<article>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#article09_10_31_137221</id>
	<title>Journalists Looking For Government Money</title>
	<author>Soulskill</author>
	<datestamp>1256998860000</datestamp>
	<htmltext>We've been following the ongoing struggles of the print media, watching as some publications have died off and others have held to outdated principles and decried the influence of the internet. A side effect of this has been many journalists put out of work and many others fearful that informed reporting is on its way out as well. Now, an editorial in the Washington Post calls for <a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/10/22/AR2009102203960.html">a solution journalists would likely have scoffed at</a> only a few years ago: federal subsidies. Robert W. McChesney and John Nichols write, "What to do? Bailing out media conglomerates would be morally and politically absurd. These firms have run journalism into the ground. If they cannot make it, let them go. Wait for 'pay-wall' technologies, billionaire philanthropists or unimagined business models to generate enough news to meet the immense demands of a self-governing society? There is no evidence that such a panacea is on the horizon. This leaves one place to look for a solution: the government." They hasten to add, "Did we just call for state-run media? Quite the opposite."</htmltext>
<tokenext>We 've been following the ongoing struggles of the print media , watching as some publications have died off and others have held to outdated principles and decried the influence of the internet .
A side effect of this has been many journalists put out of work and many others fearful that informed reporting is on its way out as well .
Now , an editorial in the Washington Post calls for a solution journalists would likely have scoffed at only a few years ago : federal subsidies .
Robert W. McChesney and John Nichols write , " What to do ?
Bailing out media conglomerates would be morally and politically absurd .
These firms have run journalism into the ground .
If they can not make it , let them go .
Wait for 'pay-wall ' technologies , billionaire philanthropists or unimagined business models to generate enough news to meet the immense demands of a self-governing society ?
There is no evidence that such a panacea is on the horizon .
This leaves one place to look for a solution : the government .
" They hasten to add , " Did we just call for state-run media ?
Quite the opposite .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>We've been following the ongoing struggles of the print media, watching as some publications have died off and others have held to outdated principles and decried the influence of the internet.
A side effect of this has been many journalists put out of work and many others fearful that informed reporting is on its way out as well.
Now, an editorial in the Washington Post calls for a solution journalists would likely have scoffed at only a few years ago: federal subsidies.
Robert W. McChesney and John Nichols write, "What to do?
Bailing out media conglomerates would be morally and politically absurd.
These firms have run journalism into the ground.
If they cannot make it, let them go.
Wait for 'pay-wall' technologies, billionaire philanthropists or unimagined business models to generate enough news to meet the immense demands of a self-governing society?
There is no evidence that such a panacea is on the horizon.
This leaves one place to look for a solution: the government.
" They hasten to add, "Did we just call for state-run media?
Quite the opposite.
"</sentencetext>
</article>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_31_137221.29934923</id>
	<title>Two points</title>
	<author>microbox</author>
	<datestamp>1257007440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><i>Whoever holds the purse strings is in control.</i><ul>
<li>The BBC is a government institution that holds its own purse strings -- effectively having the right to raise its own taxes. </li><li>In western countries, public news organisations offer by far the highest quality of reporting. Furthermore, we get that without advertising, and for less total cost. It's amazes me that people will dismiss such a solution out of hand.</li></ul><p>
Personally I can't wait for the demise of corporate media -- which is beholden to advertising and other corporate interests, and has a dismal record for blatant editorialising.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Whoever holds the purse strings is in control .
The BBC is a government institution that holds its own purse strings -- effectively having the right to raise its own taxes .
In western countries , public news organisations offer by far the highest quality of reporting .
Furthermore , we get that without advertising , and for less total cost .
It 's amazes me that people will dismiss such a solution out of hand .
Personally I ca n't wait for the demise of corporate media -- which is beholden to advertising and other corporate interests , and has a dismal record for blatant editorialising .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Whoever holds the purse strings is in control.
The BBC is a government institution that holds its own purse strings -- effectively having the right to raise its own taxes.
In western countries, public news organisations offer by far the highest quality of reporting.
Furthermore, we get that without advertising, and for less total cost.
It's amazes me that people will dismiss such a solution out of hand.
Personally I can't wait for the demise of corporate media -- which is beholden to advertising and other corporate interests, and has a dismal record for blatant editorialising.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_31_137221.29934605</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_31_137221.29935831</id>
	<title>Re:Let them die.</title>
	<author>R2.0</author>
	<datestamp>1257016020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"Else we'll have the situation with Boscovs which was bailed-out, but after examining the store, I think should have died."</p><p>Holy shit.  There's a name I never expected to see in Slashdot.  I grew up in the Reading, PA area and was unaware they got a "bailout" per se, although I know the just went TU again and have been bought back by the Boscov family.</p><p>No, my favorite example is Chrysler.  The company died long ago; a government bailout resurrected them to a zombie status.  Daimler tried bringing them back to like and were nearly killed themselves.  Then a private capital group tried - ditto.  And now Fiat is discovering that rescuing it is "more difficult than they expected".  Ya think?!</p><p>The original Chrysler bailout damaged the US economy in countless ways, from delaying the inevitable contraction of the auto industry (and so making it more damaging when it did happen), to fostering the acceptance of faux "quality" (remember the K car and the "5/50" warrantee that was pretty much a sham?), to the beginning of the "minivan", which started the trend to people buying more cargo capacity than they ever needed and rooted the "need bigger" theme deep in American domestic culture.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" Else we 'll have the situation with Boscovs which was bailed-out , but after examining the store , I think should have died .
" Holy shit .
There 's a name I never expected to see in Slashdot .
I grew up in the Reading , PA area and was unaware they got a " bailout " per se , although I know the just went TU again and have been bought back by the Boscov family.No , my favorite example is Chrysler .
The company died long ago ; a government bailout resurrected them to a zombie status .
Daimler tried bringing them back to like and were nearly killed themselves .
Then a private capital group tried - ditto .
And now Fiat is discovering that rescuing it is " more difficult than they expected " .
Ya think ?
! The original Chrysler bailout damaged the US economy in countless ways , from delaying the inevitable contraction of the auto industry ( and so making it more damaging when it did happen ) , to fostering the acceptance of faux " quality " ( remember the K car and the " 5/50 " warrantee that was pretty much a sham ?
) , to the beginning of the " minivan " , which started the trend to people buying more cargo capacity than they ever needed and rooted the " need bigger " theme deep in American domestic culture .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"Else we'll have the situation with Boscovs which was bailed-out, but after examining the store, I think should have died.
"Holy shit.
There's a name I never expected to see in Slashdot.
I grew up in the Reading, PA area and was unaware they got a "bailout" per se, although I know the just went TU again and have been bought back by the Boscov family.No, my favorite example is Chrysler.
The company died long ago; a government bailout resurrected them to a zombie status.
Daimler tried bringing them back to like and were nearly killed themselves.
Then a private capital group tried - ditto.
And now Fiat is discovering that rescuing it is "more difficult than they expected".
Ya think?
!The original Chrysler bailout damaged the US economy in countless ways, from delaying the inevitable contraction of the auto industry (and so making it more damaging when it did happen), to fostering the acceptance of faux "quality" (remember the K car and the "5/50" warrantee that was pretty much a sham?
