting.
It never stopped.
They just cover it from a favored angle.
If anything, I'd say we're better off now.
There's a network (sometimes more) for every point of view now.
The British Press... the Times, the Guardian, etc, have been open about their opinions for years.
But they still do quality journalism.
The American Press is basically adapting that model now.
"Editors, and more importantly their owners (http://www.thenation.com/special/bigten.html) prefer light, cheap puff pieces "Sometimes.
Puff pieces can be profitable too.
"that don't disturb the citizenry"Oh please.
"Disturbing the citizenry" is Job One for the press... all of it.
Disturbing headlines sell the most papers and get the biggest ratings.
Swine Flu, anyone?
If anything, the press has become more hysterical at times like these.
"alert them to little things like the fact that the treasuries of the world are being looted by the worlds wealthy"Really?
Who are these guys that are looting the treasuries?
You make it sound like the Gates and Buffetts of the world went in with guns and bags and a note for the teller.
Treasuries are being depleted, but I see populations across the world that want more benefits without wanting to pay for them.
By far the biggest expenditures in the US are the entitlement programs... social security and medicare.
I'd hardly blame that on "the rich".</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2131236.29903421</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2131236.29906933</id>
	<title>Alvin Toffler warned about this in 1980.</title>
	<author>MtViewGuy</author>
	<datestamp>1256754780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>What I find fascinating about the decline of newspapers comes from the fact well-known futurist and author Alvin Toffler warned about this very thing happening nearly 30 years ago in perhaps his most famous book, <i>The Third Wave</i>.</p><p>I suggest you pick up a copy and read the shockingly prophetic chapter, "De-Massifying the Media." Toffler wrote that with improving communication technologies, the days of mass media companies having a hammerlock on news distribution will come to an end. Since this book's publication in 1980, the rise of first proprietary online services in the 1980's and the public Internet in the 1990's allowed an end-run of news reporting around the mass media companies, and today we can can news in <i>real time</i> sent even to "smart" cellphones like a Blackberry or iPhone--including real-time video! And the public Internet has made it possible for the rise in citizen journalism--the so-called "pajamas media" as some pundits call it.Finally, the rise of eBay and Craigslist has effectively killed a huge fraction of newspaper revenue--classified advertising.</p><p>With cheap laptop computers (you can get a decently-equipped Windows 7 full laptop computer for around US$500-US$600) equipped with 801.11b/g/n connectivity, small wonder why people are getting their news from a computer nowadays, not from reading the paper delivered once a day or watching the once-a-day even network news broadcast.</p><p>Apple's much-rumored tablet computer could be perhaps the last hope for newspaper organizations--you will get highly-formatted digital versions of newspapers automatically delivered to this computer either by 3G cellular wireless or Wi-Fi to be read when you wake up in the morning.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>What I find fascinating about the decline of newspapers comes from the fact well-known futurist and author Alvin Toffler warned about this very thing happening nearly 30 years ago in perhaps his most famous book , The Third Wave.I suggest you pick up a copy and read the shockingly prophetic chapter , " De-Massifying the Media .
" Toffler wrote that with improving communication technologies , the days of mass media companies having a hammerlock on news distribution will come to an end .
Since this book 's publication in 1980 , the rise of first proprietary online services in the 1980 's and the public Internet in the 1990 's allowed an end-run of news reporting around the mass media companies , and today we can can news in real time sent even to " smart " cellphones like a Blackberry or iPhone--including real-time video !
And the public Internet has made it possible for the rise in citizen journalism--the so-called " pajamas media " as some pundits call it.Finally , the rise of eBay and Craigslist has effectively killed a huge fraction of newspaper revenue--classified advertising.With cheap laptop computers ( you can get a decently-equipped Windows 7 full laptop computer for around US $ 500-US $ 600 ) equipped with 801.11b/g/n connectivity , small wonder why people are getting their news from a computer nowadays , not from reading the paper delivered once a day or watching the once-a-day even network news broadcast.Apple 's much-rumored tablet computer could be perhaps the last hope for newspaper organizations--you will get highly-formatted digital versions of newspapers automatically delivered to this computer either by 3G cellular wireless or Wi-Fi to be read when you wake up in the morning .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What I find fascinating about the decline of newspapers comes from the fact well-known futurist and author Alvin Toffler warned about this very thing happening nearly 30 years ago in perhaps his most famous book, The Third Wave.I suggest you pick up a copy and read the shockingly prophetic chapter, "De-Massifying the Media.
" Toffler wrote that with improving communication technologies, the days of mass media companies having a hammerlock on news distribution will come to an end.
Since this book's publication in 1980, the rise of first proprietary online services in the 1980's and the public Internet in the 1990's allowed an end-run of news reporting around the mass media companies, and today we can can news in real time sent even to "smart" cellphones like a Blackberry or iPhone--including real-time video!
And the public Internet has made it possible for the rise in citizen journalism--the so-called "pajamas media" as some pundits call it.Finally, the rise of eBay and Craigslist has effectively killed a huge fraction of newspaper revenue--classified advertising.With cheap laptop computers (you can get a decently-equipped Windows 7 full laptop computer for around US$500-US$600) equipped with 801.11b/g/n connectivity, small wonder why people are getting their news from a computer nowadays, not from reading the paper delivered once a day or watching the once-a-day even network news broadcast.Apple's much-rumored tablet computer could be perhaps the last hope for newspaper organizations--you will get highly-formatted digital versions of newspapers automatically delivered to this computer either by 3G cellular wireless or Wi-Fi to be read when you wake up in the morning.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2131236.29904335</id>
	<title>Re:Why are ads so much cheaper online though?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256734140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Print ads (or any advertising not on the internet) is incredibly difficult to ACTUALLY link with increased sales. It's all assumption-based guesswork (or statistics). However, online the actually impact of the ad on viewers behavior is measurable (click-throughs, purchases, even views are more knowable).</p><p>The ultimate fact demonstrated by internet advertising is that ads do not have the market impact they've been made out to have. Because it is knowable online, and the impact is demonstrably so low, the costs must necessarily be low as companies won't pay for something they know they aren't getting a return on. Companies haven't yet been convinced that outside the internet their ads are having the same minimal impact (or worse, by being more intrusive) and are instead using old unsubstantiated estimates (a.k.a. industry standards).</p><p>Forced or injected advertising doesn't work but we could never really demonstrate it offline. Online we know it doesn't work, so the price is set accordingly. Hopefully we'll recognize the truth of this offline and stop with the advertising. I'm perfectly happy to pay a fair price for content without the ads. If I need to know about some products, I'll do research (consumerist, here I come).</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Print ads ( or any advertising not on the internet ) is incredibly difficult to ACTUALLY link with increased sales .
It 's all assumption-based guesswork ( or statistics ) .
However , online the actually impact of the ad on viewers behavior is measurable ( click-throughs , purchases , even views are more knowable ) .The ultimate fact demonstrated by internet advertising is that ads do not have the market impact they 've been made out to have .
Because it is knowable online , and the impact is demonstrably so low , the costs must necessarily be low as companies wo n't pay for something they know they are n't getting a return on .
Companies have n't yet been convinced that outside the internet their ads are having the same minimal impact ( or worse , by being more intrusive ) and are instead using old unsubstantiated estimates ( a.k.a .
industry standards ) .Forced or injected advertising does n't work but we could never really demonstrate it offline .
Online we know it does n't work , so the price is set accordingly .
Hopefully we 'll recognize the truth of this offline and stop with the advertising .
I 'm perfectly happy to pay a fair price for content without the ads .
If I need to know about some products , I 'll do research ( consumerist , here I come ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Print ads (or any advertising not on the internet) is incredibly difficult to ACTUALLY link with increased sales.
It's all assumption-based guesswork (or statistics).
However, online the actually impact of the ad on viewers behavior is measurable (click-throughs, purchases, even views are more knowable).The ultimate fact demonstrated by internet advertising is that ads do not have the market impact they've been made out to have.
Because it is knowable online, and the impact is demonstrably so low, the costs must necessarily be low as companies won't pay for something they know they aren't getting a return on.
Companies haven't yet been convinced that outside the internet their ads are having the same minimal impact (or worse, by being more intrusive) and are instead using old unsubstantiated estimates (a.k.a.
industry standards).Forced or injected advertising doesn't work but we could never really demonstrate it offline.
Online we know it doesn't work, so the price is set accordingly.
Hopefully we'll recognize the truth of this offline and stop with the advertising.
I'm perfectly happy to pay a fair price for content without the ads.
If I need to know about some products, I'll do research (consumerist, here I come).</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2131236.29903313</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2131236.29907839</id>
	<title>Stopped reading when the price got too high</title>
	<author>LostMyBeaver</author>
	<datestamp>1256810760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>It's a catch 22, the paper costs more because they can't demand the advertising prices. They can't demand the advertising prices because there aren't enough readers anymore.<br><br>Fact is, specially formatted news papers that can be viewed with news paper style type setting on a device like a Kindle as well as allow printing of sections to Letter/A4 pages would be the way I would buy a subscription.</htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's a catch 22 , the paper costs more because they ca n't demand the advertising prices .
They ca n't demand the advertising prices because there are n't enough readers anymore.Fact is , specially formatted news papers that can be viewed with news paper style type setting on a device like a Kindle as well as allow printing of sections to Letter/A4 pages would be the way I would buy a subscription .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's a catch 22, the paper costs more because they can't demand the advertising prices.
They can't demand the advertising prices because there aren't enough readers anymore.Fact is, specially formatted news papers that can be viewed with news paper style type setting on a device like a Kindle as well as allow printing of sections to Letter/A4 pages would be the way I would buy a subscription.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2131236.29904391</id>
	<title>Re:Evolve or die.....</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256734380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Subscription cost would have to be <i>higher</i> if the content was devoid of the usual Newspaper ads.
<br> <br>That's the whole point of the newspaper to sell advertising space.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Subscription cost would have to be higher if the content was devoid of the usual Newspaper ads .
That 's the whole point of the newspaper to sell advertising space .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Subscription cost would have to be higher if the content was devoid of the usual Newspaper ads.
That's the whole point of the newspaper to sell advertising space.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2131236.29903713</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2131236.29903437</id>
	<title>Re:Any alternatives?</title>
	<author>DragonWriter</author>
	<datestamp>1256728500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>I'm not sure I see this as a good thing. There's no obvious alternatives to salaried journalists in national papers who are willing to dig in and develop a good story.</p></div></blockquote><p>There also are essentially none of those left in the national papers, so the lack of an "alternative" is less relevant. Actually, with many papers retooling to shift toward less focus on advertisers for revenue and more focus on readers, there is a good chance that the decline in per-paper circulation will <i>revive</i> journalism, as the business of the papers becomes, once again, delivering news to readers, rather than delivering an audience to advertisers while avoiding offending those same advertisers.</p><blockquote><div><p>I just can't see the internet producing people like Bernstein and Woodward, Nancy Maynard, Anna Quindlen and others like them.</p></div></blockquote><p>While you don't see a lot of people like that in any media, at any time, the internet sure isn't doing any worse of a job of producing investigative reporters than the modern print dailies. Which isn't meant, particularly, as praise of the internet news outlets.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm not sure I see this as a good thing .
There 's no obvious alternatives to salaried journalists in national papers who are willing to dig in and develop a good story.There also are essentially none of those left in the national papers , so the lack of an " alternative " is less relevant .
Actually , with many papers retooling to shift toward less focus on advertisers for revenue and more focus on readers , there is a good chance that the decline in per-paper circulation will revive journalism , as the business of the papers becomes , once again , delivering news to readers , rather than delivering an audience to advertisers while avoiding offending those same advertisers.I just ca n't see the internet producing people like Bernstein and Woodward , Nancy Maynard , Anna Quindlen and others like them.While you do n't see a lot of people like that in any media , at any time , the internet sure is n't doing any worse of a job of producing investigative reporters than the modern print dailies .
Which is n't meant , particularly , as praise of the internet news outlets .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm not sure I see this as a good thing.
There's no obvious alternatives to salaried journalists in national papers who are willing to dig in and develop a good story.There also are essentially none of those left in the national papers, so the lack of an "alternative" is less relevant.
Actually, with many papers retooling to shift toward less focus on advertisers for revenue and more focus on readers, there is a good chance that the decline in per-paper circulation will revive journalism, as the business of the papers becomes, once again, delivering news to readers, rather than delivering an audience to advertisers while avoiding offending those same advertisers.I just can't see the internet producing people like Bernstein and Woodward, Nancy Maynard, Anna Quindlen and others like them.While you don't see a lot of people like that in any media, at any time, the internet sure isn't doing any worse of a job of producing investigative reporters than the modern print dailies.
Which isn't meant, particularly, as praise of the internet news outlets.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2131236.29903235</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2131236.29909581</id>
	<title>Re:Evolve or die.....</title>
	<author>Chris Mattern</author>
	<datestamp>1256828220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Actually, the number of days you get credit doesn't mean much to the newspaper.  Your subscription money is a only a small fraction of their income, and doesn't even begin to cover the cost of publishing the paper.  It's the *advertisers* that make them their money, and as long as you're listed as a subscriber, you count towards their circulation figures that determine their ad rates, no matter how many days you get your subscription fee refunded.  Now, if you cancel your subscription, THAT will hurt them.  You should send a complaint to the circulation department and tell them that your lousy delivery service is making you consider cancelling.  If that doesn't make them sit up and take notice, nothing will.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Actually , the number of days you get credit does n't mean much to the newspaper .
Your subscription money is a only a small fraction of their income , and does n't even begin to cover the cost of publishing the paper .
It 's the * advertisers * that make them their money , and as long as you 're listed as a subscriber , you count towards their circulation figures that determine their ad rates , no matter how many days you get your subscription fee refunded .
Now , if you cancel your subscription , THAT will hurt them .
You should send a complaint to the circulation department and tell them that your lousy delivery service is making you consider cancelling .
If that does n't make them sit up and take notice , nothing will .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Actually, the number of days you get credit doesn't mean much to the newspaper.
Your subscription money is a only a small fraction of their income, and doesn't even begin to cover the cost of publishing the paper.
It's the *advertisers* that make them their money, and as long as you're listed as a subscriber, you count towards their circulation figures that determine their ad rates, no matter how many days you get your subscription fee refunded.
Now, if you cancel your subscription, THAT will hurt them.
You should send a complaint to the circulation department and tell them that your lousy delivery service is making you consider cancelling.
If that doesn't make them sit up and take notice, nothing will.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2131236.29903247</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2131236.29903725</id>
	<title>A Change of Times...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256730300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I am newspaper reader, though I'm also a Generation Now as well.  And I think the issue I face with a regular newspapers is that, although the story is completely relevant and maybe earth shattering.  I inevitably find myself going online to follow it minute by minute.  We already know that people have become increasingly impatient, especially with info and news on demand.  But newspapers and magazine articles can't come close to this, they represent a snapshot of time.  Even waiting for the next day to catch up is a pain, and still that news would be outdated.  The internet has become a great venue for news to flow...up to date, minute by minute...exactly what we ask for.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I am newspaper reader , though I 'm also a Generation Now as well .
And I think the issue I face with a regular newspapers is that , although the story is completely relevant and maybe earth shattering .
I inevitably find myself going online to follow it minute by minute .
We already know that people have become increasingly impatient , especially with info and news on demand .
But newspapers and magazine articles ca n't come close to this , they represent a snapshot of time .
Even waiting for the next day to catch up is a pain , and still that news would be outdated .
The internet has become a great venue for news to flow...up to date , minute by minute...exactly what we ask for .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I am newspaper reader, though I'm also a Generation Now as well.
And I think the issue I face with a regular newspapers is that, although the story is completely relevant and maybe earth shattering.
I inevitably find myself going online to follow it minute by minute.
We already know that people have become increasingly impatient, especially with info and news on demand.
But newspapers and magazine articles can't come close to this, they represent a snapshot of time.
Even waiting for the next day to catch up is a pain, and still that news would be outdated.
The internet has become a great venue for news to flow...up to date, minute by minute...exactly what we ask for.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2131236.29903803</id>
	<title>The Economist</title>
	<author>fiannaFailMan</author>
	<datestamp>1256730720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>From wiki:</p><p><div class="quote"><p>Each Economist issue's official date range is from Saturday to the next Friday. In the UK print copies are dispatched late Thursday, for Friday delivery to retail outlets. Elsewhere, retail outlets and subscribers receive their copies on Friday or (more often) Saturday, depending on their location. The Economist Web site posts each week's new content by Friday morning, ahead of the official publication date.</p><p>Circulation for the newspaper, audited by the Audit Bureau of Circulations (ABC), was over 1.2 million for the first half of 2007.[38] Sales inside North America were around 54 percent of the total, with sales in the UK making up 14 percent of the total and continental Europe 19 percent. The Economist claims sales, both by subscription and on newsstands, in over 200 countries. Global sales have doubled since 1997. Of its American readers, two out of three make more than $100,000 a year.[39]</p><p>The Economist once boasted about its limited circulation. In the early 1990s it used the slogan "The Economist - not read by millions of people." "Never in the history of journalism has so much been read for so long by so few," wrote Geoffrey Crowther, a former editor.[40]</p><p>The Economist Newspaper Limited is a wholly owned subsidiary of The Economist Group. The publications of the group include the CFO brand family as well as the annual The World in..., the lifestyle quarterly Intelligent Life, European Voice, and Roll Call. Sir Evelyn Robert de Rothschild was Chairman of the company from 1972 to 1989.</p></div><p>The Economist is a rare example of a printed paper that's still worth buying in print, and if they were to stop offering everything up for free on their website I honestly wouldn't have a problem with renewing my paid subscription. Quality writing, quality analysis that's still relevant even a few days after the event, and you don't have to wade through page after page of obtrusive advertising.  It doesn't matter if it's a few days old, you can still give the reader an informed reading experience by explaining the background behind the news and what's likely to happen next according to reputable people who know their subject. The absence of partisan bombast makes it kinda refreshing too.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>From wiki : Each Economist issue 's official date range is from Saturday to the next Friday .
In the UK print copies are dispatched late Thursday , for Friday delivery to retail outlets .
Elsewhere , retail outlets and subscribers receive their copies on Friday or ( more often ) Saturday , depending on their location .
The Economist Web site posts each week 's new content by Friday morning , ahead of the official publication date.Circulation for the newspaper , audited by the Audit Bureau of Circulations ( ABC ) , was over 1.2 million for the first half of 2007 .
[ 38 ] Sales inside North America were around 54 percent of the total , with sales in the UK making up 14 percent of the total and continental Europe 19 percent .
The Economist claims sales , both by subscription and on newsstands , in over 200 countries .
Global sales have doubled since 1997 .
Of its American readers , two out of three make more than $ 100,000 a year .
[ 39 ] The Economist once boasted about its limited circulation .
In the early 1990s it used the slogan " The Economist - not read by millions of people .
" " Never in the history of journalism has so much been read for so long by so few , " wrote Geoffrey Crowther , a former editor .
[ 40 ] The Economist Newspaper Limited is a wholly owned subsidiary of The Economist Group .
The publications of the group include the CFO brand family as well as the annual The World in... , the lifestyle quarterly Intelligent Life , European Voice , and Roll Call .
Sir Evelyn Robert de Rothschild was Chairman of the company from 1972 to 1989.The Economist is a rare example of a printed paper that 's still worth buying in print , and if they were to stop offering everything up for free on their website I honestly would n't have a problem with renewing my paid subscription .
Quality writing , quality analysis that 's still relevant even a few days after the event , and you do n't have to wade through page after page of obtrusive advertising .
It does n't matter if it 's a few days old , you can still give the reader an informed reading experience by explaining the background behind the news and what 's likely to happen next according to reputable people who know their subject .
The absence of partisan bombast makes it kinda refreshing too .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>From wiki:Each Economist issue's official date range is from Saturday to the next Friday.
In the UK print copies are dispatched late Thursday, for Friday delivery to retail outlets.
Elsewhere, retail outlets and subscribers receive their copies on Friday or (more often) Saturday, depending on their location.
The Economist Web site posts each week's new content by Friday morning, ahead of the official publication date.Circulation for the newspaper, audited by the Audit Bureau of Circulations (ABC), was over 1.2 million for the first half of 2007.
[38] Sales inside North America were around 54 percent of the total, with sales in the UK making up 14 percent of the total and continental Europe 19 percent.
The Economist claims sales, both by subscription and on newsstands, in over 200 countries.
Global sales have doubled since 1997.
Of its American readers, two out of three make more than $100,000 a year.
[39]The Economist once boasted about its limited circulation.
In the early 1990s it used the slogan "The Economist - not read by millions of people.
" "Never in the history of journalism has so much been read for so long by so few," wrote Geoffrey Crowther, a former editor.
[40]The Economist Newspaper Limited is a wholly owned subsidiary of The Economist Group.
The publications of the group include the CFO brand family as well as the annual The World in..., the lifestyle quarterly Intelligent Life, European Voice, and Roll Call.
Sir Evelyn Robert de Rothschild was Chairman of the company from 1972 to 1989.The Economist is a rare example of a printed paper that's still worth buying in print, and if they were to stop offering everything up for free on their website I honestly wouldn't have a problem with renewing my paid subscription.
Quality writing, quality analysis that's still relevant even a few days after the event, and you don't have to wade through page after page of obtrusive advertising.
It doesn't matter if it's a few days old, you can still give the reader an informed reading experience by explaining the background behind the news and what's likely to happen next according to reputable people who know their subject.
The absence of partisan bombast makes it kinda refreshing too.
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2131236.29905731</id>
	<title>Re:Evolve or die.....</title>
	<author>Lord Kano</author>
	<datestamp>1256743560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Journalism has been dead for 30 years. News organizations are owned by corporate interests that can't afford to piss off sponsors.</p><p>LK</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Journalism has been dead for 30 years .
News organizations are owned by corporate interests that ca n't afford to piss off sponsors.LK</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Journalism has been dead for 30 years.
News organizations are owned by corporate interests that can't afford to piss off sponsors.LK</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2131236.29903337</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2131236.29903749</id>
	<title>I think this is the first time...</title>
	<author>deblau</author>
	<datestamp>1256730420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>I have ever seen a headline that used a third derivative.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I have ever seen a headline that used a third derivative .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I have ever seen a headline that used a third derivative.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2131236.29906639</id>
	<title>Online as newspaper</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256751240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Imagine your favourite news site as a newspaper: printed on news print, the smell, ink getting on your fingers.  Would you subscribe to it?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Imagine your favourite news site as a newspaper : printed on news print , the smell , ink getting on your fingers .
Would you subscribe to it ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Imagine your favourite news site as a newspaper: printed on news print, the smell, ink getting on your fingers.
Would you subscribe to it?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2131236.29903185</id>
	<title>Possible causes</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256727360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I wonder how this trend compares with non-internet related events, such as:</p><ul>
<li>Increase in popularity of highly opinionated "news" talk shows and cable TV shows (and similar decline in the popularity of objective reporting)</li><li>Consolidation of news businesses (particularly acquisitions by News Corp.)</li><li>Reduction in staff and budgets of the journalism and reporting departments within newspaper organizations</li></ul></htmltext>
<tokenext>I wonder how this trend compares with non-internet related events , such as : Increase in popularity of highly opinionated " news " talk shows and cable TV shows ( and similar decline in the popularity of objective reporting ) Consolidation of news businesses ( particularly acquisitions by News Corp. ) Reduction in staff and budgets of the journalism and reporting departments within newspaper organizations</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I wonder how this trend compares with non-internet related events, such as:
Increase in popularity of highly opinionated "news" talk shows and cable TV shows (and similar decline in the popularity of objective reporting)Consolidation of news businesses (particularly acquisitions by News Corp.)Reduction in staff and budgets of the journalism and reporting departments within newspaper organizations</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2131236.29908993</id>