), to the beginning of the "minivan", which started the trend to people buying more cargo capacity than they ever needed and rooted the "need bigger" theme deep in American domestic culture.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_31_137221.29934439</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_31_137221.29935677</id>
	<title>Re:Should not subsidise private media</title>
	<author>jadavis</author>
	<datestamp>1257014760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>We could have a completely independnat source of news and information that was funded not by congress but directly from tax revenue,</i></p><p>"Independent" in this case means nothing more than unaccountable. They can run favorable coverage of their favorite candidates, and ridiculous taxpayer-funded smears of politicians that they don't like.</p><p><i>and whose directors are elected by the people.</i></p><p>And the people are sure to be well-informed by the people who are running for the positions of power.</p><p>No thanks.</p><p><i>media that has sympathies with large corporate interests</i></p><p>And plenty of media that doesn't.</p><p>Right now, there is more information, and it is available more cheaply than at any other time in history. Individual investigators can single-handedly drive a story if it matters to people (c.f. Rathergate bloggers). But you are arguing that people are too stupid to find that information, so we need some government employees to spoon feed us "information". By using their power to tax, they would crowd out the investigators that are independent of government, and we'd be left with nobody critical of this new unaccountable organization you propose.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>We could have a completely independnat source of news and information that was funded not by congress but directly from tax revenue , " Independent " in this case means nothing more than unaccountable .
They can run favorable coverage of their favorite candidates , and ridiculous taxpayer-funded smears of politicians that they do n't like.and whose directors are elected by the people.And the people are sure to be well-informed by the people who are running for the positions of power.No thanks.media that has sympathies with large corporate interestsAnd plenty of media that does n't.Right now , there is more information , and it is available more cheaply than at any other time in history .
Individual investigators can single-handedly drive a story if it matters to people ( c.f .
Rathergate bloggers ) .
But you are arguing that people are too stupid to find that information , so we need some government employees to spoon feed us " information " .
By using their power to tax , they would crowd out the investigators that are independent of government , and we 'd be left with nobody critical of this new unaccountable organization you propose .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>We could have a completely independnat source of news and information that was funded not by congress but directly from tax revenue,"Independent" in this case means nothing more than unaccountable.
They can run favorable coverage of their favorite candidates, and ridiculous taxpayer-funded smears of politicians that they don't like.and whose directors are elected by the people.And the people are sure to be well-informed by the people who are running for the positions of power.No thanks.media that has sympathies with large corporate interestsAnd plenty of media that doesn't.Right now, there is more information, and it is available more cheaply than at any other time in history.
Individual investigators can single-handedly drive a story if it matters to people (c.f.
Rathergate bloggers).
But you are arguing that people are too stupid to find that information, so we need some government employees to spoon feed us "information".
By using their power to tax, they would crowd out the investigators that are independent of government, and we'd be left with nobody critical of this new unaccountable organization you propose.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_31_137221.29934599</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_31_137221.29934937</id>
	<title>Journalistic Co-Op</title>
	<author>misfit815</author>
	<datestamp>1257007560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I'd buy into one... <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Utility\_cooperative" title="wikipedia.org" rel="nofollow">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Utility\_cooperative</a> [wikipedia.org]</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'd buy into one... http : //en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Utility \ _cooperative [ wikipedia.org ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'd buy into one... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Utility\_cooperative [wikipedia.org]</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_31_137221.29935175</id>
	<title>But Then What?</title>
	<author>BoRegardless</author>
	<datestamp>1257010020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If end consumers continue to buy less and less of the crap that print media churn out now, as they have done for a decade or so on the news channels, what do you do when "consumers" don't read the "newsloggers" (or whatever you want to call them)?</p><p>How do you fire a reporter once he is on the governement dole and you now have a beaurocrat in charge of "paying" newsloggers or whatever?</p><p>Incestuous is the best word I can think of right now.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If end consumers continue to buy less and less of the crap that print media churn out now , as they have done for a decade or so on the news channels , what do you do when " consumers " do n't read the " newsloggers " ( or whatever you want to call them ) ? How do you fire a reporter once he is on the governement dole and you now have a beaurocrat in charge of " paying " newsloggers or whatever ? Incestuous is the best word I can think of right now .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If end consumers continue to buy less and less of the crap that print media churn out now, as they have done for a decade or so on the news channels, what do you do when "consumers" don't read the "newsloggers" (or whatever you want to call them)?How do you fire a reporter once he is on the governement dole and you now have a beaurocrat in charge of "paying" newsloggers or whatever?Incestuous is the best word I can think of right now.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_31_137221.29934507</id>
	<title>Subsidize paper chauvinism now!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257003600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Am I the only person who is slightly appalled by saving a "medium"?  I mean, fuck, why don't we just bailout the papyrus manufacturers while we're at it?</p><p>Obviously it's time to bail out Polaroid, or else there won't be any quality pictures ever taken ever again!!</p><p>Journalism will thrive.  It will go back to its roots: pamphleteers.  The idea of the monolithic newspaper journalistic elite is a product of a brief period during which corporations controlled the best distribution channels.  Now they don't.  Bloggers do.  And journalism will be the better to show for it.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Am I the only person who is slightly appalled by saving a " medium " ?
I mean , fuck , why do n't we just bailout the papyrus manufacturers while we 're at it ? Obviously it 's time to bail out Polaroid , or else there wo n't be any quality pictures ever taken ever again !
! Journalism will thrive .
It will go back to its roots : pamphleteers .
The idea of the monolithic newspaper journalistic elite is a product of a brief period during which corporations controlled the best distribution channels .
Now they do n't .
Bloggers do .
And journalism will be the better to show for it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Am I the only person who is slightly appalled by saving a "medium"?
I mean, fuck, why don't we just bailout the papyrus manufacturers while we're at it?Obviously it's time to bail out Polaroid, or else there won't be any quality pictures ever taken ever again!
!Journalism will thrive.
It will go back to its roots: pamphleteers.
The idea of the monolithic newspaper journalistic elite is a product of a brief period during which corporations controlled the best distribution channels.
Now they don't.
Bloggers do.
And journalism will be the better to show for it.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_31_137221.29934443</id>
	<title>State run media alright!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257003120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Once you start getting $$$ from good ole goobermint teet they pretty much tell you what you can do.  Same will happen with the media.  After all, if they allow journalists to get money, how are they going to control who gets the $$$ or not?</p><p>It's simple!  They only fund people that are "favorable" to this years 'fad' administration.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Once you start getting $ $ $ from good ole goobermint teet they pretty much tell you what you can do .
Same will happen with the media .
After all , if they allow journalists to get money , how are they going to control who gets the $ $ $ or not ? It 's simple !
They only fund people that are " favorable " to this years 'fad ' administration .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Once you start getting $$$ from good ole goobermint teet they pretty much tell you what you can do.
Same will happen with the media.
After all, if they allow journalists to get money, how are they going to control who gets the $$$ or not?It's simple!
They only fund people that are "favorable" to this years 'fad' administration.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_31_137221.29935511</id>
	<title>Like ABC, NBC, CBS, CNN, PBS and NPR then.</title>
	<author>HornWumpus</author>
	<datestamp>1257013020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Flamebait</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>
They all choose which 'facts' to report.
</p><p>
When Fox news get caught fabricating documents in MS word then they will be equal.
</p><p>
Fox is at least as trustworthy as any of them (which is to say not at all).</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>They all choose which 'facts ' to report .
When Fox news get caught fabricating documents in MS word then they will be equal .
Fox is at least as trustworthy as any of them ( which is to say not at all ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>
They all choose which 'facts' to report.
When Fox news get caught fabricating documents in MS word then they will be equal.
Fox is at least as trustworthy as any of them (which is to say not at all).</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_31_137221.29934843</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_31_137221.29934593</id>
	<title>The real problem .....</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257004320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>is that so many rich boys have been fleecing the gov for so long, that the other rich boys want in on this.</p><p>Now, the idiots in the press have not learned to adopt to new realities, so are calling on a free hand-out.</p><p>Instead, the press should be calling on the feds to do more to help MANUFACTURING. Why?</p><p>Because rebuilding the middle class and dropping our imports would actually strengthen THEIR position.</p><p>THey also DESPERATELY need to get new management. There is a real lack of intelligence running so many businesses.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>is that so many rich boys have been fleecing the gov for so long , that the other rich boys want in on this.Now , the idiots in the press have not learned to adopt to new realities , so are calling on a free hand-out.Instead , the press should be calling on the feds to do more to help MANUFACTURING .
Why ? Because rebuilding the middle class and dropping our imports would actually strengthen THEIR position.THey also DESPERATELY need to get new management .
There is a real lack of intelligence running so many businesses .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>is that so many rich boys have been fleecing the gov for so long, that the other rich boys want in on this.Now, the idiots in the press have not learned to adopt to new realities, so are calling on a free hand-out.Instead, the press should be calling on the feds to do more to help MANUFACTURING.
Why?Because rebuilding the middle class and dropping our imports would actually strengthen THEIR position.THey also DESPERATELY need to get new management.
There is a real lack of intelligence running so many businesses.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_31_137221.29935325</id>
	<title>What planet are you all living on?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257011580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>I can't believe the comments that say that government-funded media will be Soviet-style Propaganda machines.
Are you people out of your minds? Can anyone here name me one program or reporter more critical of the government than Bill Moyers? His programs get financed by PBS, a government corporation.
<br> <br>In fact, that's exactly what corporations want you to believe, because public funding will be the only thing that frees journalists from the corporate teat. It will effectively shut down the corporate media oligarchy we have today. <br> <br>
Are you all slaves for the corporations or whatever organization pays your salaries? Is that the only lens through which you can see the world?</htmltext>
<tokenext>I ca n't believe the comments that say that government-funded media will be Soviet-style Propaganda machines .
Are you people out of your minds ?
Can anyone here name me one program or reporter more critical of the government than Bill Moyers ?
His programs get financed by PBS , a government corporation .
In fact , that 's exactly what corporations want you to believe , because public funding will be the only thing that frees journalists from the corporate teat .
It will effectively shut down the corporate media oligarchy we have today .
Are you all slaves for the corporations or whatever organization pays your salaries ?
Is that the only lens through which you can see the world ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I can't believe the comments that say that government-funded media will be Soviet-style Propaganda machines.
Are you people out of your minds?
Can anyone here name me one program or reporter more critical of the government than Bill Moyers?
His programs get financed by PBS, a government corporation.
In fact, that's exactly what corporations want you to believe, because public funding will be the only thing that frees journalists from the corporate teat.
It will effectively shut down the corporate media oligarchy we have today.
Are you all slaves for the corporations or whatever organization pays your salaries?
Is that the only lens through which you can see the world?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_31_137221.29935137</id>
	<title>Re:good description</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257009660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>They have run journalism into the ground...</p></div><p>Those few who retain some form of journalistic integrity are probably doing fine, especially if they have adapted their business models in a sensible way. To take an example, the only news subscription I have nowadays is to <em>The Economist</em> magazine. It's worth reading every week, almost from cover to cover, with proper coverage and generally thoughtful analysis (I don't always agree with their opinions, but enjoy reading them). Even the advertising tends to be good quality, from the likes of Boeing, DHL, HSBC, etc.<br> <br>
Importantly, their web site is free-access for a limited amount of their content, but a good deal of it requires a subscription. Happily, the dead-tree subscription includes an online access subscription. Mostly, I read the printed version, but occasionally use the web site.<br> <br>
Another difference compared to much of the news media is that the writers of artcles in <em>The Economist</em> are usually not identified. One reads the report for what it is, not for which self-styled superstar of journalism happened to pen it. Equally, the anonymity of the journalists prevents them from posturing in the report or attempting any self-aggrandizement in the style of would-be superstars of journalism.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>They have run journalism into the ground...Those few who retain some form of journalistic integrity are probably doing fine , especially if they have adapted their business models in a sensible way .
To take an example , the only news subscription I have nowadays is to The Economist magazine .
It 's worth reading every week , almost from cover to cover , with proper coverage and generally thoughtful analysis ( I do n't always agree with their opinions , but enjoy reading them ) .
Even the advertising tends to be good quality , from the likes of Boeing , DHL , HSBC , etc .
Importantly , their web site is free-access for a limited amount of their content , but a good deal of it requires a subscription .
Happily , the dead-tree subscription includes an online access subscription .
Mostly , I read the printed version , but occasionally use the web site .
Another difference compared to much of the news media is that the writers of artcles in The Economist are usually not identified .
One reads the report for what it is , not for which self-styled superstar of journalism happened to pen it .
Equally , the anonymity of the journalists prevents them from posturing in the report or attempting any self-aggrandizement in the style of would-be superstars of journalism .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>They have run journalism into the ground...Those few who retain some form of journalistic integrity are probably doing fine, especially if they have adapted their business models in a sensible way.
To take an example, the only news subscription I have nowadays is to The Economist magazine.
It's worth reading every week, almost from cover to cover, with proper coverage and generally thoughtful analysis (I don't always agree with their opinions, but enjoy reading them).
Even the advertising tends to be good quality, from the likes of Boeing, DHL, HSBC, etc.
Importantly, their web site is free-access for a limited amount of their content, but a good deal of it requires a subscription.
Happily, the dead-tree subscription includes an online access subscription.
Mostly, I read the printed version, but occasionally use the web site.
Another difference compared to much of the news media is that the writers of artcles in The Economist are usually not identified.
One reads the report for what it is, not for which self-styled superstar of journalism happened to pen it.