	<title>Re:Evolve or die.....</title>
	<author>the\_arrow</author>
	<datestamp>1256825220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>People are dropping newspaper subscriptions because there is nothing in them anymore that can't be read online.</p></div></blockquote><p>Yes, but how do you find it online? How many sites do you need to visit to find all news printed in the paper? How many have a computer on their dining table to look at while eating breakfast?</p><p>I have a newspaper subscription, and enjoy reading it while eating breakfast. It's nice to have all news in one place, and if there is something intresting I can specifically search for just that on my computer later.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>People are dropping newspaper subscriptions because there is nothing in them anymore that ca n't be read online.Yes , but how do you find it online ?
How many sites do you need to visit to find all news printed in the paper ?
How many have a computer on their dining table to look at while eating breakfast ? I have a newspaper subscription , and enjoy reading it while eating breakfast .
It 's nice to have all news in one place , and if there is something intresting I can specifically search for just that on my computer later .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>People are dropping newspaper subscriptions because there is nothing in them anymore that can't be read online.Yes, but how do you find it online?
How many sites do you need to visit to find all news printed in the paper?
How many have a computer on their dining table to look at while eating breakfast?I have a newspaper subscription, and enjoy reading it while eating breakfast.
It's nice to have all news in one place, and if there is something intresting I can specifically search for just that on my computer later.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2131236.29905043</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2131236.29908545</id>
	<title>Re:I look forward to the edifying spectacle...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256820900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Wikileaks would have!  Suck on that!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Wikileaks would have !
Suck on that !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Wikileaks would have!
Suck on that!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2131236.29903425</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2131236.29910081</id>
	<title>Re:Evolve or die.....</title>
	<author>b0bby</author>
	<datestamp>1256830320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Your newspaper will await you when you pick up the device, silently downloaded and updated in the background over 3G/wifi without the need for a carrier contract.</p></div><p>I fail to see how this is better than just using the wifi I already have at my house to visit the website &amp; see the current news, instead of what they had assembled for a print version last night. If I want a summary of trends etc, a weekly like the Economist is good, but for news, a paper's website is usually going to be better for me than a digital version of the printed paper. It's unfortunate for the papers, but I really don't care about "silently downloaded" stuff that will be more current on Google News. And I know that one way or another, I'd be paying for that 3G access.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Your newspaper will await you when you pick up the device , silently downloaded and updated in the background over 3G/wifi without the need for a carrier contract.I fail to see how this is better than just using the wifi I already have at my house to visit the website &amp; see the current news , instead of what they had assembled for a print version last night .
If I want a summary of trends etc , a weekly like the Economist is good , but for news , a paper 's website is usually going to be better for me than a digital version of the printed paper .
It 's unfortunate for the papers , but I really do n't care about " silently downloaded " stuff that will be more current on Google News .
And I know that one way or another , I 'd be paying for that 3G access .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Your newspaper will await you when you pick up the device, silently downloaded and updated in the background over 3G/wifi without the need for a carrier contract.I fail to see how this is better than just using the wifi I already have at my house to visit the website &amp; see the current news, instead of what they had assembled for a print version last night.
If I want a summary of trends etc, a weekly like the Economist is good, but for news, a paper's website is usually going to be better for me than a digital version of the printed paper.
It's unfortunate for the papers, but I really don't care about "silently downloaded" stuff that will be more current on Google News.
And I know that one way or another, I'd be paying for that 3G access.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2131236.29903713</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2131236.29903377</id>
	<title>Other notable exception: WSJ</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256728200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>In fact.. yay, a graph:<br><a href="http://www.theawl.com/2009/10/a-graphic-history-of-newspaper-circulation-over-the-last-two-decades" title="theawl.com">http://www.theawl.com/2009/10/a-graphic-history-of-newspaper-circulation-over-the-last-two-decades</a> [theawl.com]<br>( via Cool Infographics blog )</p><p>The LA Times has just been sucking overall, explaining their sharp drop.</p><p>Most of the others had been stable until relatively recently, as more and more people realize that they all just regurgitate the same news they can get online for free.</p><p>The exception noted in the article summary - the local publishers - and the major publisher lonely at the top and holding relatively steady, share the opposite of the above in common.  They don't regurgitate news so much as that they report on the actual news and provided added value.  In the case of local newspapers.. local news that strikes at the heart of the community (I've always wanted to say that).  In the case of the WSJ.. in-depth investigation and background information, catering to their major audience (which tend not to be the target audience for the other major papers).</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>In fact.. yay , a graph : http : //www.theawl.com/2009/10/a-graphic-history-of-newspaper-circulation-over-the-last-two-decades [ theawl.com ] ( via Cool Infographics blog ) The LA Times has just been sucking overall , explaining their sharp drop.Most of the others had been stable until relatively recently , as more and more people realize that they all just regurgitate the same news they can get online for free.The exception noted in the article summary - the local publishers - and the major publisher lonely at the top and holding relatively steady , share the opposite of the above in common .
They do n't regurgitate news so much as that they report on the actual news and provided added value .
In the case of local newspapers.. local news that strikes at the heart of the community ( I 've always wanted to say that ) .
In the case of the WSJ.. in-depth investigation and background information , catering to their major audience ( which tend not to be the target audience for the other major papers ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>In fact.. yay, a graph:http://www.theawl.com/2009/10/a-graphic-history-of-newspaper-circulation-over-the-last-two-decades [theawl.com]( via Cool Infographics blog )The LA Times has just been sucking overall, explaining their sharp drop.Most of the others had been stable until relatively recently, as more and more people realize that they all just regurgitate the same news they can get online for free.The exception noted in the article summary - the local publishers - and the major publisher lonely at the top and holding relatively steady, share the opposite of the above in common.
They don't regurgitate news so much as that they report on the actual news and provided added value.
In the case of local newspapers.. local news that strikes at the heart of the community (I've always wanted to say that).
In the case of the WSJ.. in-depth investigation and background information, catering to their major audience (which tend not to be the target audience for the other major papers).</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2131236.29903285</id>
	<title>Newspaper Culture</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256727780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>It would be odd to see the newspaper disappear altogether. What will we roll up and shake at our dogs? What will spies hide behind? What will we line cages with?</htmltext>
<tokenext>It would be odd to see the newspaper disappear altogether .
What will we roll up and shake at our dogs ?
What will spies hide behind ?
What will we line cages with ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It would be odd to see the newspaper disappear altogether.
What will we roll up and shake at our dogs?
What will spies hide behind?
What will we line cages with?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2131236.29905141</id>
	<title>Re:Are you surprised?</title>
	<author>Larryish</author>
	<datestamp>1256739240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I own 2 spittoons, both of which I use.</p><p>They are made by 2 different manufacturers. One is a regular 1 gallon brass spittoon, the other is a quart-sized plastic one from Skoal.</p><p>So there, Mr. Smarty-pants.<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:PpPpP</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I own 2 spittoons , both of which I use.They are made by 2 different manufacturers .
One is a regular 1 gallon brass spittoon , the other is a quart-sized plastic one from Skoal.So there , Mr. Smarty-pants. : PpPpP</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I own 2 spittoons, both of which I use.They are made by 2 different manufacturers.
One is a regular 1 gallon brass spittoon, the other is a quart-sized plastic one from Skoal.So there, Mr. Smarty-pants. :PpPpP</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2131236.29903123</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2131236.29912213</id>
	<title>Re:Evolve or die.....</title>
	<author>SnarfQuest</author>
	<datestamp>1256837940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The problem is that newspapers have been replaced already, by fanatic left wing radical publications, and people just aren't intrested in it. I can surf around the internet, and by choosing several sites, getting a fairly wide view of what's going on. Or I can read a newspaper and find out how wonderful Obama is, how evil the US is, how the constitution should be discarded, and that the US should switch to socalism, with government ownership of most businesses.<br>If newspapers want me to buy them, they should print news that I'm intrested in, not government propoganda.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The problem is that newspapers have been replaced already , by fanatic left wing radical publications , and people just are n't intrested in it .
I can surf around the internet , and by choosing several sites , getting a fairly wide view of what 's going on .
Or I can read a newspaper and find out how wonderful Obama is , how evil the US is , how the constitution should be discarded , and that the US should switch to socalism , with government ownership of most businesses.If newspapers want me to buy them , they should print news that I 'm intrested in , not government propoganda .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The problem is that newspapers have been replaced already, by fanatic left wing radical publications, and people just aren't intrested in it.
I can surf around the internet, and by choosing several sites, getting a fairly wide view of what's going on.
Or I can read a newspaper and find out how wonderful Obama is, how evil the US is, how the constitution should be discarded, and that the US should switch to socalism, with government ownership of most businesses.If newspapers want me to buy them, they should print news that I'm intrested in, not government propoganda.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2131236.29903337</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2131236.29903779</id>
	<title>Re:Why are ads so much cheaper online though?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256730600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>*"dog eat dog"<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... hopefully the saying makes a little more sense now.</htmltext>
<tokenext>* " dog eat dog " ... hopefully the saying makes a little more sense now .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>*"dog eat dog" ... hopefully the saying makes a little more sense now.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2131236.29903429</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2131236.29905511</id>
	<title>Re:Evolve or die.....</title>
	<author>westlake</author>
	<datestamp>1256742060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>It's the way the world works. When the telephone came around did telegraph operators keep their business methods - or did they evolve to use the new technology?</i> </p><p>In 1876-77 the newly incorporated Bell Telephone Company offered its patents to Western Union for $100,000 - and found no takers.</p><p>With commercial telephone projects taking off <b>very</b> quickly, Western Union put everything it had into bare-knuckled patent litigation - and lost.</p><p>By 1879 it left the telephone business behind forever,<br>
&nbsp; &nbsp;</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's the way the world works .
When the telephone came around did telegraph operators keep their business methods - or did they evolve to use the new technology ?
In 1876-77 the newly incorporated Bell Telephone Company offered its patents to Western Union for $ 100,000 - and found no takers.With commercial telephone projects taking off very quickly , Western Union put everything it had into bare-knuckled patent litigation - and lost.By 1879 it left the telephone business behind forever ,    </tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's the way the world works.
When the telephone came around did telegraph operators keep their business methods - or did they evolve to use the new technology?
In 1876-77 the newly incorporated Bell Telephone Company offered its patents to Western Union for $100,000 - and found no takers.With commercial telephone projects taking off very quickly, Western Union put everything it had into bare-knuckled patent litigation - and lost.By 1879 it left the telephone business behind forever,
   </sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2131236.29903103</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2131236.29904317</id>
	<title>Re:Any alternatives?</title>
	<author>Darinbob</author>
	<datestamp>1256733960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I think this is indeed the big problem.  Newspapers are dying without a suitable replacement or alternative.  This is not like the buggy whip manufacturers, because the automobile was a replacement for the buggy.  However online news is not a good replacement for newspapers; and blogs are an absolutely abysmal substitute.<br><br>A bigger problem is not necessarily the decline of newspapers, but the decline of journalism.  There just aren't as many customer's who want the news, no matter what the format or alternative.  The customers instead want just the headlines or the entertainment, but not the analysis or journalism.<br><br>Newspapers are just too inconvenient for some people, and they require some amount of concentration to read which conflicts with shorter attention spans or excessive multitasking.  I like to read my paper at lunch, and away from work when I can so that no one bothers me.  The train or bus or airplane is a great place to read a newspaper, but I tend to see people pulling out their laptops to work or reading a novel instead.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I think this is indeed the big problem .
Newspapers are dying without a suitable replacement or alternative .
This is not like the buggy whip manufacturers , because the automobile was a replacement for the buggy .
However online news is not a good replacement for newspapers ; and blogs are an absolutely abysmal substitute.A bigger problem is not necessarily the decline of newspapers , but the decline of journalism .
There just are n't as many customer 's who want the news , no matter what the format or alternative .
The customers instead want just the headlines or the entertainment , but not the analysis or journalism.Newspapers are just too inconvenient for some people , and they require some amount of concentration to read which conflicts with shorter attention spans or excessive multitasking .
I like to read my paper at lunch , and away from work when I can so that no one bothers me .
The train or bus or airplane is a great place to read a newspaper , but I tend to see people pulling out their laptops to work or reading a novel instead .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I think this is indeed the big problem.
Newspapers are dying without a suitable replacement or alternative.
This is not like the buggy whip manufacturers, because the automobile was a replacement for the buggy.
However online news is not a good replacement for newspapers; and blogs are an absolutely abysmal substitute.A bigger problem is not necessarily the decline of newspapers, but the decline of journalism.
There just aren't as many customer's who want the news, no matter what the format or alternative.
The customers instead want just the headlines or the entertainment, but not the analysis or journalism.Newspapers are just too inconvenient for some people, and they require some amount of concentration to read which conflicts with shorter attention spans or excessive multitasking.
I like to read my paper at lunch, and away from work when I can so that no one bothers me.
The train or bus or airplane is a great place to read a newspaper, but I tend to see people pulling out their laptops to work or reading a novel instead.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2131236.29903235</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2131236.29906815</id>
	<title>Re:Any alternatives?</title>
	<author>Ungrounded Lightning</author>
	<datestamp>1256753220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>There's no obvious alternatives to salaried journalists in national papers who are willing to dig in and develop a good story.</i></p><p>Given that few of the salaried journalists of the legacy media are willing to dig in and develop a story, I'm happy to settle for stories dug and developed by entrepreneurs, dedicated hobbyists, and people with a political axe to grind.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>There 's no obvious alternatives to salaried journalists in national papers who are willing to dig in and develop a good story.Given that few of the salaried journalists of the legacy media are willing to dig in and develop a story , I 'm happy to settle for stories dug and developed by entrepreneurs , dedicated hobbyists , and people with a political axe to grind .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There's no obvious alternatives to salaried journalists in national papers who are willing to dig in and develop a good story.Given that few of the salaried journalists of the legacy media are willing to dig in and develop a story, I'm happy to settle for stories dug and developed by entrepreneurs, dedicated hobbyists, and people with a political axe to grind.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2131236.29903235</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2131236.29922653</id>
	<title>Did Netcraft confirm this?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256911380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"Netcraft confirms" or it didn't happen.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" Netcraft confirms " or it did n't happen .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"Netcraft confirms" or it didn't happen.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2131236.29903451</id>
	<title>Re:Newspaper Culture</title>
	<author>c\_sd\_m</author>
	<datestamp>1256728560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Ad flyers.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Ad flyers .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Ad flyers.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2131236.29903285</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2131236.29903831</id>
	<title>1st Amendment</title>
	<author>cliffjumper222</author>
	<datestamp>1256730900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>So, Congress didn't make a law prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of the press, but capitalism killed it anyway. Hmm.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>So , Congress did n't make a law prohibiting the free exercise thereof ; or abridging the freedom of the press , but capitalism killed it anyway .
Hmm .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So, Congress didn't make a law prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of the press, but capitalism killed it anyway.
Hmm.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2131236.29903461</id>
	<title>Well the elephant in the room is that</title>
	<author>geekoid</author>
	<datestamp>1256728620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>advertising doesn't work as well as everyone thought.hat means that they ahve been over charging for it..or over selling it's value.</p><p>The internet brought that into sharp focus when you couldf get a real time response for an ad and pay for ads you know people have looked at.</p><p>Plus this is a transition period from a time you are probably too young to know. As such it all appears 'obviouse' to you.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>advertising does n't work as well as everyone thought.hat means that they ahve been over charging for it..or over selling it 's value.The internet brought that into sharp focus when you couldf get a real time response for an ad and pay for ads you know people have looked at.Plus this is a transition period from a time you are probably too young to know .
As such it all appears 'obviouse ' to you .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>advertising doesn't work as well as everyone thought.hat means that they ahve been over charging for it..or over selling it's value.The internet brought that into sharp focus when you couldf get a real time response for an ad and pay for ads you know people have looked at.Plus this is a transition period from a time you are probably too young to know.
As such it all appears 'obviouse' to you.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2131236.29903313</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2131236.29916189</id>
	<title>Re:Why are ads so much cheaper online though?</title>
	<author>brunes69</author>
	<datestamp>1256809980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>And why can't you achieve that using local websites?</p><p>IE, no one is going to visit www.smallvilletimes.net except residents of Smallville. Ok, maybe a few more, but not many. So why do you feel justified paying $1,000 for a newspaper ad with circulation of 10K households, but only $100 for an ad on local website with 10K daily impressions? It makes zero sense to me.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>And why ca n't you achieve that using local websites ? IE , no one is going to visit www.smallvilletimes.net except residents of Smallville .
Ok , maybe a few more , but not many .
So why do you feel justified paying $ 1,000 for a newspaper ad with circulation of 10K households , but only $ 100 for an ad on local website with 10K daily impressions ?
It makes zero sense to me .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>And why can't you achieve that using local websites?IE, no one is going to visit www.smallvilletimes.net except residents of Smallville.
Ok, maybe a few more, but not many.
So why do you feel justified paying $1,000 for a newspaper ad with circulation of 10K households, but only $100 for an ad on local website with 10K daily impressions?
It makes zero sense to me.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2131236.29903429</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2131236.29905251</id>
	<title>Re:Evolve or die.....</title>
	<author>aardvarkjoe</author>
	<datestamp>1256740200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>I leave for the train at 7:00AM, and it took weeks of calling and threatening to cancel my subscription just to get them to start getting me the paper before 7:00.</p><blockquote><div><p>Maybe after the first few times they realized that you weren't really going to cancel your subscription anyway?</p></div></blockquote></div></blockquote></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I leave for the train at 7 : 00AM , and it took weeks of calling and threatening to cancel my subscription just to get them to start getting me the paper before 7 : 00.Maybe after the first few times they realized that you were n't really going to cancel your subscription anyway ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I leave for the train at 7:00AM, and it took weeks of calling and threatening to cancel my subscription just to get them to start getting me the paper before 7:00.Maybe after the first few times they realized that you weren't really going to cancel your subscription anyway?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2131236.29903247</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2131236.29903235</id>
	<title>Any alternatives?</title>
	<author>symes</author>
	<datestamp>1256727540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>I'm not sure I see this as a good thing. There's no obvious alternatives to salaried journalists in national papers who are willing to dig in and develop a good story. I just can't see the internet producing people like Bernstein and Woodward, Nancy Maynard, Anna Quindlen and others like them.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm not sure I see this as a good thing .
There 's no obvious alternatives to salaried journalists in national papers who are willing to dig in and develop a good story .
I just ca n't see the internet producing people like Bernstein and Woodward , Nancy Maynard , Anna Quindlen and others like them .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm not sure I see this as a good thing.
There's no obvious alternatives to salaried journalists in national papers who are willing to dig in and develop a good story.
I just can't see the internet producing people like Bernstein and Woodward, Nancy Maynard, Anna Quindlen and others like them.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2131236.29906359</id>
	<title>Re:Evolve or die.....</title>
	<author>syousef</author>
	<datestamp>1256748660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>It's the content, stupid!</i></p><p>I prefer: It's the stupid content</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's the content , stupid ! I prefer : It 's the stupid content</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's the content, stupid!I prefer: It's the stupid content</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2131236.29905043</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2131236.29903535</id>
	<title>Fortunately</title>
	<author>Dunbal</author>
	<datestamp>1256729040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Of course this is because of PIRACY. People are turning to the internet to access FREE NEWS, and therefore are STEALING NEWS. Hundreds of thousands of reporters are out of work because of these criminals that are costing the industry trillions per yer.</p><p>At least, that's what Rupert Murdoch would like to bribe governments into thinking. Of course Mr. Murdoch, you don't actually "own" news either. It's stuff that happens, you know...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Of course this is because of PIRACY .
People are turning to the internet to access FREE NEWS , and therefore are STEALING NEWS .
Hundreds of thousands of reporters are out of work because of these criminals that are costing the industry trillions per yer.At least , that 's what Rupert Murdoch would like to bribe governments into thinking .
Of course Mr. Murdoch , you do n't actually " own " news either .
It 's stuff that happens , you know.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Of course this is because of PIRACY.
People are turning to the internet to access FREE NEWS, and therefore are STEALING NEWS.
Hundreds of thousands of reporters are out of work because of these criminals that are costing the industry trillions per yer.At least, that's what Rupert Murdoch would like to bribe governments into thinking.
Of course Mr. Murdoch, you don't actually "own" news either.
It's stuff that happens, you know...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2131236.29903865</id>
	<title>Re:Advertising Price Difference</title>
	<author>mister\_playboy</author>
	<datestamp>1256731140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It's not more effective.  The prices evolved separately and make no sense when compared directly to each other.  This is just another example of how the system has too much inertia to change its ways.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's not more effective .
The prices evolved separately and make no sense when compared directly to each other .
This is just another example of how the system has too much inertia to change its ways .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's not more effective.
The prices evolved separately and make no sense when compared directly to each other.
This is just another example of how the system has too much inertia to change its ways.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2131236.29903477</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2131236.29903471</id>
	<title>Re:By the time you read it ...</title>
	<author>geekoid</author>
	<datestamp>1256728680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>haha, pretty ironic from someone posting on slashdot.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>haha , pretty ironic from someone posting on slashdot .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>haha, pretty ironic from someone posting on slashdot.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2131236.29903203</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2131236.29905275</id>
	<title>Re:Any alternatives?</title>
	<author>kalel666</author>
	<datestamp>1256740320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><a href="http://www.michaelyon-online.com/" title="michaelyon-online.com" rel="nofollow">http://www.michaelyon-online.com/</a> [michaelyon-online.com]</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>http : //www.michaelyon-online.com/ [ michaelyon-online.com ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>http://www.michaelyon-online.com/ [michaelyon-online.com]</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2131236.29903235</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2131236.29903683</id>
	<title>Re:Evolve or die.....</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256729940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>I have the opposite problem with delivery.  I don't subscribe to any newspapers, yet, without fail, I will end up with one or two of the local ones on my driveway every morning.  I don't want the papers - they just go straight into the recycling bin.  I frequently go out of town on business trips, and I don't want a pile of newspapers on my driveway advertising that I am not home for burglars.  Calls to the paper don't result in anything - "Oh, I'm sorry, we'll stop delivery."  Yet, it's always there the next morning...