Equally, the anonymity of the journalists prevents them from posturing in the report or attempting any self-aggrandizement in the style of would-be superstars of journalism.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_31_137221.29934539</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_31_137221.29934583</id>
	<title>Hmmm</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257004260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>A solution journalists would have scoffed at a few years ago? Given that more of them are left-leaning Democrats than any other specific political orientation, why would journalists have opposed government subsidy?  <br> <br>Look, these guys claim that the job of journalism is to "question, analyze and speak truth to power".  What a weaselly bunch of crap.  They'll cover up anything for people they like (and that crosses the political spectrum).  They even quote Obama as saying "Government without a tough and vibrant media is not an option for the United States of America."  This is the same guy whose administration says that Fox News isn't a real news organization, mostly because a lot of its shows spend their time attacking him and his policies - i.e., being tough and vibrant.  If you disagree with my politics, then imagine if instead of the Republican kabuki of not financially supporting information about abortion in worldwide birth control efforts were suddenly to apply to domestic newspapers the next time the political tide turns.  Do you think that's good for democracy?<br> <br>They then cite the historical example of some printing and postal subsidies (presumably similar to the current subsidies for books and other media via mail) and then suggest we should honor that by "greatly expand[ing] funding for public and community media, and establish[ing] policies that help convert dying daily newspapers into post-corporate low-profit news operations that realize the potential of the Internet." Do I get to qualify for "public and community" funding if I add a couple of news items to my posts about how home sales are doing in my neighborhood? (They're fine, FWIW.)  Because otherwise it sounds suspiciously like how "community" funding keeps getting distributed via the same few organizations - the ones with the connections get solid government funding, and in return they toe the line.<br> <br>I like newspapers.  I enjoy sitting down on Sunday morning and slowly making my way through the whole thing.  So, apparently, does the president.  But making public policy based on the Sunday morning habits of the upper middle class is wasteful snobbery.  They're dead. Move on. And if you're a journalism major, strongly consider switching.</div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>A solution journalists would have scoffed at a few years ago ?
Given that more of them are left-leaning Democrats than any other specific political orientation , why would journalists have opposed government subsidy ?
Look , these guys claim that the job of journalism is to " question , analyze and speak truth to power " .
What a weaselly bunch of crap .
They 'll cover up anything for people they like ( and that crosses the political spectrum ) .
They even quote Obama as saying " Government without a tough and vibrant media is not an option for the United States of America .
" This is the same guy whose administration says that Fox News is n't a real news organization , mostly because a lot of its shows spend their time attacking him and his policies - i.e. , being tough and vibrant .
If you disagree with my politics , then imagine if instead of the Republican kabuki of not financially supporting information about abortion in worldwide birth control efforts were suddenly to apply to domestic newspapers the next time the political tide turns .
Do you think that 's good for democracy ?
They then cite the historical example of some printing and postal subsidies ( presumably similar to the current subsidies for books and other media via mail ) and then suggest we should honor that by " greatly expand [ ing ] funding for public and community media , and establish [ ing ] policies that help convert dying daily newspapers into post-corporate low-profit news operations that realize the potential of the Internet .
" Do I get to qualify for " public and community " funding if I add a couple of news items to my posts about how home sales are doing in my neighborhood ?
( They 're fine , FWIW .
) Because otherwise it sounds suspiciously like how " community " funding keeps getting distributed via the same few organizations - the ones with the connections get solid government funding , and in return they toe the line .
I like newspapers .
I enjoy sitting down on Sunday morning and slowly making my way through the whole thing .
So , apparently , does the president .
But making public policy based on the Sunday morning habits of the upper middle class is wasteful snobbery .
They 're dead .
Move on .
And if you 're a journalism major , strongly consider switching .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>A solution journalists would have scoffed at a few years ago?
Given that more of them are left-leaning Democrats than any other specific political orientation, why would journalists have opposed government subsidy?
Look, these guys claim that the job of journalism is to "question, analyze and speak truth to power".
What a weaselly bunch of crap.
They'll cover up anything for people they like (and that crosses the political spectrum).
They even quote Obama as saying "Government without a tough and vibrant media is not an option for the United States of America.
"  This is the same guy whose administration says that Fox News isn't a real news organization, mostly because a lot of its shows spend their time attacking him and his policies - i.e., being tough and vibrant.
If you disagree with my politics, then imagine if instead of the Republican kabuki of not financially supporting information about abortion in worldwide birth control efforts were suddenly to apply to domestic newspapers the next time the political tide turns.
Do you think that's good for democracy?
They then cite the historical example of some printing and postal subsidies (presumably similar to the current subsidies for books and other media via mail) and then suggest we should honor that by "greatly expand[ing] funding for public and community media, and establish[ing] policies that help convert dying daily newspapers into post-corporate low-profit news operations that realize the potential of the Internet.
" Do I get to qualify for "public and community" funding if I add a couple of news items to my posts about how home sales are doing in my neighborhood?
(They're fine, FWIW.
)  Because otherwise it sounds suspiciously like how "community" funding keeps getting distributed via the same few organizations - the ones with the connections get solid government funding, and in return they toe the line.
I like newspapers.
I enjoy sitting down on Sunday morning and slowly making my way through the whole thing.
So, apparently, does the president.
But making public policy based on the Sunday morning habits of the upper middle class is wasteful snobbery.
They're dead.
Move on.
And if you're a journalism major, strongly consider switching.
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_31_137221.29935501</id>
	<title>Re:Two points</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257012960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>* The BBC is a government institution that holds its own purse strings -- effectively having the right to raise its own taxes.</i></p><p>True. And they are unelected and unaccountable. How is that better?</p><p>The BBC is incredibly biased, particularly in the Arab-Israeli conflict? Don't believe me? Even the BBC thinks so. After a particularly bad string of biased "news" reporting, the BBC was forced to investigate itself, and its biased, partisan point of view.</p><p>That BBC report was called the <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Balen\_Report" title="wikipedia.org" rel="nofollow">Balen Report</a> [wikipedia.org]. This report was funded entirely by the British public.</p><p>The BBC has fought tooth &amp; nail to prevent the release of the Balen Report. The BBC has spent hundreds of thousands of pounds in legal fees to prevent its release &amp; disclosure of how biased the BBC really is. So far, the BBC has been successful at covering up the truth.</p><p>Tell me again why this is better.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>* The BBC is a government institution that holds its own purse strings -- effectively having the right to raise its own taxes.True .
And they are unelected and unaccountable .
How is that better ? The BBC is incredibly biased , particularly in the Arab-Israeli conflict ?
Do n't believe me ?
Even the BBC thinks so .
After a particularly bad string of biased " news " reporting , the BBC was forced to investigate itself , and its biased , partisan point of view.That BBC report was called the Balen Report [ wikipedia.org ] .
This report was funded entirely by the British public.The BBC has fought tooth &amp; nail to prevent the release of the Balen Report .
The BBC has spent hundreds of thousands of pounds in legal fees to prevent its release &amp; disclosure of how biased the BBC really is .
So far , the BBC has been successful at covering up the truth.Tell me again why this is better .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>* The BBC is a government institution that holds its own purse strings -- effectively having the right to raise its own taxes.True.
And they are unelected and unaccountable.
How is that better?The BBC is incredibly biased, particularly in the Arab-Israeli conflict?
Don't believe me?
Even the BBC thinks so.
After a particularly bad string of biased "news" reporting, the BBC was forced to investigate itself, and its biased, partisan point of view.That BBC report was called the Balen Report [wikipedia.org].
This report was funded entirely by the British public.The BBC has fought tooth &amp; nail to prevent the release of the Balen Report.
The BBC has spent hundreds of thousands of pounds in legal fees to prevent its release &amp; disclosure of how biased the BBC really is.
So far, the BBC has been successful at covering up the truth.Tell me again why this is better.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_31_137221.29934923</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_31_137221.29934573</id>
	<title>Government media CAN be objective and unbiased.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257004140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The American Press is already owned by the government, just not directly. When was the last, really hard hitting documentary you saw on American television? When was the last time you saw a journalist beat up on a senator or congressman (with good, tough, questions and a refusal to yeild) that led to them "blackballing" that particular newspaper/journalist?</p><p>One of the best Australian TV shows that is quite prepared to ask tough/embaressing questions of any member of parliament is the "7:30 Report", on the ABC. The ABC (Australian Broadcast Comission) television station is solely funded by the Government, yet there is never, ever, any question about the integrity of its host (Kerry O'Brien), despite the interviewees often being the ones responsible for his pay cheque.</p><p>I imagine it is a lot worse for all of the commercial outlets beceause they have to walk the line of being tough but nice so that where there's a new, exclusive, story to break, they have a chance of getting it. To Government funded media, there's no quest to be first with a major, breaking, story, only to do it right and do it well.</p><p>Without corruption, I can't find a way to justify the pandering of American reporters to their politicians. And that exists today, without any subsidies, etc.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The American Press is already owned by the government , just not directly .
When was the last , really hard hitting documentary you saw on American television ?
When was the last time you saw a journalist beat up on a senator or congressman ( with good , tough , questions and a refusal to yeild ) that led to them " blackballing " that particular newspaper/journalist ? One of the best Australian TV shows that is quite prepared to ask tough/embaressing questions of any member of parliament is the " 7 : 30 Report " , on the ABC .
The ABC ( Australian Broadcast Comission ) television station is solely funded by the Government , yet there is never , ever , any question about the integrity of its host ( Kerry O'Brien ) , despite the interviewees often being the ones responsible for his pay cheque.I imagine it is a lot worse for all of the commercial outlets beceause they have to walk the line of being tough but nice so that where there 's a new , exclusive , story to break , they have a chance of getting it .
To Government funded media , there 's no quest to be first with a major , breaking , story , only to do it right and do it well.Without corruption , I ca n't find a way to justify the pandering of American reporters to their politicians .
And that exists today , without any subsidies , etc .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The American Press is already owned by the government, just not directly.
When was the last, really hard hitting documentary you saw on American television?
When was the last time you saw a journalist beat up on a senator or congressman (with good, tough, questions and a refusal to yeild) that led to them "blackballing" that particular newspaper/journalist?One of the best Australian TV shows that is quite prepared to ask tough/embaressing questions of any member of parliament is the "7:30 Report", on the ABC.
The ABC (Australian Broadcast Comission) television station is solely funded by the Government, yet there is never, ever, any question about the integrity of its host (Kerry O'Brien), despite the interviewees often being the ones responsible for his pay cheque.I imagine it is a lot worse for all of the commercial outlets beceause they have to walk the line of being tough but nice so that where there's a new, exclusive, story to break, they have a chance of getting it.
To Government funded media, there's no quest to be first with a major, breaking, story, only to do it right and do it well.Without corruption, I can't find a way to justify the pandering of American reporters to their politicians.
And that exists today, without any subsidies, etc.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_31_137221.29934433</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_31_137221.29948654</id>
	<title>Re:Government media CAN be objective and unbiased.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257159960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I agree with asking questions, but saying Glenn Beck advocates that is a bit much. He gets paid to stir up shit to the "rights" favor. If Murdoch stops making money with him, he'll have to come up with some new agenda.</p><p>And really, if it takes watching a man pretending, i hope, to be mentally unstable god fearing american concerned of fema camps and what not to start asking questions.. well, then i'd say you got some problems.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I agree with asking questions , but saying Glenn Beck advocates that is a bit much .
He gets paid to stir up shit to the " rights " favor .
If Murdoch stops making money with him , he 'll have to come up with some new agenda.And really , if it takes watching a man pretending , i hope , to be mentally unstable god fearing american concerned of fema camps and what not to start asking questions.. well , then i 'd say you got some problems .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I agree with asking questions, but saying Glenn Beck advocates that is a bit much.
He gets paid to stir up shit to the "rights" favor.
If Murdoch stops making money with him, he'll have to come up with some new agenda.And really, if it takes watching a man pretending, i hope, to be mentally unstable god fearing american concerned of fema camps and what not to start asking questions.. well, then i'd say you got some problems.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_31_137221.29935497</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_31_137221.29935713</id>
	<title>Infotainment sells; news doesn't do so well</title>
	<author>yelvington</author>
	<datestamp>1257015180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>If they would move past "Infotainment" and got back to writing good "News" instead of creating "Crisis" and attacking an administration simply to raise advertising funding I'd be inclined to buy a newspaper to read.</p></div><p>You seem to be confusing newspapers with cable TV. The print-dominated era of "you give me the pictures and I'll give you the war" is long past. All the synthetic-outrage action has moved to cable.</p><p>Today's typical American newspaper is tame to the point of being lame, filled with a mix of generic wire copy and poorly written local stories from an underpaid staff that's been cut to the bone. This endangered species typically is turning a gross profit between 10 and 30 percent of revenues even today, in the worst business recession since Herbert Hoover.  The parent companies -- conglomerates that bought newspapers with borrowed money -- are in trouble because they were expecting profit margins of 20 to 40 percent on higher gross revenues than are possible today.</p><p>Newspapers aren't offending readers by taking positions -- they're offending readers by <em> not </em> taking positions that reinforce their prejudices. And those prejudices are being constantly fanned by the cable political-infotainment machines.</p><p>Sadly, the Nielsen ratings of the cable channels tell us clearly that people <em>prefer</em> to consume infotainment that reinforces their prejudices, not actual news.</p><p>Here are the prime-time ratings for last Wednesday night:<br><a href="http://tvbythenumbers.com/2009/10/29/cable-news-ratings-for-wednesday-october-28-2009/32044#more-32044" title="tvbythenumbers.com">http://tvbythenumbers.com/2009/10/29/cable-news-ratings-for-wednesday-october-28-2009/32044#more-32044</a> [tvbythenumbers.com]</p><p>Fox has demonstrated that if you put a raving lunatic in front of a TV camera and let him make up any lies he wants, he'll draw way more viewers than an actual news program.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>If they would move past " Infotainment " and got back to writing good " News " instead of creating " Crisis " and attacking an administration simply to raise advertising funding I 'd be inclined to buy a newspaper to read.You seem to be confusing newspapers with cable TV .
The print-dominated era of " you give me the pictures and I 'll give you the war " is long past .
All the synthetic-outrage action has moved to cable.Today 's typical American newspaper is tame to the point of being lame , filled with a mix of generic wire copy and poorly written local stories from an underpaid staff that 's been cut to the bone .
This endangered species typically is turning a gross profit between 10 and 30 percent of revenues even today , in the worst business recession since Herbert Hoover .
The parent companies -- conglomerates that bought newspapers with borrowed money -- are in trouble because they were expecting profit margins of 20 to 40 percent on higher gross revenues than are possible today.Newspapers are n't offending readers by taking positions -- they 're offending readers by not taking positions that reinforce their prejudices .