I wonder if the papers are doing it out of the goodness of their hearts, or to artificially inflate their subscriber numbers.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I have the opposite problem with delivery .
I do n't subscribe to any newspapers , yet , without fail , I will end up with one or two of the local ones on my driveway every morning .
I do n't want the papers - they just go straight into the recycling bin .
I frequently go out of town on business trips , and I do n't want a pile of newspapers on my driveway advertising that I am not home for burglars .
Calls to the paper do n't result in anything - " Oh , I 'm sorry , we 'll stop delivery .
" Yet , it 's always there the next morning.. . I wonder if the papers are doing it out of the goodness of their hearts , or to artificially inflate their subscriber numbers .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I have the opposite problem with delivery.
I don't subscribe to any newspapers, yet, without fail, I will end up with one or two of the local ones on my driveway every morning.
I don't want the papers - they just go straight into the recycling bin.
I frequently go out of town on business trips, and I don't want a pile of newspapers on my driveway advertising that I am not home for burglars.
Calls to the paper don't result in anything - "Oh, I'm sorry, we'll stop delivery.
"  Yet, it's always there the next morning...

I wonder if the papers are doing it out of the goodness of their hearts, or to artificially inflate their subscriber numbers.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2131236.29903247</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2131236.29913377</id>
	<title>Re:Any alternatives?</title>
	<author>Blakey Rat</author>
	<datestamp>1256842500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Yahoo doesn't claim to be news. Yahoo News does. That's a different section of the site.</p><p>It's not hard.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Yahoo does n't claim to be news .
Yahoo News does .
That 's a different section of the site.It 's not hard .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yahoo doesn't claim to be news.
Yahoo News does.
That's a different section of the site.It's not hard.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2131236.29903421</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2131236.29903933</id>
	<title>Not a good thing</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256731620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I see a lot of references to adapt or die or it's day old news. Most here aren't old enough to remember when the daily paper was the best source of news and none of us remember a time when it was the only source of world and national news. I've got a shocker for everyone. The First Amendment that most quote for an individual's right to free speech actually is aimed at the press not the individual. The Founding Fathers were concerned with the people getting fair and honest information not that people should be able to say whatever they wanted. The right has been expanded but that's what they were most concerned about, newspapers. The problem is the overall quality of news is declining with newspapers. There was a time TV news was a good source but now it's little more than sensational tabloid journalism. When something like balloon boy happens news ceases for a day or more. 911 was important but do you realize that TV news reported little else for weeks? Important events didn't stop they simply were buried. Most point to the web as an excellent source but it's the worst of all. News stories shouldn't be judged by volume but quality and there's zero quality control on the web. Even sources like CNN don't even have minimal editorial oversight, seen any misspelled words lately? That was rare with traditional newspapers even before spell checkers. Blogs for news? Most are opinion and mostly regurgitated stories. iReport style news? Great your neighbors telling you the facts. That's gossip not news. What's terrifying is the infrastructure for news reporting is dying so traditional news may have no future. Why should we care? Anyone remember the first gulf war? It was a historic moment when the CNN reporters managed to send out stories of what was really happening on the ground. Other reporters were showing all the missiles missing their targets and how poor the aim was on the Scud missile. Suddenly the military put a stop to it and miraculously every missile seemed to hit it's target and friendly fire was a thing of the past. Did the military suddenly get better? No, the quality of the reporting dropped. Take away the reporters on the ground now and I'll bet we start winning the war in Afghanistan. The Founding Fathers didn't trust the government and neither should we. We need a strong press. I'm not sure what the fix is but we shouldn't say good riddance to newspapers we should worry about what is going to replace them.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I see a lot of references to adapt or die or it 's day old news .
Most here are n't old enough to remember when the daily paper was the best source of news and none of us remember a time when it was the only source of world and national news .
I 've got a shocker for everyone .
The First Amendment that most quote for an individual 's right to free speech actually is aimed at the press not the individual .
The Founding Fathers were concerned with the people getting fair and honest information not that people should be able to say whatever they wanted .
The right has been expanded but that 's what they were most concerned about , newspapers .
The problem is the overall quality of news is declining with newspapers .
There was a time TV news was a good source but now it 's little more than sensational tabloid journalism .
When something like balloon boy happens news ceases for a day or more .
911 was important but do you realize that TV news reported little else for weeks ?
Important events did n't stop they simply were buried .
Most point to the web as an excellent source but it 's the worst of all .
News stories should n't be judged by volume but quality and there 's zero quality control on the web .
Even sources like CNN do n't even have minimal editorial oversight , seen any misspelled words lately ?
That was rare with traditional newspapers even before spell checkers .
Blogs for news ?
Most are opinion and mostly regurgitated stories .
iReport style news ?
Great your neighbors telling you the facts .
That 's gossip not news .
What 's terrifying is the infrastructure for news reporting is dying so traditional news may have no future .
Why should we care ?
Anyone remember the first gulf war ?
It was a historic moment when the CNN reporters managed to send out stories of what was really happening on the ground .
Other reporters were showing all the missiles missing their targets and how poor the aim was on the Scud missile .
Suddenly the military put a stop to it and miraculously every missile seemed to hit it 's target and friendly fire was a thing of the past .
Did the military suddenly get better ?
No , the quality of the reporting dropped .
Take away the reporters on the ground now and I 'll bet we start winning the war in Afghanistan .
The Founding Fathers did n't trust the government and neither should we .
We need a strong press .
I 'm not sure what the fix is but we should n't say good riddance to newspapers we should worry about what is going to replace them .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I see a lot of references to adapt or die or it's day old news.
Most here aren't old enough to remember when the daily paper was the best source of news and none of us remember a time when it was the only source of world and national news.
I've got a shocker for everyone.
The First Amendment that most quote for an individual's right to free speech actually is aimed at the press not the individual.
The Founding Fathers were concerned with the people getting fair and honest information not that people should be able to say whatever they wanted.
The right has been expanded but that's what they were most concerned about, newspapers.
The problem is the overall quality of news is declining with newspapers.
There was a time TV news was a good source but now it's little more than sensational tabloid journalism.
When something like balloon boy happens news ceases for a day or more.
911 was important but do you realize that TV news reported little else for weeks?
Important events didn't stop they simply were buried.
Most point to the web as an excellent source but it's the worst of all.
News stories shouldn't be judged by volume but quality and there's zero quality control on the web.
Even sources like CNN don't even have minimal editorial oversight, seen any misspelled words lately?
That was rare with traditional newspapers even before spell checkers.
Blogs for news?
Most are opinion and mostly regurgitated stories.
iReport style news?
Great your neighbors telling you the facts.
That's gossip not news.
What's terrifying is the infrastructure for news reporting is dying so traditional news may have no future.
Why should we care?
Anyone remember the first gulf war?
It was a historic moment when the CNN reporters managed to send out stories of what was really happening on the ground.
Other reporters were showing all the missiles missing their targets and how poor the aim was on the Scud missile.
Suddenly the military put a stop to it and miraculously every missile seemed to hit it's target and friendly fire was a thing of the past.
Did the military suddenly get better?
No, the quality of the reporting dropped.
Take away the reporters on the ground now and I'll bet we start winning the war in Afghanistan.
The Founding Fathers didn't trust the government and neither should we.
We need a strong press.
I'm not sure what the fix is but we shouldn't say good riddance to newspapers we should worry about what is going to replace them.
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2131236.29904487</id>
	<title>Re:Evolve or die.....</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256734980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>No, the telegraph operators seeked government bailouts.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>No , the telegraph operators seeked government bailouts .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>No, the telegraph operators seeked government bailouts.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2131236.29903103</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2131236.29903899</id>
	<title>Re:first</title>
	<author>Sexy Commando</author>
	<datestamp>1256731380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uNI2Chjzr1M" title="youtube.com" rel="nofollow">http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uNI2Chjzr1M</a> [youtube.com]</htmltext>
<tokenext>http : //www.youtube.com/watch ? v = uNI2Chjzr1M [ youtube.com ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uNI2Chjzr1M [youtube.com]</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2131236.29903095</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2131236.29903793</id>
	<title>Re:Rupert Murdoch called !! He's says it ain't so</title>
	<author>Evil Shabazz</author>
	<datestamp>1256730600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>In a year or two, we'll "fondly" also remember him as the man who killed Hulu.<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:)</htmltext>
<tokenext>In a year or two , we 'll " fondly " also remember him as the man who killed Hulu .
: )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>In a year or two, we'll "fondly" also remember him as the man who killed Hulu.
:)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2131236.29903089</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2131236.29904755</id>
	<title>Re:I think this is the first time...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256736600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Furthermore, it's more or less impossible for something to decrease at that rate.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Furthermore , it 's more or less impossible for something to decrease at that rate .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Furthermore, it's more or less impossible for something to decrease at that rate.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2131236.29903749</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2131236.29903369</id>
	<title>Re:Are you surprised?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256728140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>Where do you people come from? Forever churning out the same inane crap just you can get your feeble voice heard early on a slashdot story. It's like you have some reaction to a new story that causes you to involuntarily wretch up the first thing that comes to mind. What have buggy whips and spittoons got in common with the printed press? Serious question...  And another is - where would 99.9\% of those who write on the web copy and paste their content from if the press vanished?</htmltext>
<tokenext>Where do you people come from ?
Forever churning out the same inane crap just you can get your feeble voice heard early on a slashdot story .
It 's like you have some reaction to a new story that causes you to involuntarily wretch up the first thing that comes to mind .
What have buggy whips and spittoons got in common with the printed press ?
Serious question... And another is - where would 99.9 \ % of those who write on the web copy and paste their content from if the press vanished ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Where do you people come from?
Forever churning out the same inane crap just you can get your feeble voice heard early on a slashdot story.
It's like you have some reaction to a new story that causes you to involuntarily wretch up the first thing that comes to mind.
What have buggy whips and spittoons got in common with the printed press?
Serious question...  And another is - where would 99.9\% of those who write on the web copy and paste their content from if the press vanished?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2131236.29903123</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2131236.29904331</id>
	<title>Just think...</title>
	<author>ThrowAwaySociety</author>
	<datestamp>1256734020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>...by the time they covered Balloon Boy, they already knew he wasn't in it, and suspected a hoax! Where's the entertainment in that?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>...by the time they covered Balloon Boy , they already knew he was n't in it , and suspected a hoax !
Where 's the entertainment in that ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>...by the time they covered Balloon Boy, they already knew he wasn't in it, and suspected a hoax!
Where's the entertainment in that?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2131236.29903203</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2131236.29909705</id>
	<title>MSM, BIAS and WMD's</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256828640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The newspapers are members of the MSM.</p><p>The apparent Liberal Bias at most papers (and major tv/cable networks) has diminished their credibility to the degree that their demise cannot be blamed on the emergence of the new media alone.</p><p>They have been derelict in their duty to the citizens of this country, hence the elevation and ultimate election of a closet socialist marxist idiot to the white house all the while being responsible for mass infliction of BDS, Bush Derrangement Syndrome, and it continues today.</p><p>The WMD issue is more representative of the reality that most deny, everyone believed Saddam had a working program since he Saddam, had an effective smokescreen in place, fooling all in our legislature and on the world stage but in the period post this, the newspapers blamed Bush ad nauseum and if one man could be held responsible it would be Saddam, not Bush but alas, the Liberal Bias was more important than objectivity.</p><p>Good Riddance, you have not served us well</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The newspapers are members of the MSM.The apparent Liberal Bias at most papers ( and major tv/cable networks ) has diminished their credibility to the degree that their demise can not be blamed on the emergence of the new media alone.They have been derelict in their duty to the citizens of this country , hence the elevation and ultimate election of a closet socialist marxist idiot to the white house all the while being responsible for mass infliction of BDS , Bush Derrangement Syndrome , and it continues today.The WMD issue is more representative of the reality that most deny , everyone believed Saddam had a working program since he Saddam , had an effective smokescreen in place , fooling all in our legislature and on the world stage but in the period post this , the newspapers blamed Bush ad nauseum and if one man could be held responsible it would be Saddam , not Bush but alas , the Liberal Bias was more important than objectivity.Good Riddance , you have not served us well</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The newspapers are members of the MSM.The apparent Liberal Bias at most papers (and major tv/cable networks) has diminished their credibility to the degree that their demise cannot be blamed on the emergence of the new media alone.They have been derelict in their duty to the citizens of this country, hence the elevation and ultimate election of a closet socialist marxist idiot to the white house all the while being responsible for mass infliction of BDS, Bush Derrangement Syndrome, and it continues today.The WMD issue is more representative of the reality that most deny, everyone believed Saddam had a working program since he Saddam, had an effective smokescreen in place, fooling all in our legislature and on the world stage but in the period post this, the newspapers blamed Bush ad nauseum and if one man could be held responsible it would be Saddam, not Bush but alas, the Liberal Bias was more important than objectivity.Good Riddance, you have not served us well</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2131236.29903711</id>
	<title>What about the other guys on the web...</title>
	<author>gedrin</author>
	<datestamp>1256730180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Politico gives better national poltical coverage than my paper.
<br> <br>
Michael Yon had some of the best field reporting on Iraq anywhere.
<br> <br>
Analysis of security issues is amazing at Stratfor.
<br> <br>
These cost less than a weekly subscription to my local major paper (Stratfor being the high dollar site).<br> <br>
Anyone who says there's no such thing as investigative journalism these days from the web is living under a rock.  Anyone who thought there was once non-partisan investigative journalism took out a long term ARM on the rock.
<br> <br>
Still, whenever I hear people lamenting the state of journalism and the loss of...whatever it is they think they're loosing...I wonder what they think should be done about it.  A business that provided a valuable service is being replaced by other businesses that provide a similar service at a better percieved value.  So what?  Why is this an emergency?<br> <br>It seems there is a great deal of dissatisfaction with the information being propogated.  People seem to think something should be done about it.  You'll have to fogive me if I'm less concerned about the failure of newspapers than I am about the idea that those dissatisfied with the content of current news reporting think something should be done about it.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Politico gives better national poltical coverage than my paper .
Michael Yon had some of the best field reporting on Iraq anywhere .
Analysis of security issues is amazing at Stratfor .
These cost less than a weekly subscription to my local major paper ( Stratfor being the high dollar site ) .
Anyone who says there 's no such thing as investigative journalism these days from the web is living under a rock .
Anyone who thought there was once non-partisan investigative journalism took out a long term ARM on the rock .
Still , whenever I hear people lamenting the state of journalism and the loss of...whatever it is they think they 're loosing...I wonder what they think should be done about it .
A business that provided a valuable service is being replaced by other businesses that provide a similar service at a better percieved value .
So what ?
Why is this an emergency ?
It seems there is a great deal of dissatisfaction with the information being propogated .
People seem to think something should be done about it .
You 'll have to fogive me if I 'm less concerned about the failure of newspapers than I am about the idea that those dissatisfied with the content of current news reporting think something should be done about it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Politico gives better national poltical coverage than my paper.
Michael Yon had some of the best field reporting on Iraq anywhere.
Analysis of security issues is amazing at Stratfor.
These cost less than a weekly subscription to my local major paper (Stratfor being the high dollar site).
Anyone who says there's no such thing as investigative journalism these days from the web is living under a rock.
Anyone who thought there was once non-partisan investigative journalism took out a long term ARM on the rock.
Still, whenever I hear people lamenting the state of journalism and the loss of...whatever it is they think they're loosing...I wonder what they think should be done about it.
A business that provided a valuable service is being replaced by other businesses that provide a similar service at a better percieved value.
So what?
Why is this an emergency?
It seems there is a great deal of dissatisfaction with the information being propogated.
People seem to think something should be done about it.
You'll have to fogive me if I'm less concerned about the failure of newspapers than I am about the idea that those dissatisfied with the content of current news reporting think something should be done about it.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2131236.29914549</id>
	<title>Mostly an ownership issue</title>
	<author>jwhitener</author>
	<datestamp>1256847000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>http://www.commoncause.org/site/pp.asp?c=dkLNK1MQIwG&amp;b=4773591</p><p>If you are concerned about it, read up on common cause's site and support them if you like what you read.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>http : //www.commoncause.org/site/pp.asp ? c = dkLNK1MQIwG&amp;b = 4773591If you are concerned about it , read up on common cause 's site and support them if you like what you read .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>http://www.commoncause.org/site/pp.asp?c=dkLNK1MQIwG&amp;b=4773591If you are concerned about it, read up on common cause's site and support them if you like what you read.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2131236.29903631</id>
	<title>Too bad, really</title>
	<author>cdrguru</author>
	<datestamp>1256729640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Newspapers, magazines, and pretty much anything else that was considered to have mass viewership 30 years ago is pretty much dead.</p><p>The summary mentions something about "Plan B".  Well, the bad news is that for the most part, there isn't a Plan B.  There is nothing that anyone can do about this - the readership numbers that kept newspapers alive are gone.  Magazines have fewer readers and any "serious" magazine is pretty much dead today unless it is kept alive by huge subscription fees - the advertisers aren't interested any longer.  So we have Cosmo and National Enquirer at the supermarket checkout and that is about it.</p><p>Plan B would have been online, but online is free and there isn't any mass viewership.  That doesn't pay salaries.  So where there might have been a reporter in 1975 there wasn't one in 1995 because of cost cutting.  Today, the newsroom is empty because there isn't any way to pay anyone any longer.  They can try to hang on by reprinting wire stories, but that isn't going to work.</p><p>News is now free and nobody is going to pay.  And even more importantly, nobody is going to focus on a single web site enough to make it possible to get any real ad revenue.  Wall Street Journal has a dedicated following for their speciality, but I wouldn't consider them a "newspaper" any more than you would consider Nature to be a magazine.  Wall Street Journal and Nature are probably both going to survive, but I don't think anything like what we consider a newspaper to be is going to be around in five years.</p><p>News?  Maybe you should start reading fark.com for its inciteful commenting and news selection.  Or try to balance between dailykos.com and freerepublic.com - between the two of them you might come up with some idea of what is happening in the US.  If you care.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Newspapers , magazines , and pretty much anything else that was considered to have mass viewership 30 years ago is pretty much dead.The summary mentions something about " Plan B " .
Well , the bad news is that for the most part , there is n't a Plan B. There is nothing that anyone can do about this - the readership numbers that kept newspapers alive are gone .
Magazines have fewer readers and any " serious " magazine is pretty much dead today unless it is kept alive by huge subscription fees - the advertisers are n't interested any longer .
So we have Cosmo and National Enquirer at the supermarket checkout and that is about it.Plan B would have been online , but online is free and there is n't any mass viewership .
That does n't pay salaries .
So where there might have been a reporter in 1975 there was n't one in 1995 because of cost cutting .
Today , the newsroom is empty because there is n't any way to pay anyone any longer .
They can try to hang on by reprinting wire stories , but that is n't going to work.News is now free and nobody is going to pay .
And even more importantly , nobody is going to focus on a single web site enough to make it possible to get any real ad revenue .
Wall Street Journal has a dedicated following for their speciality , but I would n't consider them a " newspaper " any more than you would consider Nature to be a magazine .
Wall Street Journal and Nature are probably both going to survive , but I do n't think anything like what we consider a newspaper to be is going to be around in five years.News ?
Maybe you should start reading fark.com for its inciteful commenting and news selection .
Or try to balance between dailykos.com and freerepublic.com - between the two of them you might come up with some idea of what is happening in the US .
If you care .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Newspapers, magazines, and pretty much anything else that was considered to have mass viewership 30 years ago is pretty much dead.The summary mentions something about "Plan B".
Well, the bad news is that for the most part, there isn't a Plan B.  There is nothing that anyone can do about this - the readership numbers that kept newspapers alive are gone.
Magazines have fewer readers and any "serious" magazine is pretty much dead today unless it is kept alive by huge subscription fees - the advertisers aren't interested any longer.
So we have Cosmo and National Enquirer at the supermarket checkout and that is about it.Plan B would have been online, but online is free and there isn't any mass viewership.
That doesn't pay salaries.
So where there might have been a reporter in 1975 there wasn't one in 1995 because of cost cutting.
Today, the newsroom is empty because there isn't any way to pay anyone any longer.
They can try to hang on by reprinting wire stories, but that isn't going to work.News is now free and nobody is going to pay.
And even more importantly, nobody is going to focus on a single web site enough to make it possible to get any real ad revenue.
Wall Street Journal has a dedicated following for their speciality, but I wouldn't consider them a "newspaper" any more than you would consider Nature to be a magazine.
Wall Street Journal and Nature are probably both going to survive, but I don't think anything like what we consider a newspaper to be is going to be around in five years.News?
Maybe you should start reading fark.com for its inciteful commenting and news selection.
Or try to balance between dailykos.com and freerepublic.com - between the two of them you might come up with some idea of what is happening in the US.
If you care.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2131236.29906299</id>
	<title>Nope, isn't worth reading</title>
	<author>yooy</author>
	<datestamp>1256748180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>"The Economist is a rare example of a printed paper that's still worth buying in print,"