And those prejudices are being constantly fanned by the cable political-infotainment machines.Sadly , the Nielsen ratings of the cable channels tell us clearly that people prefer to consume infotainment that reinforces their prejudices , not actual news.Here are the prime-time ratings for last Wednesday night : http : //tvbythenumbers.com/2009/10/29/cable-news-ratings-for-wednesday-october-28-2009/32044 # more-32044 [ tvbythenumbers.com ] Fox has demonstrated that if you put a raving lunatic in front of a TV camera and let him make up any lies he wants , he 'll draw way more viewers than an actual news program .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If they would move past "Infotainment" and got back to writing good "News" instead of creating "Crisis" and attacking an administration simply to raise advertising funding I'd be inclined to buy a newspaper to read.You seem to be confusing newspapers with cable TV.
The print-dominated era of "you give me the pictures and I'll give you the war" is long past.
All the synthetic-outrage action has moved to cable.Today's typical American newspaper is tame to the point of being lame, filled with a mix of generic wire copy and poorly written local stories from an underpaid staff that's been cut to the bone.
This endangered species typically is turning a gross profit between 10 and 30 percent of revenues even today, in the worst business recession since Herbert Hoover.
The parent companies -- conglomerates that bought newspapers with borrowed money -- are in trouble because they were expecting profit margins of 20 to 40 percent on higher gross revenues than are possible today.Newspapers aren't offending readers by taking positions -- they're offending readers by  not  taking positions that reinforce their prejudices.
And those prejudices are being constantly fanned by the cable political-infotainment machines.Sadly, the Nielsen ratings of the cable channels tell us clearly that people prefer to consume infotainment that reinforces their prejudices, not actual news.Here are the prime-time ratings for last Wednesday night:http://tvbythenumbers.com/2009/10/29/cable-news-ratings-for-wednesday-october-28-2009/32044#more-32044 [tvbythenumbers.com]Fox has demonstrated that if you put a raving lunatic in front of a TV camera and let him make up any lies he wants, he'll draw way more viewers than an actual news program.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_31_137221.29934381</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_31_137221.29934605</id>
	<title>Re:Hurray for the "free" press!</title>
	<author>pudge</author>
	<datestamp>1257004440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p> They hasten to add, "Did we just call for state-run media? Quite the opposite."</p></div><p>No, that is precisely what they called for.</p><p>Whoever holds the purse strings is in control.</p><p>The government might GRANT control, day to day, to the private people, but they can exert control whenever they wish to.</p><p>And you're exactly right cheddarlump<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... the press cannot be beholden to the government.  It's a travesty.  Just like "shield laws," where the press are beholden to the government to offer them special privileges, which, being legislative and particular to the people who have them, can be revoked.</p><p>The way to an actual free press is to for government to give every citizen the same rights, and to stay completely out of the system.</p><p>The real story here is that they want to save their own jobs, because they cannot figure out how to save them any other way.  This isn't about The Press.  If it were, they'd not have been doing such a terrible job (even before the Web came around).</p><p>I mean come on<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... look at the fricking New York Times.  In the wake of Jayson Blair, they promised to rein in anonymous sources.  They didn't.  As a result, no one trusts the Times anymore, and no one should.</p><p>No one trusts the "blogs" either, but at least you don't pay for those.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>They hasten to add , " Did we just call for state-run media ?
Quite the opposite .
" No , that is precisely what they called for.Whoever holds the purse strings is in control.The government might GRANT control , day to day , to the private people , but they can exert control whenever they wish to.And you 're exactly right cheddarlump ... the press can not be beholden to the government .
It 's a travesty .
Just like " shield laws , " where the press are beholden to the government to offer them special privileges , which , being legislative and particular to the people who have them , can be revoked.The way to an actual free press is to for government to give every citizen the same rights , and to stay completely out of the system.The real story here is that they want to save their own jobs , because they can not figure out how to save them any other way .
This is n't about The Press .
If it were , they 'd not have been doing such a terrible job ( even before the Web came around ) .I mean come on ... look at the fricking New York Times .
In the wake of Jayson Blair , they promised to rein in anonymous sources .
They did n't .
As a result , no one trusts the Times anymore , and no one should.No one trusts the " blogs " either , but at least you do n't pay for those .</tokentext>
<sentencetext> They hasten to add, "Did we just call for state-run media?
Quite the opposite.
"No, that is precisely what they called for.Whoever holds the purse strings is in control.The government might GRANT control, day to day, to the private people, but they can exert control whenever they wish to.And you're exactly right cheddarlump ... the press cannot be beholden to the government.
It's a travesty.
Just like "shield laws," where the press are beholden to the government to offer them special privileges, which, being legislative and particular to the people who have them, can be revoked.The way to an actual free press is to for government to give every citizen the same rights, and to stay completely out of the system.The real story here is that they want to save their own jobs, because they cannot figure out how to save them any other way.
This isn't about The Press.
If it were, they'd not have been doing such a terrible job (even before the Web came around).I mean come on ... look at the fricking New York Times.
In the wake of Jayson Blair, they promised to rein in anonymous sources.
They didn't.
As a result, no one trusts the Times anymore, and no one should.No one trusts the "blogs" either, but at least you don't pay for those.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_31_137221.29934433</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_31_137221.29935495</id>
	<title>Responsible mainstream journalism?</title>
	<author>zogger</author>
	<datestamp>1257012900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Where has that been hiding? Where were they during the buildup to the iraq invasion, covering all the WMD non stories, that they were pushing after getting "the real info" from out of the government's lie-hole? Parrots, not journalists, the safe way, no boat rocking, no fact checking. Where was all this "fact checking" going on, the post, the ny times, where? Where has been the useful coverage of the economic situation, where were the *good articles*, with the real skinny, main stream traditional news, regurgitating Whitehouse and Fed and Treasury press releases, or places like matt taibbi's stuff in the rolling stone, and dr. housing bubble blog and so on? Why can't they investigate government COMPLETE BS statistics on the economy, and you have to go to shadowstats instead to get it de obfuscated? Where has the real news of war come from, those "embedded" reporters? Ha! How about black box voting? Main stream news..not a peep, it took blackbox voting dog org and brad blog and places like that to get some notice and action going out there, you sure as hell didn't see abcnbccbswallstreethjournalnewyorktimeswapo nonsense bringing it up, and that is sort of *important* in an alleged free democracy. Where the hell is their coverage of sibel edmonds rather *interesting* tale?</p><p>One million examples there, tends to indicate a "trend"</p><p>
&nbsp; Blow dried blowhards. They know where their check comes from and what they can say or not.</p><p>Naw, let the controlled establishment propaganda arm of government/ big money interests (the same exact thing) crash and burn, they DESERVE it. They deserved it years ago, as pointed out by an insider journalist a long ago, who grew disillusioned working for the mainstream press and switched to being independent and working for the then new labor movement:</p><p>"There is no such thing, at this date of the world's history, in America, as an independent press. You know it and I know it.</p><p>There is not one of you who dares to write your honest opinions, and if you did, you know beforehand that it would never appear in print. I am paid weekly for keeping my honest opinion out of the paper I am connected with. Others of you are paid similar salaries for similar things, and any of you who would be so foolish as to write honest opinions would be out on the streets looking for another job. If I allowed my honest opinions to appear in one issue of my paper, before twenty-four hours my occupation would be gone.</p><p>The business of the journalists is to destroy the truth, to lie outright, to pervert, to vilify, to fawn at the feet of mammon, and to sell his country and his race for his daily bread. You know it and I know it, and what folly is this toasting an independent press?</p><p>We are the tools and vassals of rich men behind the scenes. We are the jumping jacks, they pull the strings and we dance. Our talents, our possibilities and our lives are all the property of other men. We are intellectual prostitutes."</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Where has that been hiding ?
Where were they during the buildup to the iraq invasion , covering all the WMD non stories , that they were pushing after getting " the real info " from out of the government 's lie-hole ?
Parrots , not journalists , the safe way , no boat rocking , no fact checking .
Where was all this " fact checking " going on , the post , the ny times , where ?
Where has been the useful coverage of the economic situation , where were the * good articles * , with the real skinny , main stream traditional news , regurgitating Whitehouse and Fed and Treasury press releases , or places like matt taibbi 's stuff in the rolling stone , and dr. housing bubble blog and so on ?
Why ca n't they investigate government COMPLETE BS statistics on the economy , and you have to go to shadowstats instead to get it de obfuscated ?
Where has the real news of war come from , those " embedded " reporters ?
Ha ! How about black box voting ?
Main stream news..not a peep , it took blackbox voting dog org and brad blog and places like that to get some notice and action going out there , you sure as hell did n't see abcnbccbswallstreethjournalnewyorktimeswapo nonsense bringing it up , and that is sort of * important * in an alleged free democracy .
Where the hell is their coverage of sibel edmonds rather * interesting * tale ? One million examples there , tends to indicate a " trend "   Blow dried blowhards .
They know where their check comes from and what they can say or not.Naw , let the controlled establishment propaganda arm of government/ big money interests ( the same exact thing ) crash and burn , they DESERVE it .
They deserved it years ago , as pointed out by an insider journalist a long ago , who grew disillusioned working for the mainstream press and switched to being independent and working for the then new labor movement : " There is no such thing , at this date of the world 's history , in America , as an independent press .
You know it and I know it.There is not one of you who dares to write your honest opinions , and if you did , you know beforehand that it would never appear in print .
I am paid weekly for keeping my honest opinion out of the paper I am connected with .
Others of you are paid similar salaries for similar things , and any of you who would be so foolish as to write honest opinions would be out on the streets looking for another job .
If I allowed my honest opinions to appear in one issue of my paper , before twenty-four hours my occupation would be gone.The business of the journalists is to destroy the truth , to lie outright , to pervert , to vilify , to fawn at the feet of mammon , and to sell his country and his race for his daily bread .
You know it and I know it , and what folly is this toasting an independent press ? We are the tools and vassals of rich men behind the scenes .
We are the jumping jacks , they pull the strings and we dance .
Our talents , our possibilities and our lives are all the property of other men .
We are intellectual prostitutes .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Where has that been hiding?
Where were they during the buildup to the iraq invasion, covering all the WMD non stories, that they were pushing after getting "the real info" from out of the government's lie-hole?
Parrots, not journalists, the safe way, no boat rocking, no fact checking.
Where was all this "fact checking" going on, the post, the ny times, where?
Where has been the useful coverage of the economic situation, where were the *good articles*, with the real skinny, main stream traditional news, regurgitating Whitehouse and Fed and Treasury press releases, or places like matt taibbi's stuff in the rolling stone, and dr. housing bubble blog and so on?
Why can't they investigate government COMPLETE BS statistics on the economy, and you have to go to shadowstats instead to get it de obfuscated?
Where has the real news of war come from, those "embedded" reporters?
Ha! How about black box voting?
Main stream news..not a peep, it took blackbox voting dog org and brad blog and places like that to get some notice and action going out there, you sure as hell didn't see abcnbccbswallstreethjournalnewyorktimeswapo nonsense bringing it up, and that is sort of *important* in an alleged free democracy.
Where the hell is their coverage of sibel edmonds rather *interesting* tale?One million examples there, tends to indicate a "trend"
  Blow dried blowhards.
They know where their check comes from and what they can say or not.Naw, let the controlled establishment propaganda arm of government/ big money interests (the same exact thing) crash and burn, they DESERVE it.
They deserved it years ago, as pointed out by an insider journalist a long ago, who grew disillusioned working for the mainstream press and switched to being independent and working for the then new labor movement:"There is no such thing, at this date of the world's history, in America, as an independent press.
You know it and I know it.There is not one of you who dares to write your honest opinions, and if you did, you know beforehand that it would never appear in print.
I am paid weekly for keeping my honest opinion out of the paper I am connected with.
Others of you are paid similar salaries for similar things, and any of you who would be so foolish as to write honest opinions would be out on the streets looking for another job.
If I allowed my honest opinions to appear in one issue of my paper, before twenty-four hours my occupation would be gone.The business of the journalists is to destroy the truth, to lie outright, to pervert, to vilify, to fawn at the feet of mammon, and to sell his country and his race for his daily bread.
You know it and I know it, and what folly is this toasting an independent press?We are the tools and vassals of rich men behind the scenes.
We are the jumping jacks, they pull the strings and we dance.
Our talents, our possibilities and our lives are all the property of other men.
We are intellectual prostitutes.
"</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_31_137221.29934685</id>
	<title>Just look around</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257005400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>In norway print media is getting significant goverment subsidies. The consequence is that rather than having media which is a watchdog over goverment, they have become a shill of the leftist 'big-goverment' political parties. (Since these are the parties that will guarantee their continued pipe into taxpayer money)</p><p>Every time somone brings up the question of subsidies you can trust that every newspaper will write long editorials why they need to keep getting money.</p><p>Particularly aggravating is the fact that a small selection of newspapers are getting preferential treatment (more money than others). These papers just happen to be the papers that used to be the publishing fronts for four leftist political parties. They claim to be independent of cource, but it won't take much reading to realize just how skewed their presentation really is.</p><p>So just take a look around and you will quickly find good reasons why not to start subsidizing the press.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>In norway print media is getting significant goverment subsidies .
The consequence is that rather than having media which is a watchdog over goverment , they have become a shill of the leftist 'big-goverment ' political parties .
( Since these are the parties that will guarantee their continued pipe into taxpayer money ) Every time somone brings up the question of subsidies you can trust that every newspaper will write long editorials why they need to keep getting money.Particularly aggravating is the fact that a small selection of newspapers are getting preferential treatment ( more money than others ) .
These papers just happen to be the papers that used to be the publishing fronts for four leftist political parties .
They claim to be independent of cource , but it wo n't take much reading to realize just how skewed their presentation really is.So just take a look around and you will quickly find good reasons why not to start subsidizing the press .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>In norway print media is getting significant goverment subsidies.
The consequence is that rather than having media which is a watchdog over goverment, they have become a shill of the leftist 'big-goverment' political parties.
(Since these are the parties that will guarantee their continued pipe into taxpayer money)Every time somone brings up the question of subsidies you can trust that every newspaper will write long editorials why they need to keep getting money.Particularly aggravating is the fact that a small selection of newspapers are getting preferential treatment (more money than others).
These papers just happen to be the papers that used to be the publishing fronts for four leftist political parties.