Nope, isn't worth reading. I was used to love the economist. It helped me to learn and improve my English but what happened to it? It was was a free-market advocate and if I read it now "government should do this, should regulate that, should give incentives here should give subsidiaries there...".
<br> <br>
Thanks, I pass and don't read it anymore, even if you can download the whole magazine FOR FREE:
<br> <br>
<a href="http://avaxhome.ws/magazines/economics\_business\_finances/The\_Economist\_October\_24th\_October\_30th\_2009.html" title="avaxhome.ws" rel="nofollow">http://avaxhome.ws/magazines/economics\_business\_finances/The\_Economist\_October\_24th\_October\_30th\_2009.html</a> [avaxhome.ws]
<br> <br>
Why bother?</htmltext>
<tokenext>" The Economist is a rare example of a printed paper that 's still worth buying in print , " Nope , is n't worth reading .
I was used to love the economist .
It helped me to learn and improve my English but what happened to it ?
It was was a free-market advocate and if I read it now " government should do this , should regulate that , should give incentives here should give subsidiaries there... " .
Thanks , I pass and do n't read it anymore , even if you can download the whole magazine FOR FREE : http : //avaxhome.ws/magazines/economics \ _business \ _finances/The \ _Economist \ _October \ _24th \ _October \ _30th \ _2009.html [ avaxhome.ws ] Why bother ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"The Economist is a rare example of a printed paper that's still worth buying in print,"

Nope, isn't worth reading.
I was used to love the economist.
It helped me to learn and improve my English but what happened to it?
It was was a free-market advocate and if I read it now "government should do this, should regulate that, should give incentives here should give subsidiaries there...".
Thanks, I pass and don't read it anymore, even if you can download the whole magazine FOR FREE:
 
http://avaxhome.ws/magazines/economics\_business\_finances/The\_Economist\_October\_24th\_October\_30th\_2009.html [avaxhome.ws]
 
Why bother?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2131236.29903803</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2131236.29903433</id>
	<title>More victims of news piracy!</title>
	<author>Tsar</author>
	<datestamp>1256728500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>Obviously, the Internet is to the American newspaper publisher and the American public as the Boston Strangler is to the woman home alone.<br>Information wants to be free, you say?  Well, so does Charles Manson!</htmltext>
<tokenext>Obviously , the Internet is to the American newspaper publisher and the American public as the Boston Strangler is to the woman home alone.Information wants to be free , you say ?
Well , so does Charles Manson !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Obviously, the Internet is to the American newspaper publisher and the American public as the Boston Strangler is to the woman home alone.Information wants to be free, you say?
Well, so does Charles Manson!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2131236.29907789</id>
	<title>Re:Evolve or die.....</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256809860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>       The newspaper industry is doomed simply because supplies and delivery costs are no longer supportable. It is not computer news that is killing them. But like all of us they pay high prices for their supplies and energy costs. Advertising costs are obscene in many papers. Like the magazine industry they are in deep trouble.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The newspaper industry is doomed simply because supplies and delivery costs are no longer supportable .
It is not computer news that is killing them .
But like all of us they pay high prices for their supplies and energy costs .
Advertising costs are obscene in many papers .
Like the magazine industry they are in deep trouble .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>       The newspaper industry is doomed simply because supplies and delivery costs are no longer supportable.
It is not computer news that is killing them.
But like all of us they pay high prices for their supplies and energy costs.
Advertising costs are obscene in many papers.
Like the magazine industry they are in deep trouble.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2131236.29903103</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2131236.29903827</id>
	<title>Plan B</title>
	<author>whisper\_jeff</author>
	<datestamp>1256730900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Perhaps newspaper executives should give their music industry counterparts a call and ask them what their Plan B was - it seems to be working so well for them, after all.<br> <br>
Oh, wait...<br> <br>
Seriously though, 'tis the nature of the beast. The world changes and industries have to adapt or face the risk of fading away into the history books. Companies run by smart people find a way to change with the times and remain relevant. Companies run by short-sighted idiots vanish.<br> <br>
I guess we'll see just how smart the executives at some of these companies are but I suspect I already know what the outcome will be.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Perhaps newspaper executives should give their music industry counterparts a call and ask them what their Plan B was - it seems to be working so well for them , after all .
Oh , wait.. . Seriously though , 't is the nature of the beast .
The world changes and industries have to adapt or face the risk of fading away into the history books .
Companies run by smart people find a way to change with the times and remain relevant .
Companies run by short-sighted idiots vanish .
I guess we 'll see just how smart the executives at some of these companies are but I suspect I already know what the outcome will be .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Perhaps newspaper executives should give their music industry counterparts a call and ask them what their Plan B was - it seems to be working so well for them, after all.
Oh, wait... 
Seriously though, 'tis the nature of the beast.
The world changes and industries have to adapt or face the risk of fading away into the history books.
Companies run by smart people find a way to change with the times and remain relevant.
Companies run by short-sighted idiots vanish.
I guess we'll see just how smart the executives at some of these companies are but I suspect I already know what the outcome will be.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2131236.29904831</id>
	<title>Re:Any alternatives?</title>
	<author>Attila Dimedici</author>
	<datestamp>1256737020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>I'm not sure I see this as a good thing. There's no obvious alternatives to salaried journalists in national papers who are willing to dig in and develop a good story. I just can't see the internet producing people like Bernstein and Woodward, Nancy Maynard, Anna Quindlen and others like them.</p></div><p>I guess you haven't heard of Hannah Giles and James O'Keefe? And their expose of President Obama's former employer ACORN?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm not sure I see this as a good thing .
There 's no obvious alternatives to salaried journalists in national papers who are willing to dig in and develop a good story .
I just ca n't see the internet producing people like Bernstein and Woodward , Nancy Maynard , Anna Quindlen and others like them.I guess you have n't heard of Hannah Giles and James O'Keefe ?
And their expose of President Obama 's former employer ACORN ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm not sure I see this as a good thing.
There's no obvious alternatives to salaried journalists in national papers who are willing to dig in and develop a good story.
I just can't see the internet producing people like Bernstein and Woodward, Nancy Maynard, Anna Quindlen and others like them.I guess you haven't heard of Hannah Giles and James O'Keefe?
And their expose of President Obama's former employer ACORN?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2131236.29903235</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2131236.29914111</id>
	<title>Re:Why are ads so much cheaper online though?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256845200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You're asking the right question.</p><p>Historically, newspapers have been able to collect lots of content (the majority of which is sourced from third parties) into an integrated bundle that had broad, popular appeal, which in turn gave them unrivaled local reach, which made them a preferred medium for advertising, the most economically important third-party content they publish.</p><p>The availability (in dis-integrated form) of this third-party content on the web (weather, stock quotes, cartoons, horoscopes, movie schedules, television directories, etc.) has diminished the value of the newspaper's traditional bundle whether on-line or off.  Consequently, their appeal to readers is shrinking, and since they have typically sold local reach, their appeal to advertisers is following the same path.</p><p>For a longer analysis, see this post.    http://roberthheath.blogspot.com/2009/07/clueless-in-chicago-unraveling.html</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You 're asking the right question.Historically , newspapers have been able to collect lots of content ( the majority of which is sourced from third parties ) into an integrated bundle that had broad , popular appeal , which in turn gave them unrivaled local reach , which made them a preferred medium for advertising , the most economically important third-party content they publish.The availability ( in dis-integrated form ) of this third-party content on the web ( weather , stock quotes , cartoons , horoscopes , movie schedules , television directories , etc .
) has diminished the value of the newspaper 's traditional bundle whether on-line or off .
Consequently , their appeal to readers is shrinking , and since they have typically sold local reach , their appeal to advertisers is following the same path.For a longer analysis , see this post .
http : //roberthheath.blogspot.com/2009/07/clueless-in-chicago-unraveling.html</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You're asking the right question.Historically, newspapers have been able to collect lots of content (the majority of which is sourced from third parties) into an integrated bundle that had broad, popular appeal, which in turn gave them unrivaled local reach, which made them a preferred medium for advertising, the most economically important third-party content they publish.The availability (in dis-integrated form) of this third-party content on the web (weather, stock quotes, cartoons, horoscopes, movie schedules, television directories, etc.
) has diminished the value of the newspaper's traditional bundle whether on-line or off.
Consequently, their appeal to readers is shrinking, and since they have typically sold local reach, their appeal to advertisers is following the same path.For a longer analysis, see this post.
http://roberthheath.blogspot.com/2009/07/clueless-in-chicago-unraveling.html</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2131236.29903313</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2131236.29905403</id>
	<title>Corporate Conglomerates Crap up Everything ....</title>
	<author>TechnoGrl</author>
	<datestamp>1256741340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>There was a time when newspapers cost 25 cents a paper (OK I actually remember a time when they cost a dime but let's go with a quarter).  And for your quarter you got incredible in depth columnists, actual coverage of real local events that happened that very same day and oh yeah - 2 or 3 pages of comics that you could actually read without a microscope.  And there were two newspapers, a morning and an evening one run by two different companies who competed with each other for the best coverage.  IN the evening one you could read about what happened or what changed that very morning.  Politicians were afraid of newspapers and if one screwed up you can bet that you'd hear about it that same day.  I read two papers a day for decades.</p><p>Now my local paper costs a dollar and it is less than half the size that it was 10 years ago.  The type is much bigger now and there are five columns per page instead of six - 17\% less print per page.  And it's mostly ads.  And most of the news comes from a news service.  And the columnists are non-existent.  And I'm lucky if I get coverage of something two days ago let alone today.  There's ony one paper in town and it's run by the same guys that own pretty much all the newspapers for 50 miles in any direction.  The comics have been micro-sized.  I now read a newspaper maybe once or twice a month.  Maybe.</p><p>What happened?<br>Big fracking corporate business happened.</p><p>The kind that cares only about making a shot term profit for the current investors before cutting and running.  Comics?  Too costly.  Columnists?  Too costly.  News bureaus?  Too costly?  More ads?  Yeah, that'll work!</p><p>The same kind of people with the same kind of mentality who crapped up our banking industry, our food industry , our I.T. industry, our auto industry<nobr> <wbr></nobr>...  did it to newspapers as well.  Big surprise there.</p><p>Here's your big headline "Corporate Fascism Kills America"<br>News at 11</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>There was a time when newspapers cost 25 cents a paper ( OK I actually remember a time when they cost a dime but let 's go with a quarter ) .
And for your quarter you got incredible in depth columnists , actual coverage of real local events that happened that very same day and oh yeah - 2 or 3 pages of comics that you could actually read without a microscope .
And there were two newspapers , a morning and an evening one run by two different companies who competed with each other for the best coverage .
IN the evening one you could read about what happened or what changed that very morning .
Politicians were afraid of newspapers and if one screwed up you can bet that you 'd hear about it that same day .
I read two papers a day for decades.Now my local paper costs a dollar and it is less than half the size that it was 10 years ago .
The type is much bigger now and there are five columns per page instead of six - 17 \ % less print per page .
And it 's mostly ads .
And most of the news comes from a news service .
And the columnists are non-existent .
And I 'm lucky if I get coverage of something two days ago let alone today .
There 's ony one paper in town and it 's run by the same guys that own pretty much all the newspapers for 50 miles in any direction .
The comics have been micro-sized .
I now read a newspaper maybe once or twice a month .
Maybe.What happened ? Big fracking corporate business happened.The kind that cares only about making a shot term profit for the current investors before cutting and running .
Comics ? Too costly .
Columnists ? Too costly .
News bureaus ?
Too costly ?
More ads ?
Yeah , that 'll work ! The same kind of people with the same kind of mentality who crapped up our banking industry , our food industry , our I.T .
industry , our auto industry ... did it to newspapers as well .
Big surprise there.Here 's your big headline " Corporate Fascism Kills America " News at 11</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There was a time when newspapers cost 25 cents a paper (OK I actually remember a time when they cost a dime but let's go with a quarter).
And for your quarter you got incredible in depth columnists, actual coverage of real local events that happened that very same day and oh yeah - 2 or 3 pages of comics that you could actually read without a microscope.
And there were two newspapers, a morning and an evening one run by two different companies who competed with each other for the best coverage.
IN the evening one you could read about what happened or what changed that very morning.
Politicians were afraid of newspapers and if one screwed up you can bet that you'd hear about it that same day.
I read two papers a day for decades.Now my local paper costs a dollar and it is less than half the size that it was 10 years ago.
The type is much bigger now and there are five columns per page instead of six - 17\% less print per page.
And it's mostly ads.
And most of the news comes from a news service.
And the columnists are non-existent.
And I'm lucky if I get coverage of something two days ago let alone today.
There's ony one paper in town and it's run by the same guys that own pretty much all the newspapers for 50 miles in any direction.
The comics have been micro-sized.
I now read a newspaper maybe once or twice a month.
Maybe.What happened?Big fracking corporate business happened.The kind that cares only about making a shot term profit for the current investors before cutting and running.
Comics?  Too costly.
Columnists?  Too costly.
News bureaus?
Too costly?
More ads?
Yeah, that'll work!The same kind of people with the same kind of mentality who crapped up our banking industry, our food industry , our I.T.
industry, our auto industry ...  did it to newspapers as well.
Big surprise there.Here's your big headline "Corporate Fascism Kills America"News at 11</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2131236.29903181</id>
	<title>Re:Where are the ads?</title>
	<author>Antiocheian</author>
	<datestamp>1256727360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Adblock?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Adblock ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Adblock?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2131236.29903091</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2131236.29908945</id>
	<title>Dinosaurs</title>
	<author>bconway</author>
	<datestamp>1256824800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Kirk: <b>They're animals.</b> <br>
Spock: <b>Jim, there is an historic opportunity here.</b> <br>
Kirk: <b>Don't believe them. Don't trust them.</b> <br>
Spock: <b>They're dying.</b> <br>
Kirk: <b>Let them die!</b></htmltext>
<tokenext>Kirk : They 're animals .
Spock : Jim , there is an historic opportunity here .
Kirk : Do n't believe them .
Do n't trust them .
Spock : They 're dying .
Kirk : Let them die !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Kirk: They're animals.
Spock: Jim, there is an historic opportunity here.
Kirk: Don't believe them.
Don't trust them.
Spock: They're dying.
Kirk: Let them die!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2131236.29903103</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2131236.29904299</id>
	<title>Recycling</title>
	<author>CharlieG</author>
	<datestamp>1256733840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>One of the main reasons we stopped buying the newspaper is recycling.  It's a PITA to have to store them, tie them up, etc.  When the recycling rules/fines for getting it wrong got to the point where the paper became a pain, we stopped buying the paper</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>One of the main reasons we stopped buying the newspaper is recycling .
It 's a PITA to have to store them , tie them up , etc .
When the recycling rules/fines for getting it wrong got to the point where the paper became a pain , we stopped buying the paper</tokentext>
<sentencetext>One of the main reasons we stopped buying the newspaper is recycling.
It's a PITA to have to store them, tie them up, etc.
When the recycling rules/fines for getting it wrong got to the point where the paper became a pain, we stopped buying the paper</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2131236.29903915</id>
	<title>Re:Evolve or die.....</title>
	<author>mirix</author>
	<datestamp>1256731440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>Western Union *just* quit offering telegrams a year or two ago.<br> <br>

<i>"Effective 2006-01-27, Western Union will discontinue all Telegram and Commercial Messaging services. We regret any inconvenience this may cause you, and we thank you for your loyal patronage. If you have any questions or concerns, please contact a customer service representative."</i> <br> <br>

I think the telex system is still running though, so it sorta still exists...<br> <br>

But since the late 60's, i think they just use normal phone lines &amp; bell-103 modems, so i guess that's evolving.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Western Union * just * quit offering telegrams a year or two ago .
" Effective 2006-01-27 , Western Union will discontinue all Telegram and Commercial Messaging services .
We regret any inconvenience this may cause you , and we thank you for your loyal patronage .
If you have any questions or concerns , please contact a customer service representative .
" I think the telex system is still running though , so it sorta still exists.. . But since the late 60 's , i think they just use normal phone lines &amp; bell-103 modems , so i guess that 's evolving .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Western Union *just* quit offering telegrams a year or two ago.
"Effective 2006-01-27, Western Union will discontinue all Telegram and Commercial Messaging services.
We regret any inconvenience this may cause you, and we thank you for your loyal patronage.
If you have any questions or concerns, please contact a customer service representative.
"  

I think the telex system is still running though, so it sorta still exists... 

But since the late 60's, i think they just use normal phone lines &amp; bell-103 modems, so i guess that's evolving.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2131236.29903103</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2131236.29908155</id>
	<title>Re:Why are ads so much cheaper online though?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256815680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Why can a newspapers and magazines charge 100 times more for an ad on ink, that reaches a tiny fraction of the people that an online ad reaches? The economics of it make no sense to me.</p></div><p>Exactly. I am advertising online. It is very effective and I just cannot believe I can do it for so less money.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Why can a newspapers and magazines charge 100 times more for an ad on ink , that reaches a tiny fraction of the people that an online ad reaches ?
The economics of it make no sense to me.Exactly .
I am advertising online .
It is very effective and I just can not believe I can do it for so less money .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Why can a newspapers and magazines charge 100 times more for an ad on ink, that reaches a tiny fraction of the people that an online ad reaches?
The economics of it make no sense to me.Exactly.
I am advertising online.
It is very effective and I just cannot believe I can do it for so less money.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2131236.29903313</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2131236.29903981</id>
	<title>npr.org</title>
	<author>onionman</author>
	<datestamp>1256731860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I use NPR for most of my real news.  I often read/listen from their webpage for "free", but I still give them money when they ask for it.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I use NPR for most of my real news .
I often read/listen from their webpage for " free " , but I still give them money when they ask for it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I use NPR for most of my real news.
I often read/listen from their webpage for "free", but I still give them money when they ask for it.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2131236.29903583</id>
	<title>Sad</title>
	<author>JesseBHolmes</author>
	<datestamp>1256729280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>I recently had the opportunity to speak to the vice-president of a major academic institution. He told me that, in his opinion, paper in general was on the way out.
I hope not. Paper content, despite its faults, can be trusted not to disappear with the flick of a digital switch. It is relatively durable, lasting for hundreds of years. And it is accessible; if it's on paper, you don't have to unencrypt it or have the right software or hardware to access it. If print newspapers die, it will be a disservice not only to us in the present, but for our descendants who might wish to study the way we were.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I recently had the opportunity to speak to the vice-president of a major academic institution .
He told me that , in his opinion , paper in general was on the way out .
I hope not .
Paper content , despite its faults , can be trusted not to disappear with the flick of a digital switch .
It is relatively durable , lasting for hundreds of years .
And it is accessible ; if it 's on paper , you do n't have to unencrypt it or have the right software or hardware to access it .
If print newspapers die , it will be a disservice not only to us in the present , but for our descendants who might wish to study the way we were .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I recently had the opportunity to speak to the vice-president of a major academic institution.
He told me that, in his opinion, paper in general was on the way out.
I hope not.
Paper content, despite its faults, can be trusted not to disappear with the flick of a digital switch.
It is relatively durable, lasting for hundreds of years.
And it is accessible; if it's on paper, you don't have to unencrypt it or have the right software or hardware to access it.
If print newspapers die, it will be a disservice not only to us in the present, but for our descendants who might wish to study the way we were.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2131236.29903409</id>
	<title>Hey newspapers:</title>
	<author>geekoid</author>
	<datestamp>1256728380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Quite trying to recapture the good ole days and look forward. You can make money, you can exist you just need to realize you are 1 part of a larger media expectation.</p><p>I would be happy to talk to you about it, my consultation fee is 250 per hour.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Quite trying to recapture the good ole days and look forward .
You can make money , you can exist you just need to realize you are 1 part of a larger media expectation.I would be happy to talk to you about it , my consultation fee is 250 per hour .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Quite trying to recapture the good ole days and look forward.
You can make money, you can exist you just need to realize you are 1 part of a larger media expectation.I would be happy to talk to you about it, my consultation fee is 250 per hour.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2131236.29903313</id>
	<title>Why are ads so much cheaper online though?</title>
	<author>brunes69</author>
	<datestamp>1256727900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Every time I see a story like this I ask the same question to myself, and have yet to hear an appropriate answer.</p><p>Why can a newspapers and magazines charge 100 times more for an ad on ink, that reaches a tiny fraction of the people that an online ad reaches? The economics of it make no sense to me. Is there some research that shows people are more likely yo pay attention to print ads than online ads? Because I have never paid attention to a print ad in my life.</p><p>Why don't newspaper websites (which are very popular) just charge more for online ads, comperable rates to what they charge for print ads?</p><p>What happens when the newspapers and magazines have such low subscribership that they can't justify their high ad prices anymore - will then THEN feel justified to charge more for their online ads?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Every time I see a story like this I ask the same question to myself , and have yet to hear an appropriate answer.Why can a newspapers and magazines charge 100 times more for an ad on ink , that reaches a tiny fraction of the people that an online ad reaches ?
The economics of it make no sense to me .
Is there some research that shows people are more likely yo pay attention to print ads than online ads ?
Because I have never paid attention to a print ad in my life.Why do n't newspaper websites ( which are very popular ) just charge more for online ads , comperable rates to what they charge for print ads ? What happens when the newspapers and magazines have such low subscribership that they ca n't justify their high ad prices anymore - will then THEN feel justified to charge more for their online ads ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Every time I see a story like this I ask the same question to myself, and have yet to hear an appropriate answer.Why can a newspapers and magazines charge 100 times more for an ad on ink, that reaches a tiny fraction of the people that an online ad reaches?
The economics of it make no sense to me.
Is there some research that shows people are more likely yo pay attention to print ads than online ads?
Because I have never paid attention to a print ad in my life.Why don't newspaper websites (which are very popular) just charge more for online ads, comperable rates to what they charge for print ads?What happens when the newspapers and magazines have such low subscribership that they can't justify their high ad prices anymore - will then THEN feel justified to charge more for their online ads?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2131236.29905693</id>
	<title>Re:Evolve or die.....</title>
	<author>int69h</author>
	<datestamp>1256743380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Neither do the newspapers for the most part.  When I read the paper, everything is mostly AP stories.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Neither do the newspapers for the most part .
When I read the paper , everything is mostly AP stories .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Neither do the newspapers for the most part.
When I read the paper, everything is mostly AP stories.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2131236.29903337</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2131236.29904405</id>
	<title>Community supported?</title>
	<author>sanermind</author>
	<datestamp>1256734440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>You know, if online papers I liked had a DONATE button, I might send a few dollars there way now and again... nytimes.com and washingtonpost.com come to mind. It amazes me that they don't!</htmltext>
<tokenext>You know , if online papers I liked had a DONATE button , I might send a few dollars there way now and again... nytimes.com and washingtonpost.com come to mind .
It amazes me that they do n't !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You know, if online papers I liked had a DONATE button, I might send a few dollars there way now and again... nytimes.com and washingtonpost.com come to mind.
It amazes me that they don't!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2131236.29904899</id>
	<title>Why are ads so much cheaper online though?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256737380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Is there some research that shows people are more likely yo pay attention to print ads than online ads? Because I have never paid attention to a print ad in my life.</p></div><p>The advertisements featuring attractive women wearing undergarments seemed to grab my attention. Heck, I used to stash those pages in my bookcase for late night "reading".</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Is there some research that shows people are more likely yo pay attention to print ads than online ads ?
Because I have never paid attention to a print ad in my life.The advertisements featuring attractive women wearing undergarments seemed to grab my attention .
Heck , I used to stash those pages in my bookcase for late night " reading " .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Is there some research that shows people are more likely yo pay attention to print ads than online ads?
Because I have never paid attention to a print ad in my life.The advertisements featuring attractive women wearing undergarments seemed to grab my attention.
Heck, I used to stash those pages in my bookcase for late night "reading".
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2131236.29903313</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2131236.29908265</id>
	<title>Re:Evolve or die.....</title>
	<author>daem0n1x</author>
	<datestamp>1256817240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>
Don't blame it on the newspapers.
</p><p>
In the old days the newspapers would be delivered on time. Now the EU has ordered the liberalisation of mail service and our national mail service is on the fast track to be privatised. That means they fired thousands of people and are subcontracting thousands of borderline illiterate kids for the minimum wage, the prices went up and the service went down really fast. Now I can't get my newspapers on time and I can't even trust that my correspondence won't get lost or delivered to someone else.
</p><p>
About the newspapers, they won't be missed. They all belong to half a dozen huge media conglomerates. If I open ANY major newspaper in my country, they all say the same: Lots of right-wing, ultra-free-market, pro-EU-bureaucracy garbage and a bunch of news about violent crimes and gossip about imbecile TV celebrities. As an example, all the major newspapers campaigned very hard for the approval of the Treaty of Lisbon, all news about the Treaty presented it in a positive way, all newspaper commenters agreed, but there wasn't a single line explaining to the citizens what the wretched treaty is and the consequences to the European people's lives. The treaty is a disgrace to the common citizen of EU but it's in the interest of the big money corporations and their organs of propaganda treated it accordingly, of course.
</p><p>
Also the editorial quality has gone down due to cutting costs. I've come to expect news to be poorly written and full of orthography errors. It's only normal that people don't trust the newspapers any more and don't want to spend money on them.
</p><p>
TV is the next to follow. I don't watch any TV at all. The news are usually manipulated or outright lies. All the commenter and pundits that talk on TV say the same right-wing bullshit. Why should I spend my time and my brain cells being duped?
</p><p>
It's funny that people bitch all the time about government interference in the freedom of media but nobody thinks about big-money interference in the same freedom.
</p><p>
Fortunately, there's the Internet.
</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Do n't blame it on the newspapers .
In the old days the newspapers would be delivered on time .
Now the EU has ordered the liberalisation of mail service and our national mail service is on the fast track to be privatised .
That means they fired thousands of people and are subcontracting thousands of borderline illiterate kids for the minimum wage , the prices went up and the service went down really fast .
Now I ca n't get my newspapers on time and I ca n't even trust that my correspondence wo n't get lost or delivered to someone else .
About the newspapers , they wo n't be missed .
They all belong to half a dozen huge media conglomerates .
If I open ANY major newspaper in my country , they all say the same : Lots of right-wing , ultra-free-market , pro-EU-bureaucracy garbage and a bunch of news about violent crimes and gossip about imbecile TV celebrities .
As an example , all the major newspapers campaigned very hard for the approval of the Treaty of Lisbon , all news about the Treaty presented it in a positive way , all newspaper commenters agreed , but there was n't a single line explaining to the citizens what the wretched treaty is and the consequences to the European people 's lives .
The treaty is a disgrace to the common citizen of EU but it 's in the interest of the big money corporations and their organs of propaganda treated it accordingly , of course .
Also the editorial quality has gone down due to cutting costs .
I 've come to expect news to be poorly written and full of orthography errors .
It 's only normal that people do n't trust the newspapers any more and do n't want to spend money on them .
TV is the next to follow .
I do n't watch any TV at all .
The news are usually manipulated or outright lies .
All the commenter and pundits that talk on TV say the same right-wing bullshit .
Why should I spend my time and my brain cells being duped ?
It 's funny that people bitch all the time about government interference in the freedom of media but nobody thinks about big-money interference in the same freedom .
Fortunately , there 's the Internet .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>
Don't blame it on the newspapers.
In the old days the newspapers would be delivered on time.
Now the EU has ordered the liberalisation of mail service and our national mail service is on the fast track to be privatised.
That means they fired thousands of people and are subcontracting thousands of borderline illiterate kids for the minimum wage, the prices went up and the service went down really fast.
Now I can't get my newspapers on time and I can't even trust that my correspondence won't get lost or delivered to someone else.
About the newspapers, they won't be missed.
They all belong to half a dozen huge media conglomerates.
If I open ANY major newspaper in my country, they all say the same: Lots of right-wing, ultra-free-market, pro-EU-bureaucracy garbage and a bunch of news about violent crimes and gossip about imbecile TV celebrities.
As an example, all the major newspapers campaigned very hard for the approval of the Treaty of Lisbon, all news about the Treaty presented it in a positive way, all newspaper commenters agreed, but there wasn't a single line explaining to the citizens what the wretched treaty is and the consequences to the European people's lives.
The treaty is a disgrace to the common citizen of EU but it's in the interest of the big money corporations and their organs of propaganda treated it accordingly, of course.
Also the editorial quality has gone down due to cutting costs.
I've come to expect news to be poorly written and full of orthography errors.
It's only normal that people don't trust the newspapers any more and don't want to spend money on them.
TV is the next to follow.
I don't watch any TV at all.
The news are usually manipulated or outright lies.
All the commenter and pundits that talk on TV say the same right-wing bullshit.
Why should I spend my time and my brain cells being duped?
It's funny that people bitch all the time about government interference in the freedom of media but nobody thinks about big-money interference in the same freedom.
Fortunately, there's the Internet.
</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2131236.29903247</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2131236.29903429</id>
	<title>Re:Why are ads so much cheaper online though?</title>
	<author>QuincyDurant</author>
	<datestamp>1256728500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>Retail advertisers (like me) need saturation coverage of small geographical areas and the (highly annoying) big splash ads over two or three days that drive customers to sales days.

Of course, we could all start selling online all over the world, but then every storefront mom and pop would have to adopt radical (and expensive to implement) new business methods.

I'll try to quit whining. It's doggy dog out there.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Retail advertisers ( like me ) need saturation coverage of small geographical areas and the ( highly annoying ) big splash ads over two or three days that drive customers to sales days .
Of course , we could all start selling online all over the world , but then every storefront mom and pop would have to adopt radical ( and expensive to implement ) new business methods .
I 'll try to quit whining .
It 's doggy dog out there .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Retail advertisers (like me) need saturation coverage of small geographical areas and the (highly annoying) big splash ads over two or three days that drive customers to sales days.
Of course, we could all start selling online all over the world, but then every storefront mom and pop would have to adopt radical (and expensive to implement) new business methods.
I'll try to quit whining.
It's doggy dog out there.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2131236.29903313</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2131236.29906921</id>
	<title>Re:Why are ads so much cheaper online though?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256754600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It is not just the ads that come printed onto the jacket, but the inserts that go into the paper.</p><p>You have post-its, flyers, coupons, even entire catalogs.</p><p>Go buy a sunday paper sometime.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It is not just the ads that come printed onto the jacket , but the inserts that go into the paper.You have post-its , flyers , coupons , even entire catalogs.Go buy a sunday paper sometime .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It is not just the ads that come printed onto the jacket, but the inserts that go into the paper.You have post-its, flyers, coupons, even entire catalogs.Go buy a sunday paper sometime.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2131236.29903313</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2131236.29905379</id>
	<title>Re:Not believing it</title>
	<author>MyFirstNameIsPaul</author>
	<datestamp>1256741160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>No true, there was was a link to <a href="http://finance.yahoo.com/news/Newspaper-circulation-drop-apf-3182126693.html?x=0" title="yahoo.com" rel="nofollow">this AP story</a> [yahoo.com] on Monday.</htmltext>
<tokenext>No true , there was was a link to this AP story [ yahoo.com ] on Monday .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>No true, there was was a link to this AP story [yahoo.com] on Monday.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2131236.29903213</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2131236.29903221</id>
	<title>Re:first</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256727480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Clap</p><p>Clap</p><p>Clap</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>ClapClapClap</tokentext>
<sentencetext>ClapClapClap</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2131236.29903095</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2131236.29912407</id>
	<title>Re:Evolve or die.....</title>
	<author>SnarfQuest</author>
	<datestamp>1256838660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>Note how many basic grammar errors you find, assuming you yourself are clueful enough to do this. </i></p><p>Our local paper is so advanced, that they can hyphenate the word "the". They can continue an article in a four page section on page 12. And the articles are only three or four days after it's been reported on the internet. They also run the same article twice on the same page, the only difference being the title. They have recently replaced their presses, so the number of pages has been reduced with an increase in price.</p><p>For some reason, their subscription rate has been going down, and nobody can figure out why.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Note how many basic grammar errors you find , assuming you yourself are clueful enough to do this .
Our local paper is so advanced , that they can hyphenate the word " the " .
They can continue an article in a four page section on page 12 .
And the articles are only three or four days after it 's been reported on the internet .
They also run the same article twice on the same page , the only difference being the title .
They have recently replaced their presses , so the number of pages has been reduced with an increase in price.For some reason , their subscription rate has been going down , and nobody can figure out why .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Note how many basic grammar errors you find, assuming you yourself are clueful enough to do this.
Our local paper is so advanced, that they can hyphenate the word "the".
They can continue an article in a four page section on page 12.
And the articles are only three or four days after it's been reported on the internet.
They also run the same article twice on the same page, the only difference being the title.
They have recently replaced their presses, so the number of pages has been reduced with an increase in price.For some reason, their subscription rate has been going down, and nobody can figure out why.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2131236.29905043</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2131236.29904669</id>
	<title>Re:I think this is the first time...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256736120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Jerk!<br>(no, <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jerk\_(physics)" title="wikipedia.org" rel="nofollow">really!</a> [wikipedia.org])</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Jerk !
( no , really !
[ wikipedia.org ] )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Jerk!
(no, really!
[wikipedia.org])</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2131236.29903749</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2131236.29903481</id>
	<title>Re:Any alternatives?</title>
	<author>swanzilla</author>
	<datestamp>1256728740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>The ability of the internet user to make his/her own inferences by cross referencing multiple sources basically makes the iconic journalist largely moot.
<br>
<br>
Moreover, the internet has the <a href="http://tronguy.net/" title="tronguy.net">Tron Guy</a> [tronguy.net]...the newspapers/journalists don't stand much of a chance.</htmltext>
<tokenext>The ability of the internet user to make his/her own inferences by cross referencing multiple sources basically makes the iconic journalist largely moot .
Moreover , the internet has the Tron Guy [ tronguy.net ] ...the newspapers/journalists do n't stand much of a chance .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The ability of the internet user to make his/her own inferences by cross referencing multiple sources basically makes the iconic journalist largely moot.
Moreover, the internet has the Tron Guy [tronguy.net]...the newspapers/journalists don't stand much of a chance.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2131236.29903235</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2131236.29906845</id>
	<title>Re:Evolve or die.....</title>
	<author>PitaBred</author>
	<datestamp>1256753640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>The music industry most certainly is NOT declining. The recorded music industry is, but that's not the whole music industry. Concerts, band paraphernalia, all of those sales are up and rising. The RIAA is just bitching that it's not them that's getting the benefit, mostly because they haven't done shit to deserve it.<br> <br>
The MPAA, I agree for the most part. I believe it's because movies have gotten to a point where executives and focus groups determine what a movie will have in it, rather than a single artist, or a small group of people with vision. All the stuff that's been brilliant and caught on well and made a lot of money lately? Joss Whedon, Kevin Smith, the people behind Blair Witch... all of them small groups of writers who just know how to make a story. The studios, in trying to cater to everyone, end up catering to nobody.</htmltext>
<tokenext>The music industry most certainly is NOT declining .
The recorded music industry is , but that 's not the whole music industry .
Concerts , band paraphernalia , all of those sales are up and rising .
The RIAA is just bitching that it 's not them that 's getting the benefit , mostly because they have n't done shit to deserve it .
The MPAA , I agree for the most part .
I believe it 's because movies have gotten to a point where executives and focus groups determine what a movie will have in it , rather than a single artist , or a small group of people with vision .
All the stuff that 's been brilliant and caught on well and made a lot of money lately ?
Joss Whedon , Kevin Smith , the people behind Blair Witch... all of them small groups of writers who just know how to make a story .
The studios , in trying to cater to everyone , end up catering to nobody .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The music industry most certainly is NOT declining.
The recorded music industry is, but that's not the whole music industry.
Concerts, band paraphernalia, all of those sales are up and rising.
The RIAA is just bitching that it's not them that's getting the benefit, mostly because they haven't done shit to deserve it.
The MPAA, I agree for the most part.
I believe it's because movies have gotten to a point where executives and focus groups determine what a movie will have in it, rather than a single artist, or a small group of people with vision.
All the stuff that's been brilliant and caught on well and made a lot of money lately?
Joss Whedon, Kevin Smith, the people behind Blair Witch... all of them small groups of writers who just know how to make a story.
The studios, in trying to cater to everyone, end up catering to nobody.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2131236.29905043</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2131236.29903943</id>
	<title>Re:I look forward to the edifying spectacle...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256731680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The Washington Post is a pale shadow of the paper that broke Watergate.  Personally I stopped reading it about the time they fired Dan Froomkin and their execs thought it was cool to sponsor pay-for-access cocktail parties with politicians.  Their online site was showing promise until Katharine Weymouth canned the people making it happen and forced consolidation with their print division which was like mixing oil and water. Last month they issued guidelines forbidding their reporters from using Twitter and other social media which shows their dinosaurish nature. Dan Froomkin is now in charge of the Political section of... the Huffington Post.  Jim Brady another Washington Post luminary is starting a new online Washington news site for Politico.</p><p>If you want to hop in the way back machine to just before the Iraq invasion, Judith Miller, used the New York Time to shill for her books on WMD's and for the Bush administration to whip up the frenzy about non existent WMD's in Iraq.  This has since cost the U.S. about a trillion dollars and thousands of dead and tens of thousands wounded for a lie, which a dead tree journalist helped propagate.   Of course the Hearst empire pioneered yellow journalism and shilling to start wars for no reason in 1898, "Remember the Maine", so its not a new phenomena. And of course in 2003 the NY Times also had Jayson Blair who made a career on plagiarized and fabricated stories and it took forever for the Times editors to notice.</p><p>So to balance that one Watergate success story everyone cites in these debates there have been multiple recent failures.  The U.S. press was pretty much asleep at the wheel during Iraq, Patriot Act abuses, torture, warrantless spying on Americans on a massive scale, etc.  The NY Times did break the warrantless wiretap story but only after it had been running for years.</p><p>You seem to be waxing nostalgic for old school journalism that doesn't really exist anymore if it ever did.  I'd being willing to bet if Woodward and Bernstein were to try to break Watergate today, Nixon would call up the Washington Posts management/editors and it would be killed before it saw the light of day because the management of most papers today are pro establishment and pro corporate interests instead of a beacon of truth and freedom. All the Presiden't men was a product of a handful of unique people who did something amazing and right, it had nothing to do with the actual merits of dead tree journalism.</p><p>I too would wax poetic for old school journalism but to think its still even alive or it will flourish in the brain dead environment that is most dead tree newspapers today is optimistic at best.  I have to hope the web actually does succeed in producing a beacon for truth and freedom and that it rises above the sea of noise that is the web.  Its a long shot but its a lot more likely than hoping for dead tree newspapers or TV networks to be honest stewards of the truth.</p><p>I gather AOL is hiring reporters at a furious rate and the plan of the new CEO who came from Google is to make it in to the leader in online Journalism.  I wish him well, though my brain has seizures whenever I see the brand he is working under.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The Washington Post is a pale shadow of the paper that broke Watergate .
Personally I stopped reading it about the time they fired Dan Froomkin and their execs thought it was cool to sponsor pay-for-access cocktail parties with politicians .
Their online site was showing promise until Katharine Weymouth canned the people making it happen and forced consolidation with their print division which was like mixing oil and water .
Last month they issued guidelines forbidding their reporters from using Twitter and other social media which shows their dinosaurish nature .
Dan Froomkin is now in charge of the Political section of... the Huffington Post .
Jim Brady another Washington Post luminary is starting a new online Washington news site for Politico.If you want to hop in the way back machine to just before the Iraq invasion , Judith Miller , used the New York Time to shill for her books on WMD 's and for the Bush administration to whip up the frenzy about non existent WMD 's in Iraq .
This has since cost the U.S. about a trillion dollars and thousands of dead and tens of thousands wounded for a lie , which a dead tree journalist helped propagate .
Of course the Hearst empire pioneered yellow journalism and shilling to start wars for no reason in 1898 , " Remember the Maine " , so its not a new phenomena .
And of course in 2003 the NY Times also had Jayson Blair who made a career on plagiarized and fabricated stories and it took forever for the Times editors to notice.So to balance that one Watergate success story everyone cites in these debates there have been multiple recent failures .
The U.S. press was pretty much asleep at the wheel during Iraq , Patriot Act abuses , torture , warrantless spying on Americans on a massive scale , etc .
The NY Times did break the warrantless wiretap story but only after it had been running for years.You seem to be waxing nostalgic for old school journalism that does n't really exist anymore if it ever did .
I 'd being willing to bet if Woodward and Bernstein were to try to break Watergate today , Nixon would call up the Washington Posts management/editors and it would be killed before it saw the light of day because the management of most papers today are pro establishment and pro corporate interests instead of a beacon of truth and freedom .
All the Preside n't men was a product of a handful of unique people who did something amazing and right , it had nothing to do with the actual merits of dead tree journalism.I too would wax poetic for old school journalism but to think its still even alive or it will flourish in the brain dead environment that is most dead tree newspapers today is optimistic at best .
I have to hope the web actually does succeed in producing a beacon for truth and freedom and that it rises above the sea of noise that is the web .
Its a long shot but its a lot more likely than hoping for dead tree newspapers or TV networks to be honest stewards of the truth.I gather AOL is hiring reporters at a furious rate and the plan of the new CEO who came from Google is to make it in to the leader in online Journalism .
I wish him well , though my brain has seizures whenever I see the brand he is working under .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The Washington Post is a pale shadow of the paper that broke Watergate.
Personally I stopped reading it about the time they fired Dan Froomkin and their execs thought it was cool to sponsor pay-for-access cocktail parties with politicians.
Their online site was showing promise until Katharine Weymouth canned the people making it happen and forced consolidation with their print division which was like mixing oil and water.
Last month they issued guidelines forbidding their reporters from using Twitter and other social media which shows their dinosaurish nature.
Dan Froomkin is now in charge of the Political section of... the Huffington Post.
Jim Brady another Washington Post luminary is starting a new online Washington news site for Politico.If you want to hop in the way back machine to just before the Iraq invasion, Judith Miller, used the New York Time to shill for her books on WMD's and for the Bush administration to whip up the frenzy about non existent WMD's in Iraq.
This has since cost the U.S. about a trillion dollars and thousands of dead and tens of thousands wounded for a lie, which a dead tree journalist helped propagate.
Of course the Hearst empire pioneered yellow journalism and shilling to start wars for no reason in 1898, "Remember the Maine", so its not a new phenomena.
And of course in 2003 the NY Times also had Jayson Blair who made a career on plagiarized and fabricated stories and it took forever for the Times editors to notice.So to balance that one Watergate success story everyone cites in these debates there have been multiple recent failures.
The U.S. press was pretty much asleep at the wheel during Iraq, Patriot Act abuses, torture, warrantless spying on Americans on a massive scale, etc.
The NY Times did break the warrantless wiretap story but only after it had been running for years.You seem to be waxing nostalgic for old school journalism that doesn't really exist anymore if it ever did.
I'd being willing to bet if Woodward and Bernstein were to try to break Watergate today, Nixon would call up the Washington Posts management/editors and it would be killed before it saw the light of day because the management of most papers today are pro establishment and pro corporate interests instead of a beacon of truth and freedom.
All the Presiden't men was a product of a handful of unique people who did something amazing and right, it had nothing to do with the actual merits of dead tree journalism.I too would wax poetic for old school journalism but to think its still even alive or it will flourish in the brain dead environment that is most dead tree newspapers today is optimistic at best.
I have to hope the web actually does succeed in producing a beacon for truth and freedom and that it rises above the sea of noise that is the web.
Its a long shot but its a lot more likely than hoping for dead tree newspapers or TV networks to be honest stewards of the truth.I gather AOL is hiring reporters at a furious rate and the plan of the new CEO who came from Google is to make it in to the leader in online Journalism.
I wish him well, though my brain has seizures whenever I see the brand he is working under.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2131236.29903425</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2131236.29903885</id>
	<title>Re:It's their own fault</title>
	<author>onionman</author>
	<datestamp>1256731260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>I dropped my paper because they couldn't seem to get it in the box. After continual complaints of poor service I finally decided I really didn't need it. I don't miss it.</p></div><p>That's the main reason why I stopped getting my local paper!  I walk out the door at 6:30am, and if the paper isn't in the box by then, it's a waste.  Of course, the idiotic editorials, and the lack of any in-depth reporting on local issues didn't help... at least on slashdot I can be one of the ediots (Laugh.  That was funny.)</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I dropped my paper because they could n't seem to get it in the box .
After continual complaints of poor service I finally decided I really did n't need it .
I do n't miss it.That 's the main reason why I stopped getting my local paper !
I walk out the door at 6 : 30am , and if the paper is n't in the box by then , it 's a waste .
Of course , the idiotic editorials , and the lack of any in-depth reporting on local issues did n't help... at least on slashdot I can be one of the ediots ( Laugh .
That was funny .
)</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I dropped my paper because they couldn't seem to get it in the box.
After continual complaints of poor service I finally decided I really didn't need it.
I don't miss it.That's the main reason why I stopped getting my local paper!
I walk out the door at 6:30am, and if the paper isn't in the box by then, it's a waste.
Of course, the idiotic editorials, and the lack of any in-depth reporting on local issues didn't help... at least on slashdot I can be one of the ediots (Laugh.
That was funny.
)
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2131236.29903325</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2131236.29908683</id>
	<title>Old news</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256822580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Sorry, rebel status or not, this was done decades ago: http://www.pocketcalculatorshow.com/magicalgadget/index3.html</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Sorry , rebel status or not , this was done decades ago : http : //www.pocketcalculatorshow.com/magicalgadget/index3.html</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Sorry, rebel status or not, this was done decades ago: http://www.pocketcalculatorshow.com/magicalgadget/index3.html</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2131236.29903579</id>
	<title>Re:It's their own fault</title>
	<author>JohnFen</author>
	<datestamp>1256729220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>The second issue is that newspapers once stood for something. They were either avowedly and unabashedly partisan in their outlook, or they proclaimed journalistic objectivity.</p></div><p>And whichever kind they were, they strove to be at least somewhat accurate rather than just a PR outlet.</p><p>This is the newsbiz's real failing: they have become entirely unreliable. You can no longer read a newspaper and have any confidence that you're getting even an approximation of the facts. Newspapers used to do journalism, or at the least give it the old college try.</p><p>This means that newspapers (and TV &amp; radio news) have no real innate value. It's hard to retain readers when you aren't offering them anything worthwhile.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>The second issue is that newspapers once stood for something .
They were either avowedly and unabashedly partisan in their outlook , or they proclaimed journalistic objectivity.And whichever kind they were , they strove to be at least somewhat accurate rather than just a PR outlet.This is the newsbiz 's real failing : they have become entirely unreliable .
You can no longer read a newspaper and have any confidence that you 're getting even an approximation of the facts .
Newspapers used to do journalism , or at the least give it the old college try.This means that newspapers ( and TV &amp; radio news ) have no real innate value .
It 's hard to retain readers when you are n't offering them anything worthwhile .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The second issue is that newspapers once stood for something.
They were either avowedly and unabashedly partisan in their outlook, or they proclaimed journalistic objectivity.And whichever kind they were, they strove to be at least somewhat accurate rather than just a PR outlet.This is the newsbiz's real failing: they have become entirely unreliable.
You can no longer read a newspaper and have any confidence that you're getting even an approximation of the facts.
Newspapers used to do journalism, or at the least give it the old college try.This means that newspapers (and TV &amp; radio news) have no real innate value.
It's hard to retain readers when you aren't offering them anything worthwhile.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2131236.29903325</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2131236.29903095</id>
	<title>first</title>
	<author>outsider007</author>
	<datestamp>1256726880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Offtopic</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>washington post</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>washington post</tokentext>
<sentencetext>washington post</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2131236.29903091</id>
	<title>Where are the ads?</title>
	<author>ggraham412</author>
	<datestamp>1256726880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Redundant</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I clicked over to the Washington Post to read the story, and there were no ads there.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I clicked over to the Washington Post to read the story , and there were no ads there .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I clicked over to the Washington Post to read the story, and there were no ads there.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2131236.29905821</id>
	<title>Untrustworthy and non-(or anti-)factual</title>
	<author>HiThere</author>
	<datestamp>1256744160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The net is fine if I want opinions and assertions, and the newspapers aren't reliable sources of factual news.  That doesn't leave them much of a niche.</p><p>These days I still have lots of print subscriptions, but not to any newspapers or news magazines.  I don't like paying someone to lie to me.  (I'll pick up an occasional copy of something, but it's as likely to be the "Weekly World News" as a standard newspaper.  They don't try to fool me about lying to me.)</p><p>N.B.:  Being staid and boring isn't the same thing as being trustworthy.  It just means that even your lies are boring.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The net is fine if I want opinions and assertions , and the newspapers are n't reliable sources of factual news .
That does n't leave them much of a niche.These days I still have lots of print subscriptions , but not to any newspapers or news magazines .
I do n't like paying someone to lie to me .
( I 'll pick up an occasional copy of something , but it 's as likely to be the " Weekly World News " as a standard newspaper .
They do n't try to fool me about lying to me. ) N.B .
: Being staid and boring is n't the same thing as being trustworthy .
It just means that even your lies are boring .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The net is fine if I want opinions and assertions, and the newspapers aren't reliable sources of factual news.
That doesn't leave them much of a niche.These days I still have lots of print subscriptions, but not to any newspapers or news magazines.
I don't like paying someone to lie to me.
(I'll pick up an occasional copy of something, but it's as likely to be the "Weekly World News" as a standard newspaper.
They don't try to fool me about lying to me.)N.B.
:  Being staid and boring isn't the same thing as being trustworthy.
It just means that even your lies are boring.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2131236.29906559</id>
	<title>Re:Evolve or die.....</title>
	<author>internic</author>
	<datestamp>1256750460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>If you think there is journalism in a newspaper these days it is because you haven't picked one up lately and actually read it. It's all opinion posing as news, press releases reprinted as gospel, rumors and gossip</p></div>
</blockquote><p>
What about the investigative journalism that revealed the existence of the so-called "torture memos", or the secret CIA prisons, or the NSA's warrantless wiretapping program, or the neglect of injured veterans at the VA?  That was reporting all done by print newspapers during recent years that is not just press release or opinion piece or gossip.  I often hear a refrain like the one I've quoted above from would-be critics of the "mainstream media", but it simply isn't true.  And, as far as I can see, there are few people (if any) in the "new media" doing that sort of very crucial work.  I will certainly grant, though, that newspapers have featured more and more opinion, rumors, etc. over time, presumably because it's cheap and people seem to like it.
</p><blockquote><div><p>Thought experiment. Most reading here are tech types. Read a legacy media story about a tech issue and note how many inacuracies you can spot. It isn't just tech, it is your ability to spot errors in that field that is greater. The error rate in every other section is as great or greater.</p></div>
</blockquote><p>
[citation needed]?<br>
People in the general population have differing levels of familiarity with different subjects.  For example, your average American is much more likely to know a significant amount about history than mathematics or, say, astronomy.  This non-uniformity will be even more pronounced in specialized group, like people in a particular profession.  The bottom line is that there will be certain sorts of topics that journalists are likely to be more familiar with and others they're unlikely to know much about.  Absent some compelling evidence, it doesn't make much sense to assume that the rate of errors in one particular topic transfer over to all topics.  Given that journalism is usually lumped with the "liberal arts" and journalism degree programs send to stress those sorts of topics, it's probably reasonable to assume that a journalist is less likely to have a good basis for understanding tech than, say, politics and law.
</p><blockquote><div><p>Now go read a couple stories from a major source, say the NYT or CNN. Note how many basic grammar errors you find, assuming you yourself are clueful enough to do this. They SAY the reason to trust the MSM over bloggers in their underwear is they have vetting, fact checking and editors. Jason Blair puts paid to vetting, the test above should remove all doubt as to fact checking and if there are still real editors in the newsroom how do so many basic spelling and grammar errors make it into print?</p></div>
</blockquote><p>
But this reasoning essentially boils down to the statement that newspapers don't have a perfect record of accuracy and, therefore, they must be totally inaccurate.  Clearly that's fallacious reasoning.  The question you'd have to answer is how their accuracy and journalistic standards compare to blogs (or whatever alternative you're talking about).  Clearly, this would take some work to examine.
</p><blockquote><div><p>If they aren't even bothering to proofread the damned copy are we to believe they are calling back all the sources and checking the quotes and going to authoritative sources to confirm every fact and figure in a story?</p></div>
</blockquote><p>
Isn't fact checker a distinct function from copy editor at a newspaper?  If so, then it's entirely possible that one can be under-resourced and not the other.  Besides which, I'd imagine that most spell-checking is relegated to a computer program.
</p><blockquote><div><p>And unlike most bloggers, they don't even bother running a correction unless someone important makes a fuss or threatens legal action.</p></div>
</blockquote><p>
Again, [citation needed].  I've seen all sorts of radically mistaken stuff online.  Sometimes corrections are posted, and sometime not.  TV seems to be totally abysmal on this front.
</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>If you think there is journalism in a newspaper these days it is because you have n't picked one up lately and actually read it .
It 's all opinion posing as news , press releases reprinted as gospel , rumors and gossip What about the investigative journalism that revealed the existence of the so-called " torture memos " , or the secret CIA prisons , or the NSA 's warrantless wiretapping program , or the neglect of injured veterans at the VA ?
That was reporting all done by print newspapers during recent years that is not just press release or opinion piece or gossip .
I often hear a refrain like the one I 've quoted above from would-be critics of the " mainstream media " , but it simply is n't true .
And , as far as I can see , there are few people ( if any ) in the " new media " doing that sort of very crucial work .
I will certainly grant , though , that newspapers have featured more and more opinion , rumors , etc .
over time , presumably because it 's cheap and people seem to like it .
Thought experiment .
Most reading here are tech types .
Read a legacy media story about a tech issue and note how many inacuracies you can spot .
It is n't just tech , it is your ability to spot errors in that field that is greater .
The error rate in every other section is as great or greater .
[ citation needed ] ?
People in the general population have differing levels of familiarity with different subjects .
For example , your average American is much more likely to know a significant amount about history than mathematics or , say , astronomy .
This non-uniformity will be even more pronounced in specialized group , like people in a particular profession .
The bottom line is that there will be certain sorts of topics that journalists are likely to be more familiar with and others they 're unlikely to know much about .
Absent some compelling evidence , it does n't make much sense to assume that the rate of errors in one particular topic transfer over to all topics .
Given that journalism is usually lumped with the " liberal arts " and journalism degree programs send to stress those sorts of topics , it 's probably reasonable to assume that a journalist is less likely to have a good basis for understanding tech than , say , politics and law .
Now go read a couple stories from a major source , say the NYT or CNN .
Note how many basic grammar errors you find , assuming you yourself are clueful enough to do this .
They SAY the reason to trust the MSM over bloggers in their underwear is they have vetting , fact checking and editors .
Jason Blair puts paid to vetting , the test above should remove all doubt as to fact checking and if there are still real editors in the newsroom how do so many basic spelling and grammar errors make it into print ?
But this reasoning essentially boils down to the statement that newspapers do n't have a perfect record of accuracy and , therefore , they must be totally inaccurate .
Clearly that 's fallacious reasoning .
The question you 'd have to answer is how their accuracy and journalistic standards compare to blogs ( or whatever alternative you 're talking about ) .
Clearly , this would take some work to examine .
If they are n't even bothering to proofread the damned copy are we to believe they are calling back all the sources and checking the quotes and going to authoritative sources to confirm every fact and figure in a story ?
Is n't fact checker a distinct function from copy editor at a newspaper ?
If so , then it 's entirely possible that one can be under-resourced and not the other .
Besides which , I 'd imagine that most spell-checking is relegated to a computer program .
And unlike most bloggers , they do n't even bother running a correction unless someone important makes a fuss or threatens legal action .
Again , [ citation needed ] .
I 've seen all sorts of radically mistaken stuff online .
Sometimes corrections are posted , and sometime not .
TV seems to be totally abysmal on this front .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If you think there is journalism in a newspaper these days it is because you haven't picked one up lately and actually read it.
It's all opinion posing as news, press releases reprinted as gospel, rumors and gossip

What about the investigative journalism that revealed the existence of the so-called "torture memos", or the secret CIA prisons, or the NSA's warrantless wiretapping program, or the neglect of injured veterans at the VA?
That was reporting all done by print newspapers during recent years that is not just press release or opinion piece or gossip.
I often hear a refrain like the one I've quoted above from would-be critics of the "mainstream media", but it simply isn't true.
And, as far as I can see, there are few people (if any) in the "new media" doing that sort of very crucial work.
I will certainly grant, though, that newspapers have featured more and more opinion, rumors, etc.
over time, presumably because it's cheap and people seem to like it.
Thought experiment.
Most reading here are tech types.
Read a legacy media story about a tech issue and note how many inacuracies you can spot.
It isn't just tech, it is your ability to spot errors in that field that is greater.
The error rate in every other section is as great or greater.
[citation needed]?
People in the general population have differing levels of familiarity with different subjects.
For example, your average American is much more likely to know a significant amount about history than mathematics or, say, astronomy.
This non-uniformity will be even more pronounced in specialized group, like people in a particular profession.
The bottom line is that there will be certain sorts of topics that journalists are likely to be more familiar with and others they're unlikely to know much about.
Absent some compelling evidence, it doesn't make much sense to assume that the rate of errors in one particular topic transfer over to all topics.
Given that journalism is usually lumped with the "liberal arts" and journalism degree programs send to stress those sorts of topics, it's probably reasonable to assume that a journalist is less likely to have a good basis for understanding tech than, say, politics and law.
Now go read a couple stories from a major source, say the NYT or CNN.
Note how many basic grammar errors you find, assuming you yourself are clueful enough to do this.
They SAY the reason to trust the MSM over bloggers in their underwear is they have vetting, fact checking and editors.
Jason Blair puts paid to vetting, the test above should remove all doubt as to fact checking and if there are still real editors in the newsroom how do so many basic spelling and grammar errors make it into print?
But this reasoning essentially boils down to the statement that newspapers don't have a perfect record of accuracy and, therefore, they must be totally inaccurate.
Clearly that's fallacious reasoning.
The question you'd have to answer is how their accuracy and journalistic standards compare to blogs (or whatever alternative you're talking about).
Clearly, this would take some work to examine.
If they aren't even bothering to proofread the damned copy are we to believe they are calling back all the sources and checking the quotes and going to authoritative sources to confirm every fact and figure in a story?
Isn't fact checker a distinct function from copy editor at a newspaper?
If so, then it's entirely possible that one can be under-resourced and not the other.
Besides which, I'd imagine that most spell-checking is relegated to a computer program.
And unlike most bloggers, they don't even bother running a correction unless someone important makes a fuss or threatens legal action.
Again, [citation needed].
I've seen all sorts of radically mistaken stuff online.
Sometimes corrections are posted, and sometime not.
TV seems to be totally abysmal on this front.

	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2131236.29905043</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2131236.29906907</id>
	<title>Two names</title>
	<author>Ungrounded Lightning</author>
	<datestamp>1256754360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>Question: would Wired and the Huffington Post have broken the Watergate scandal?</i></p><p>Two names:  Matt Drudge and Monica Lewinsky</p><p>Three more:  Powerline, Little Green Footballs", and Dan Rather.</p><p>I could keep this up for pages.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Question : would Wired and the Huffington Post have broken the Watergate scandal ? Two names : Matt Drudge and Monica LewinskyThree more : Powerline , Little Green Footballs " , and Dan Rather.I could keep this up for pages .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Question: would Wired and the Huffington Post have broken the Watergate scandal?Two names:  Matt Drudge and Monica LewinskyThree more:  Powerline, Little Green Footballs", and Dan Rather.I could keep this up for pages.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2131236.29903425</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2131236.29905845</id>
	<title>Re:I look forward to the edifying spectacle...</title>
	<author>greengearbox</author>
	<datestamp>1256744340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>
I don't really disagree with you, but I think you're over-simplifying things.  All newspapers, even the big ones, have been flailing about trying to remain "relevant".
</p><p>But, as folks up-thread have mentioned, newspapers still sometimes do good <b>local</b> work.  Consider the series by the L.A. Times a few months ago on the abuses at MLK Hospital.  Brutal stuff, and I'm sure it took weeks of hard work to put together.
</p><p>Is it necessary that the L.A. Times itself do such reporting?  Of course not.  But, and here's the kicker, while I read the articles and thought they were excellent pieces which should (and did) lead to some sort of action, I paid nothing at all to read the story.  I probably would, in theory anyway, pay for good local journalism, but at this point I wouldn't know who to pay.  I can't say that it'd be a terrible thing if all current media companies vanished, but what's to replace them?
</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I do n't really disagree with you , but I think you 're over-simplifying things .
All newspapers , even the big ones , have been flailing about trying to remain " relevant " .
But , as folks up-thread have mentioned , newspapers still sometimes do good local work .
Consider the series by the L.A. Times a few months ago on the abuses at MLK Hospital .
Brutal stuff , and I 'm sure it took weeks of hard work to put together .
Is it necessary that the L.A. Times itself do such reporting ?
Of course not .
But , and here 's the kicker , while I read the articles and thought they were excellent pieces which should ( and did ) lead to some sort of action , I paid nothing at all to read the story .
I probably would , in theory anyway , pay for good local journalism , but at this point I would n't know who to pay .
I ca n't say that it 'd be a terrible thing if all current media companies vanished , but what 's to replace them ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>
I don't really disagree with you, but I think you're over-simplifying things.
All newspapers, even the big ones, have been flailing about trying to remain "relevant".
But, as folks up-thread have mentioned, newspapers still sometimes do good local work.
Consider the series by the L.A. Times a few months ago on the abuses at MLK Hospital.
Brutal stuff, and I'm sure it took weeks of hard work to put together.
Is it necessary that the L.A. Times itself do such reporting?
Of course not.
But, and here's the kicker, while I read the articles and thought they were excellent pieces which should (and did) lead to some sort of action, I paid nothing at all to read the story.
I probably would, in theory anyway, pay for good local journalism, but at this point I wouldn't know who to pay.
I can't say that it'd be a terrible thing if all current media companies vanished, but what's to replace them?
</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2131236.29903943</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2131236.29904443</id>
	<title>Re:Why are ads so much cheaper online though?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256734740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Supply and demand.  There is only so much advertising space available in a print newspaper.  On the Internet, the supply is essentially infinite.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Supply and demand .
There is only so much advertising space available in a print newspaper .
On the Internet , the supply is essentially infinite .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Supply and demand.
There is only so much advertising space available in a print newspaper.
On the Internet, the supply is essentially infinite.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2131236.29903313</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2131236.29903203</id>
	<title>By the time you read it ...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256727420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>... it's nearly 1 day old</htmltext>
<tokenext>... it 's nearly 1 day old</tokentext>
<sentencetext>... it's nearly 1 day old</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2131236.29906817</id>
	<title>Re:Evolve or die.....</title>
	<author>PitaBred</author>
	<datestamp>1256753220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I still enjoy the paper, but I just got a bill to continue my subscription for $40. For Sundays only. That's almost a buck a paper... why would I want to do that? Sure, the Sunday edition has all the sales and ads for local merchants, but I'd think that'd subsidize Sunday delivery. Guess not. Guess the paper just lost $40.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I still enjoy the paper , but I just got a bill to continue my subscription for $ 40 .
For Sundays only .
That 's almost a buck a paper... why would I want to do that ?
Sure , the Sunday edition has all the sales and ads for local merchants , but I 'd think that 'd subsidize Sunday delivery .
Guess not .
Guess the paper just lost $ 40 .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I still enjoy the paper, but I just got a bill to continue my subscription for $40.
For Sundays only.
That's almost a buck a paper... why would I want to do that?
Sure, the Sunday edition has all the sales and ads for local merchants, but I'd think that'd subsidize Sunday delivery.
Guess not.
Guess the paper just lost $40.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2131236.29903247</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2131236.29904283</id>
	<title>Re:Evolve or die.....</title>
	<author>aafiske</author>
	<datestamp>1256733780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Huh? The larger kindle is out now. I saw someone on the train with it. Woudln't get the large one myself, but it's there if you want it.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Huh ?
The larger kindle is out now .
I saw someone on the train with it .
Woudl n't get the large one myself , but it 's there if you want it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Huh?
The larger kindle is out now.
I saw someone on the train with it.
Woudln't get the large one myself, but it's there if you want it.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2131236.29903247</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2131236.29903213</id>
	<title>Not believing it</title>
	<author>DoofusOfDeath</author>
	<datestamp>1256727480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I'm skeptical that there's an actual decline happening.  There was <i>nothing</i> about this on Drudge.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm skeptical that there 's an actual decline happening .
There was nothing about this on Drudge .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm skeptical that there's an actual decline happening.
There was nothing about this on Drudge.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2131236.29903661</id>
	<title>Re:Possible causes</title>
	<author>Frosty Piss</author>
	<datestamp>1256729880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>This is a good point: Many (most?) local papers are now nothing more than regurgitation of wire-feeds from the AP or whoever. Who needs to subscribe to the paper for that? And the sale coupons come in the mail now...</htmltext>
<tokenext>This is a good point : Many ( most ?
) local papers are now nothing more than regurgitation of wire-feeds from the AP or whoever .
Who needs to subscribe to the paper for that ?
And the sale coupons come in the mail now.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This is a good point: Many (most?
) local papers are now nothing more than regurgitation of wire-feeds from the AP or whoever.
Who needs to subscribe to the paper for that?
And the sale coupons come in the mail now...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2131236.29903185</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2131236.29903537</id>
	<title>Investigative Journalism</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256729040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Most investigative journalists turn their research into books and make more money. Since most papers have already slashed their newsrooms, this leaves the papers to print what's on the newswire or Op-Ed pieces.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Most investigative journalists turn their research into books and make more money .
Since most papers have already slashed their newsrooms , this leaves the papers to print what 's on the newswire or Op-Ed pieces .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Most investigative journalists turn their research into books and make more money.
Since most papers have already slashed their newsrooms, this leaves the papers to print what's on the newswire or Op-Ed pieces.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2131236.29928655</id>
	<title>Re:By the time you read it ...</title>
	<author>joeljkp</author>
	<datestamp>1256895840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The thing is, except for a few categories (disasters, crimes, etc.), slower news is better news. You'll usually get better, more accurate, more informed writing on a topic from a newsweekly than a newspaper, from a monthly over a newsweekly, and from a published book over a monthly.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The thing is , except for a few categories ( disasters , crimes , etc .
) , slower news is better news .
You 'll usually get better , more accurate , more informed writing on a topic from a newsweekly than a newspaper , from a monthly over a newsweekly , and from a published book over a monthly .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The thing is, except for a few categories (disasters, crimes, etc.
), slower news is better news.
You'll usually get better, more accurate, more informed writing on a topic from a newsweekly than a newspaper, from a monthly over a newsweekly, and from a published book over a monthly.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2131236.29903203</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2131236.29910715</id>
	<title>Re:Evolve or die.....</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256832600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><blockquote><div><p>If you think there is journalism in a newspaper these days it is because you haven't picked one up lately and actually read it. It's all opinion posing as news, press releases reprinted as gospel, rumors and gossip</p></div></blockquote><p>What about the investigative journalism that revealed the existence of the so-called "torture memos", or the secret CIA prisons, or the NSA's warrantless wiretapping program, or the neglect of injured veterans at the VA?  That was reporting all done by print newspapers during recent years that is not just press release or opinion piece or gossip.</p></div><p>Thank you for pointing that out... although I tend to agree with the grandparent poster's scathing opinion of old school media, your post made me realize that I do tend to overgeneralize... there is some very good work still being done.  Though now I'm even more concerned over the terrible degradation in quality I perceive, because it's unclear to me what, if anything, will pick up the slack when and if the mainstream outlets no longer do.</p><p><div class="quote"><p>But this reasoning essentially boils down to the statement that newspapers don't have a perfect record of accuracy and, therefore, they must be totally inaccurate.  Clearly that's fallacious reasoning.  The question you'd have to answer is how their accuracy and journalistic standards compare to blogs (or whatever alternative you're talking about).  Clearly, this would take some work to examine.</p></div><p>[...snip...]</p><p><div class="quote"><blockquote><div><p>If they aren't even bothering to proofread the damned copy are we to believe they are calling back all the sources and checking the quotes and going to authoritative sources to confirm every fact and figure in a story?</p></div></blockquote><p>Isn't fact checker a distinct function from copy editor at a newspaper?  If so, then it's entirely possible that one can be under-resourced and not the other.  Besides which, I'd imagine that most spell-checking is relegated to a computer program.</p></div><p>I think that you're probably correct, but I also think that the original opinion is one that's widespread.  Fallacious reasoning or not, it is (in my opinion, anyway) a large part of the reason people are so disgusted with the quality of mainstream news media, and I think they'll need to address it if they expect to survive.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>If you think there is journalism in a newspaper these days it is because you have n't picked one up lately and actually read it .
It 's all opinion posing as news , press releases reprinted as gospel , rumors and gossipWhat about the investigative journalism that revealed the existence of the so-called " torture memos " , or the secret CIA prisons , or the NSA 's warrantless wiretapping program , or the neglect of injured veterans at the VA ?
That was reporting all done by print newspapers during recent years that is not just press release or opinion piece or gossip.Thank you for pointing that out... although I tend to agree with the grandparent poster 's scathing opinion of old school media , your post made me realize that I do tend to overgeneralize... there is some very good work still being done .
Though now I 'm even more concerned over the terrible degradation in quality I perceive , because it 's unclear to me what , if anything , will pick up the slack when and if the mainstream outlets no longer do.But this reasoning essentially boils down to the statement that newspapers do n't have a perfect record of accuracy and , therefore , they must be totally inaccurate .
Clearly that 's fallacious reasoning .
The question you 'd have to answer is how their accuracy and journalistic standards compare to blogs ( or whatever alternative you 're talking about ) .
Clearly , this would take some work to examine. [ ...snip.. .
] If they are n't even bothering to proofread the damned copy are we to believe they are calling back all the sources and checking the quotes and going to authoritative sources to confirm every fact and figure in a story ? Is n't fact checker a distinct function from copy editor at a newspaper ?
If so , then it 's entirely possible that one can be under-resourced and not the other .
Besides which , I 'd imagine that most spell-checking is relegated to a computer program.I think that you 're probably correct , but I also think that the original opinion is one that 's widespread .
Fallacious reasoning or not , it is ( in my opinion , anyway ) a large part of the reason people are so disgusted with the quality of mainstream news media , and I think they 'll need to address it if they expect to survive .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If you think there is journalism in a newspaper these days it is because you haven't picked one up lately and actually read it.
It's all opinion posing as news, press releases reprinted as gospel, rumors and gossipWhat about the investigative journalism that revealed the existence of the so-called "torture memos", or the secret CIA prisons, or the NSA's warrantless wiretapping program, or the neglect of injured veterans at the VA?
That was reporting all done by print newspapers during recent years that is not just press release or opinion piece or gossip.Thank you for pointing that out... although I tend to agree with the grandparent poster's scathing opinion of old school media, your post made me realize that I do tend to overgeneralize... there is some very good work still being done.
Though now I'm even more concerned over the terrible degradation in quality I perceive, because it's unclear to me what, if anything, will pick up the slack when and if the mainstream outlets no longer do.But this reasoning essentially boils down to the statement that newspapers don't have a perfect record of accuracy and, therefore, they must be totally inaccurate.
Clearly that's fallacious reasoning.
The question you'd have to answer is how their accuracy and journalistic standards compare to blogs (or whatever alternative you're talking about).
Clearly, this would take some work to examine.[...snip...
]If they aren't even bothering to proofread the damned copy are we to believe they are calling back all the sources and checking the quotes and going to authoritative sources to confirm every fact and figure in a story?Isn't fact checker a distinct function from copy editor at a newspaper?
If so, then it's entirely possible that one can be under-resourced and not the other.
Besides which, I'd imagine that most spell-checking is relegated to a computer program.I think that you're probably correct, but I also think that the original opinion is one that's widespread.
Fallacious reasoning or not, it is (in my opinion, anyway) a large part of the reason people are so disgusted with the quality of mainstream news media, and I think they'll need to address it if they expect to survive.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2131236.29906559</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2131236.29907011</id>
	<title>Re:I think this is the first time...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256755740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You sir made my day. Well done.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You sir made my day .
Well done .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You sir made my day.
Well done.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2131236.29903749</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2131236.29903337</id>
	<title>Re:Evolve or die.....</title>
	<author>TorKlingberg</author>
	<datestamp>1256728020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The problem is, newspapers isn't being replaced by anything superior. I really don't see blogs and sites like digg and slashdot taking over journalism. They are great for commentary but don't produce original news, unless if there is an agenda.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The problem is , newspapers is n't being replaced by anything superior .
I really do n't see blogs and sites like digg and slashdot taking over journalism .
They are great for commentary but do n't produce original news , unless if there is an agenda .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The problem is, newspapers isn't being replaced by anything superior.
I really don't see blogs and sites like digg and slashdot taking over journalism.
They are great for commentary but don't produce original news, unless if there is an agenda.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2131236.29903103</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2131236.29903935</id>
	<title>Re:By the time you read it ...</title>
	<author>dave562</author>
	<datestamp>1256731620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Exactly.  I was reading the Wall Street Journal on the way into work this morning and I realized that I had already read all of the major stories that they were covering.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Exactly .
I was reading the Wall Street Journal on the way into work this morning and I realized that I had already read all of the major stories that they were covering .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Exactly.
I was reading the Wall Street Journal on the way into work this morning and I realized that I had already read all of the major stories that they were covering.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2131236.29903203</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2131236.29907367</id>
	<title>Re:Newspaper Culture</title>
	<author>jcr</author>
	<datestamp>1256759760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>What will we roll up and shake at our dogs?</i></p><p>I get plenty of junk mail that's printed on tabloid sheets.</p><p>-jcr</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>What will we roll up and shake at our dogs ? I get plenty of junk mail that 's printed on tabloid sheets.-jcr</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What will we roll up and shake at our dogs?I get plenty of junk mail that's printed on tabloid sheets.-jcr</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2131236.29903285</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2131236.29903347</id>
	<title>Quality, Distribution Method, and Price</title>
	<author>dlevitan</author>
	<datestamp>1256728080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>First problem is that most newspapers are useless except for very local news. It used to be that you actually needed to subscribe to the local newspaper to know what was going on. With the web (blogs and the like)...that's simply not the case anymore. Which means that (at least for me) there are very few newspapers that actually provide anything of value...and that's primarily the investigative reporting. Sadly, this also seems to be one of the things that is being eliminated first.</p><p>The newspapers' only chance to survive is to differentiate themselves from the cable networks and actually write their own interesting articles, rather than just use articles from Reuters/AP. They should also adapt to the growing number of smartphones and realize that this is the delivery method of choice going forward. If they offer a low price ($10-20/month?) service and restrict free articles to one or two per day per person, they can open a new revenue source, and I think many people would have no problems paying for this for good newspapers (the NY Times comes to mind), especially if they were able to get articles delivered in a good format for smartphones.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>First problem is that most newspapers are useless except for very local news .
It used to be that you actually needed to subscribe to the local newspaper to know what was going on .
With the web ( blogs and the like ) ...that 's simply not the case anymore .
Which means that ( at least for me ) there are very few newspapers that actually provide anything of value...and that 's primarily the investigative reporting .
Sadly , this also seems to be one of the things that is being eliminated first.The newspapers ' only chance to survive is to differentiate themselves from the cable networks and actually write their own interesting articles , rather than just use articles from Reuters/AP .
They should also adapt to the growing number of smartphones and realize that this is the delivery method of choice going forward .
If they offer a low price ( $ 10-20/month ?
) service and restrict free articles to one or two per day per person , they can open a new revenue source , and I think many people would have no problems paying for this for good newspapers ( the NY Times comes to mind ) , especially if they were able to get articles delivered in a good format for smartphones .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>First problem is that most newspapers are useless except for very local news.
It used to be that you actually needed to subscribe to the local newspaper to know what was going on.
With the web (blogs and the like)...that's simply not the case anymore.
Which means that (at least for me) there are very few newspapers that actually provide anything of value...and that's primarily the investigative reporting.
Sadly, this also seems to be one of the things that is being eliminated first.The newspapers' only chance to survive is to differentiate themselves from the cable networks and actually write their own interesting articles, rather than just use articles from Reuters/AP.
They should also adapt to the growing number of smartphones and realize that this is the delivery method of choice going forward.
If they offer a low price ($10-20/month?
) service and restrict free articles to one or two per day per person, they can open a new revenue source, and I think many people would have no problems paying for this for good newspapers (the NY Times comes to mind), especially if they were able to get articles delivered in a good format for smartphones.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2131236.29903089</id>
	<title>Rupert Murdoch called !! He's says it ain't so !!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256726880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Rupert Murdoch called !! He's says it ain't so !!</p><p>and to eat his shorts !!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Rupert Murdoch called ! !
He 's says it ai n't so !
! and to eat his shorts !
!</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Rupert Murdoch called !!
He's says it ain't so !
!and to eat his shorts !
!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2131236.29904089</id>
	<title>Re:Evolve or die.....</title>
	<author>jdoyle1x1</author>
	<datestamp>1256732520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>The problem is, newspapers isn't being replaced by anything superior. I really don't see blogs and sites like digg and slashdot taking over journalism. They are great for commentary but don't produce original news, unless if there is an agenda.</p></div><p>That is the problem with newspapers, they 'produce' news. Because they have an 'agenda'.


If they were only reporting the news, instead of 'producing' it, their readership numbers maight not be tanking as badly...</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>The problem is , newspapers is n't being replaced by anything superior .
I really do n't see blogs and sites like digg and slashdot taking over journalism .
They are great for commentary but do n't produce original news , unless if there is an agenda.That is the problem with newspapers , they 'produce ' news .
Because they have an 'agenda' .
If they were only reporting the news , instead of 'producing ' it , their readership numbers maight not be tanking as badly.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The problem is, newspapers isn't being replaced by anything superior.
I really don't see blogs and sites like digg and slashdot taking over journalism.
They are great for commentary but don't produce original news, unless if there is an agenda.That is the problem with newspapers, they 'produce' news.
Because they have an 'agenda'.
If they were only reporting the news, instead of 'producing' it, their readership numbers maight not be tanking as badly...
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2131236.29903337</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2131236.29903425</id>
	<title>I look forward to the edifying spectacle...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256728440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>...of hordes of<nobr> <wbr></nobr>./ readers taking time out from flaming one another and bitching about the poor quality of editor control on the site and the dubious submissions which make it through to the front page to sanctimoniously celebrate the death of "old" media.</p><p>Question: would Wired and the Huffington Post have broken the Watergate scandal?  Do they even have the resources?  Would they have survived the commercial and political pressure resulting from pursuing the story (the Post nearly didn't)?</p><p>Newspapers have failed to adapt, but they do have a number of useful features which IMHO the web has so far failed to replicate, such as strong editorial structures, proper investigative journalism (not just "in today's blog blog, we blog about a blog about something which someone wrong somewhere else"), accountability (once it's printed, it's printed), a selection of content which does not automatically conform to every pre-defined interest and prejudice of the reader, and a delivery method which involves passivity from the recipient rather than requiring the recipient to go out and proactively seek the information they want.</p><p>Does all of this mean they deserve to prosper in their current form?  No.  But I am scared if the Drudge Report is what is going to replace the Washington Post.  On one level the issues facing newspapers seem to me to be facing society more generally: how do we manage our apparent addiction to short, semi-meaningless factoids now that we have a series of electronic systems for delivering them faster and more meaninglessly than ever before?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>...of hordes of ./ readers taking time out from flaming one another and bitching about the poor quality of editor control on the site and the dubious submissions which make it through to the front page to sanctimoniously celebrate the death of " old " media.Question : would Wired and the Huffington Post have broken the Watergate scandal ?
Do they even have the resources ?
Would they have survived the commercial and political pressure resulting from pursuing the story ( the Post nearly did n't ) ? Newspapers have failed to adapt , but they do have a number of useful features which IMHO the web has so far failed to replicate , such as strong editorial structures , proper investigative journalism ( not just " in today 's blog blog , we blog about a blog about something which someone wrong somewhere else " ) , accountability ( once it 's printed , it 's printed ) , a selection of content which does not automatically conform to every pre-defined interest and prejudice of the reader , and a delivery method which involves passivity from the recipient rather than requiring the recipient to go out and proactively seek the information they want.Does all of this mean they deserve to prosper in their current form ?
No. But I am scared if the Drudge Report is what is going to replace the Washington Post .
On one level the issues facing newspapers seem to me to be facing society more generally : how do we manage our apparent addiction to short , semi-meaningless factoids now that we have a series of electronic systems for delivering them faster and more meaninglessly than ever before ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>...of hordes of ./ readers taking time out from flaming one another and bitching about the poor quality of editor control on the site and the dubious submissions which make it through to the front page to sanctimoniously celebrate the death of "old" media.Question: would Wired and the Huffington Post have broken the Watergate scandal?
Do they even have the resources?
Would they have survived the commercial and political pressure resulting from pursuing the story (the Post nearly didn't)?Newspapers have failed to adapt, but they do have a number of useful features which IMHO the web has so far failed to replicate, such as strong editorial structures, proper investigative journalism (not just "in today's blog blog, we blog about a blog about something which someone wrong somewhere else"), accountability (once it's printed, it's printed), a selection of content which does not automatically conform to every pre-defined interest and prejudice of the reader, and a delivery method which involves passivity from the recipient rather than requiring the recipient to go out and proactively seek the information they want.Does all of this mean they deserve to prosper in their current form?
No.  But I am scared if the Drudge Report is what is going to replace the Washington Post.
On one level the issues facing newspapers seem to me to be facing society more generally: how do we manage our apparent addiction to short, semi-meaningless factoids now that we have a series of electronic systems for delivering them faster and more meaninglessly than ever before?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2131236.29903795</id>
	<title>Ads..</title>
	<author>kpainter</author>
	<datestamp>1256730660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>"Ads on newspaper Internet sites sell for pennies on the dollar compared with ads in their ink-on-paper cousins"<br>
Why is that?  If I PAY to subscribe to the newspaper, why should it be loaded with ads at all?  My local paper has almost nothing worth reading in it.  A bunch of AP articles, used as filler, that I can read for free online now and a boatload of ads.  Very little useful local content.  No wonder they are all failing.</htmltext>
<tokenext>" Ads on newspaper Internet sites sell for pennies on the dollar compared with ads in their ink-on-paper cousins " Why is that ?
If I PAY to subscribe to the newspaper , why should it be loaded with ads at all ?
My local paper has almost nothing worth reading in it .
A bunch of AP articles , used as filler , that I can read for free online now and a boatload of ads .
Very little useful local content .
No wonder they are all failing .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"Ads on newspaper Internet sites sell for pennies on the dollar compared with ads in their ink-on-paper cousins"
Why is that?
If I PAY to subscribe to the newspaper, why should it be loaded with ads at all?
My local paper has almost nothing worth reading in it.
A bunch of AP articles, used as filler, that I can read for free online now and a boatload of ads.
Very little useful local content.
No wonder they are all failing.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2131236.29904005</id>
	<title>No integrity</title>
	<author>plopez</author>
	<datestamp>1256732040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I've given up on the mainstream media (MSM). They have no integrity or validity as far as I am concerned. They are in my opinion nothing more than gov't or corporate shills.</p><p>Case in point is the WMDs and the war in Iraq. For months the New York Times (as well as other "legitimate" news outlets (I'm not counting the Fox network)) beat the drums of war. They helped stampede the US into the Iraqi invasion and discounted dissenting opinion and facts.</p><p>Then when no WMDs were found they buried it on page 7. One article for one day. Many Americans still believe there were WMDs and connections between Sadam and Al Q. If the NYT, and the MSM had beat the drums of "no WMDs" and "no ties with Al Qaeda" for months, what would American opinion be instead?</p><p>AFAIAC, they have no integrity and I do not trust the MSM.</p><p>The sooner they die the better.</p><p>(Yes, as a matter of fact I am ranting)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 've given up on the mainstream media ( MSM ) .
They have no integrity or validity as far as I am concerned .
They are in my opinion nothing more than gov't or corporate shills.Case in point is the WMDs and the war in Iraq .
For months the New York Times ( as well as other " legitimate " news outlets ( I 'm not counting the Fox network ) ) beat the drums of war .
They helped stampede the US into the Iraqi invasion and discounted dissenting opinion and facts.Then when no WMDs were found they buried it on page 7 .
One article for one day .
Many Americans still believe there were WMDs and connections between Sadam and Al Q. If the NYT , and the MSM had beat the drums of " no WMDs " and " no ties with Al Qaeda " for months , what would American opinion be instead ? AFAIAC , they have no integrity and I do not trust the MSM.The sooner they die the better .
( Yes , as a matter of fact I am ranting )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I've given up on the mainstream media (MSM).
They have no integrity or validity as far as I am concerned.
They are in my opinion nothing more than gov't or corporate shills.Case in point is the WMDs and the war in Iraq.
For months the New York Times (as well as other "legitimate" news outlets (I'm not counting the Fox network)) beat the drums of war.
They helped stampede the US into the Iraqi invasion and discounted dissenting opinion and facts.Then when no WMDs were found they buried it on page 7.
One article for one day.
Many Americans still believe there were WMDs and connections between Sadam and Al Q. If the NYT, and the MSM had beat the drums of "no WMDs" and "no ties with Al Qaeda" for months, what would American opinion be instead?AFAIAC, they have no integrity and I do not trust the MSM.The sooner they die the better.
(Yes, as a matter of fact I am ranting)</sentencetext>
</comment>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_28_2131236_26</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2131236.29903235
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2131236.29903437
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_28_2131236_17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2131236.29903839
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2131236.29918997
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_28_2131236_9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2131236.29903103
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2131236.29903337
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2131236.29903713
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2131236.29904391
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_28_2131236_75</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2131236.29903185
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2131236.29903661
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_28_2131236_77</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2131236.29903103
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2131236.29903337
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2131236.29905043
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2131236.29906359
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_28_2131236_20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2131236.29903313
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2131236.29908155
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_28_2131236_16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2131236.29903313
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2131236.29903385
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_28_2131236_91</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2131236.29903235
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2131236.29904503
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_28_2131236_82</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2131236.29903089
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2131236.29906213
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_28_2131236_10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2131236.29903103
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2131236.29903337
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2131236.29905043
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2131236.29906559
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2131236.29912653
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_28_2131236_68</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2131236.29903123
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2131236.29903369
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_28_2131236_81</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2131236.29903235
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2131236.29904831
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_28_2131236_44</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2131236.29903103
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2131236.29903247
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2131236.29908265
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_28_2131236_72</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2131236.29903123
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2131236.29905141
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_28_2131236_35</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2131236.29903749
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2131236.29907011
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_28_2131236_58</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2131236.29903235
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2131236.29907667
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_28_2131236_34</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2131236.29903313
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2131236.29904443
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_28_2131236_36</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2131236.29903425
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2131236.29903943
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2131236.29906667
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_28_2131236_97</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2131236.29903103
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2131236.29903247
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2131236.29905251
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_28_2131236_99</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2131236.29903103
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2131236.29903337
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2131236.29905043
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2131236.29908993
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_28_2131236_15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2131236.29903103
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2131236.29903337
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2131236.29905043
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2131236.29906919
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_28_2131236_7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2131236.29903203
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2131236.29908611
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_28_2131236_73</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2131236.29903313
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2131236.29906921
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_28_2131236_29</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2131236.29903313
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2131236.29908675
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_28_2131236_1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2131236.29903749
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2131236.29904755
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_28_2131236_87</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2131236.29903095
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2131236.29903221
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_28_2131236_89</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2131236.29903103
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2131236.29903247
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2131236.29903683
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_28_2131236_80</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2131236.29903203
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2131236.29928655
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_28_2131236_66</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2131236.29903103
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2131236.29903337
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2131236.29905693
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_28_2131236_94</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2131236.29903285
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2131236.29907367
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_28_2131236_57</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2131236.29903425
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2131236.29903943
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2131236.29906991
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_28_2131236_70</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2131236.29903235
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2131236.29903421
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2131236.29906189
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_28_2131236_31</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2131236.29903103
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2131236.29905511
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_28_2131236_33</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2131236.29903103
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2131236.29908945
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_28_2131236_56</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2131236.29903203
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2131236.29904331
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_28_2131236_47</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2131236.29903203
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2131236.29908077
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_28_2131236_61</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2131236.29903749
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2131236.29905189
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_28_2131236_4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2131236.29903749
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2131236.29904669
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_28_2131236_95</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2131236.29903235
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2131236.29905275
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_28_2131236_86</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2131236.29903235
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2131236.29903481
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_28_2131236_27</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2131236.29904005
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2131236.29906321
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_28_2131236_85</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2131236.29903103
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2131236.29903337
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2131236.29905043
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2131236.29908041
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_28_2131236_76</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2131236.29903103
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2131236.29903337
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2131236.29905043
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2131236.29907763
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_28_2131236_92</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2131236.29903103
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2131236.29904487
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_28_2131236_53</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2131236.29903235
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2131236.29906815
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_28_2131236_55</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2131236.29903103
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2131236.29907789
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_28_2131236_69</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2131236.29903103
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2131236.29903337
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2131236.29905043
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2131236.29908805
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_28_2131236_60</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2131236.29903103
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2131236.29907251
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_28_2131236_43</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2131236.29903313
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2131236.29914111
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_28_2131236_45</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2131236.29903091
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2131236.29903181
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_28_2131236_19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2131236.29903235
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2131236.29904317
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_28_2131236_22</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2131236.29903235
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2131236.29903421
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2131236.29913377
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_28_2131236_2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2131236.29903103
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2131236.29903247
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2131236.29910607
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_28_2131236_50</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2131236.29903325
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2131236.29904029
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_28_2131236_24</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2131236.29903103
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2131236.29903337
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2131236.29905731
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_28_2131236_84</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2131236.29903103
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2131236.29903337
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2131236.29905043
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2131236.29912407
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_28_2131236_98</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2131236.29903425
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2131236.29905359
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_28_2131236_14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2131236.29903235
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2131236.29905123
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_28_2131236_74</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2131236.29903425
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2131236.29904021
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_28_2131236_48</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2131236.29903103
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2131236.29903337
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2131236.29904089
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_28_2131236_39</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2131236.29903325
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2131236.29903885
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_28_2131236_51</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2131236.29903095
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2131236.29903445
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_28_2131236_42</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2131236.29903313
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2131236.29904335
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_28_2131236_65</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2131236.29903425
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2131236.29908545
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_28_2131236_67</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2131236.29903123
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2131236.29905221
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_28_2131236_8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2131236.29903203
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2131236.29903935
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_28_2131236_38</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2131236.29903103
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2131236.29903247
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2131236.29906817
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_28_2131236_41</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2131236.29903425
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2131236.29906907
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_28_2131236_32</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2131236.29903213
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2131236.29905379
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_28_2131236_11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2131236.29903103
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2131236.29903337
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2131236.29903713
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2131236.29910081
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_28_2131236_13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2131236.29903803
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2131236.29906299
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_28_2131236_5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2131236.29903313
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2131236.29903429
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2131236.29916189
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_28_2131236_71</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2131236.29903313
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2131236.29903461
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_28_2131236_96</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2131236.29903103
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2131236.29903337
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2131236.29903713
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2131236.29949154
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_28_2131236_59</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2131236.29903313
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2131236.29903429
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2131236.29903779
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_28_2131236_12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2131236.29903089
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2131236.29903793
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_28_2131236_90</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2131236.29903477
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2131236.29904139
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_28_2131236_64</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2131236.29903325
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2131236.29903579
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_28_2131236_37</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2131236.29903103
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2131236.29903247
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2131236.29909581
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_28_2131236_100</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2131236.29904005
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2131236.29906999
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_28_2131236_40</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2131236.29903103
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2131236.29903247
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2131236.29904083
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_28_2131236_63</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2131236.29903425
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2131236.29903943
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2131236.29905845
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_28_2131236_6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2131236.29903313
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2131236.29904899
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_28_2131236_54</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2131236.29903103
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2131236.29903247
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2131236.29908391
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_28_2131236_28</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2131236.29903235
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2131236.29904053
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_28_2131236_0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2131236.29903103
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2131236.29903337
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2131236.29912213
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_28_2131236_30</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2131236.29903095
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2131236.29903899
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_28_2131236_88</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2131236.29903103
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2131236.29903629
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_28_2131236_79</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2131236.29903103
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2131236.29903337
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2131236.29904371
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_28_2131236_18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2131236.29903103
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2131236.29903247
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2131236.29904283
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_28_2131236_93</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2131236.29903425
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2131236.29903943
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2131236.29905889
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_28_2131236_78</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2131236.29903103
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2131236.29903915
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_28_2131236_23</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2131236.29903103
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2131236.29903337
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2131236.29905043
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2131236.29906559
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2131236.29910715
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_28_2131236_21</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2131236.29903103
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2131236.29903337
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2131236.29905043
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2131236.29906875
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_28_2131236_3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2131236.29903477
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2131236.29903865
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_28_2131236_25</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2131236.29903235
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2131236.29904077
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_28_2131236_83</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2131236.29903285
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2131236.29903451
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_28_2131236_46</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2131236.29903235
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2131236.29908451
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_28_2131236_62</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2131236.29903103
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2131236.29903337
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2131236.29903757
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_28_2131236_49</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2131236.29903203
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2131236.29903471
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_28_2131236_52</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2131236.29903103
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2131236.29903337
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2131236.29905043
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2131236.29906845
</commentlist>
</thread>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_28_2131236.19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2131236.29903213
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2131236.29905379
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_28_2131236.16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2131236.29903477
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2131236.29904139
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2131236.29903865
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_28_2131236.2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2131236.29903203
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2131236.29908077
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2131236.29903935
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2131236.29904331
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2131236.29908611
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2131236.29928655
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2131236.29903471
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_28_2131236.14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2131236.29903839
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2131236.29918997
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_28_2131236.13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2131236.29903095
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2131236.29903445
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2131236.29903899
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2131236.29903221
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_28_2131236.8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2131236.29903283
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_28_2131236.28</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2131236.29903313
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2131236.29903429
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2131236.29903779
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2131236.29916189
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2131236.29903461
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2131236.29906921
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2131236.29908675
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2131236.29904443
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2131236.29903385
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2131236.29914111
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2131236.29904335
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2131236.29908155
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2131236.29904899
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_28_2131236.11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2131236.29903257
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_28_2131236.0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2131236.29903425
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2131236.29908545
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2131236.29904021
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2131236.29903943
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2131236.29906667
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2131236.29906991
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2131236.29905845
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2131236.29905889
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2131236.29906907
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2131236.29905359
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_28_2131236.26</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2131236.29903377
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_28_2131236.18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2131236.29903089
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2131236.29903793
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2131236.29906213
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_28_2131236.20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2131236.29903273
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_28_2131236.27</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2131236.29904299
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_28_2131236.1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2131236.29904005
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2131236.29906321
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2131236.29906999
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_28_2131236.9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2131236.29903103
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2131236.29904487
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2131236.29905511
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2131236.29907789
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2131236.29908945
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2131236.29903247
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2131236.29903683
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2131236.29904083
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2131236.29904283
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2131236.29908265
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2131236.29909581
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2131236.29908391
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2131236.29910607
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2131236.29905251
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2131236.29906817
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2131236.29907251
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2131236.29903915
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2131236.29903629
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2131236.29903337
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2131236.29905731
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2131236.29905693
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2131236.29903713
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2131236.29904391
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2131236.29949154
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2131236.29910081
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2131236.29904371
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2131236.29905043
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2131236.29908993
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2131236.29908805
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2131236.29908041
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2131236.29907763
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2131236.29906845
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2131236.29906919
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2131236.29906359
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2131236.29912407
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2131236.29906559
----http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2131236.29912653
----http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2131236.29910715
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2131236.29906875
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2131236.29904089
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2131236.29912213
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2131236.29903757
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_28_2131236.21</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2131236.29903591
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_28_2131236.12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2131236.29903229
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_28_2131236.6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2131236.29903325
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2131236.29903885
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2131236.29904029
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2131236.29903579
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_28_2131236.7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2131236.29903235
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2131236.29903481
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2131236.29904077
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2131236.29905275
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2131236.29904317
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2131236.29904503
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2131236.29907667
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2131236.29908451
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2131236.29904831
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2131236.29903421
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2131236.29913377
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2131236.29906189
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2131236.29906815
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2131236.29905123
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2131236.29903437
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2131236.29904053
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_28_2131236.10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2131236.29903749
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2131236.29905189
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2131236.29904755
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2131236.29907011
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2131236.29904669
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_28_2131236.4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2131236.29903997
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_28_2131236.24</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2131236.29903803
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2131236.29906299
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_28_2131236.22</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2131236.29903087
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_28_2131236.25</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2131236.29903091
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2131236.29903181
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_28_2131236.23</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2131236.29903631
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_28_2131236.5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2131236.29903409
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_28_2131236.3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2131236.29903285
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2131236.29903451
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2131236.29907367
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_28_2131236.17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2131236.29903123
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2131236.29903369
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2131236.29905141
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2131236.29905221
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_28_2131236.15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2131236.29903185
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2131236.29903661
</commentlist>
</conversation>