They claim to be independent of cource, but it won't take much reading to realize just how skewed their presentation really is.So just take a look around and you will quickly find good reasons why not to start subsidizing the press.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_31_137221.29937001</id>
	<title>And democracynow.org</title>
	<author>nbauman</author>
	<datestamp>1256983020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><a href="http://democracynow.org/" title="democracynow.org">http://democracynow.org/</a> [democracynow.org]</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>http : //democracynow.org/ [ democracynow.org ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>http://democracynow.org/ [democracynow.org]</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_31_137221.29935497</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_31_137221.29934539</id>
	<title>Re:good description</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257003900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>They have run journalism into the ground...</p></div><p>Bull.  Their business models just suck.  Really, advertising potential has not decreased, but only shifted ever so slightly.  If you offer a truly good experience on a local oriented website, you can recoup the losses of the drop in dead-tree paper sales.  There might be more work involved, but there is still potential </p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>They have run journalism into the ground...Bull .
Their business models just suck .
Really , advertising potential has not decreased , but only shifted ever so slightly .
If you offer a truly good experience on a local oriented website , you can recoup the losses of the drop in dead-tree paper sales .
There might be more work involved , but there is still potential</tokentext>
<sentencetext>They have run journalism into the ground...Bull.
Their business models just suck.
Really, advertising potential has not decreased, but only shifted ever so slightly.
If you offer a truly good experience on a local oriented website, you can recoup the losses of the drop in dead-tree paper sales.
There might be more work involved, but there is still potential 
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_31_137221.29934381</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_31_137221.29938191</id>
	<title>Re:Wha?</title>
	<author>Idiomatick</author>
	<datestamp>1256996580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Ty for distinguishing AP and reuters. I think, fuck the media, let them all go bankrupt. However, if we can do it in an unbiased way, supporting AP/reuters/feeds would be good. If they die we don't have a real alternative, we'll enter a dark age.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Ty for distinguishing AP and reuters .
I think , fuck the media , let them all go bankrupt .
However , if we can do it in an unbiased way , supporting AP/reuters/feeds would be good .
If they die we do n't have a real alternative , we 'll enter a dark age .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Ty for distinguishing AP and reuters.
I think, fuck the media, let them all go bankrupt.
However, if we can do it in an unbiased way, supporting AP/reuters/feeds would be good.
If they die we don't have a real alternative, we'll enter a dark age.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_31_137221.29934449</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_31_137221.29935907</id>
	<title>Welcome to the Beginning</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257016620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>Of the end. The failing news media is just a symptom of our society's greater sickness: Literacy is going down the drain.  Our vocabulary is rapidly diminishing and the appreciation of the written word is almost non-existent.
<br> <br>
Eventually we will be the "phrase" society, where everyone speaks in canned phrases we've learned from movie trailers. Don't believe me? Listen to teenagers these days. They are the "Preview" of what's to come.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Of the end .
The failing news media is just a symptom of our society 's greater sickness : Literacy is going down the drain .
Our vocabulary is rapidly diminishing and the appreciation of the written word is almost non-existent .
Eventually we will be the " phrase " society , where everyone speaks in canned phrases we 've learned from movie trailers .
Do n't believe me ?
Listen to teenagers these days .
They are the " Preview " of what 's to come .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Of the end.
The failing news media is just a symptom of our society's greater sickness: Literacy is going down the drain.
Our vocabulary is rapidly diminishing and the appreciation of the written word is almost non-existent.
Eventually we will be the "phrase" society, where everyone speaks in canned phrases we've learned from movie trailers.
Don't believe me?
Listen to teenagers these days.
They are the "Preview" of what's to come.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_31_137221.29935355</id>
	<title>The BBC is a good example.</title>
	<author>EWAdams</author>
	<datestamp>1257011820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The BBC is the single best news organization in the world, full stop. Nobody else comes close for global reach and insight. It receives "government" money, i.e. the TV license fee. As a result, it is required by law to be politically neutral, which is one of the best things about it. (So too, is NPR, and if you think NPR is biased, as many conservatives do, it just shows where YOU stand.)</p><p>Because the BBC is government funded it is watched like a hawk by everybody -- the party in power, the party in opposition, the taxpayers' lobby, and so on. It just cut out 20\% of its own management thanks to public pressure.</p><p>It's not perfect; there is waste and abuse at times. But it beats the hell out of any American news organization whatsoever.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The BBC is the single best news organization in the world , full stop .
Nobody else comes close for global reach and insight .
It receives " government " money , i.e .
the TV license fee .
As a result , it is required by law to be politically neutral , which is one of the best things about it .
( So too , is NPR , and if you think NPR is biased , as many conservatives do , it just shows where YOU stand .
) Because the BBC is government funded it is watched like a hawk by everybody -- the party in power , the party in opposition , the taxpayers ' lobby , and so on .
It just cut out 20 \ % of its own management thanks to public pressure.It 's not perfect ; there is waste and abuse at times .
But it beats the hell out of any American news organization whatsoever .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The BBC is the single best news organization in the world, full stop.
Nobody else comes close for global reach and insight.
It receives "government" money, i.e.
the TV license fee.
As a result, it is required by law to be politically neutral, which is one of the best things about it.
(So too, is NPR, and if you think NPR is biased, as many conservatives do, it just shows where YOU stand.
)Because the BBC is government funded it is watched like a hawk by everybody -- the party in power, the party in opposition, the taxpayers' lobby, and so on.
It just cut out 20\% of its own management thanks to public pressure.It's not perfect; there is waste and abuse at times.
But it beats the hell out of any American news organization whatsoever.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_31_137221.29934855</id>
	<title>Government money == government control.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257006720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Anyone who believes otherwise is a fool (or a liar who wants government control).</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Anyone who believes otherwise is a fool ( or a liar who wants government control ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Anyone who believes otherwise is a fool (or a liar who wants government control).</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_31_137221.29934891</id>
	<title>Why switch?</title>
	<author>denzacar</author>
	<datestamp>1257007140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>And if you're a journalism major, strongly consider switching.</p></div><p>If anything, current media sorely lacks qualified and educated journalists.<br>You know... people who actually studied ethics, writing, reporting, investigating etc.</p><p>Not people who climbed the social/corporate ladder based on the whiteness of their teeth and strength of their elbows (and/or knees).<br>Nor the people who believe that the Twitter is a viable tool for journalist reports or even an article or debate.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>And if you 're a journalism major , strongly consider switching.If anything , current media sorely lacks qualified and educated journalists.You know... people who actually studied ethics , writing , reporting , investigating etc.Not people who climbed the social/corporate ladder based on the whiteness of their teeth and strength of their elbows ( and/or knees ) .Nor the people who believe that the Twitter is a viable tool for journalist reports or even an article or debate .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>And if you're a journalism major, strongly consider switching.If anything, current media sorely lacks qualified and educated journalists.You know... people who actually studied ethics, writing, reporting, investigating etc.Not people who climbed the social/corporate ladder based on the whiteness of their teeth and strength of their elbows (and/or knees).Nor the people who believe that the Twitter is a viable tool for journalist reports or even an article or debate.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_31_137221.29934583</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_31_137221.29934545</id>
	<title>On The Media</title>
	<author>DoofusOfDeath</author>
	<datestamp>1257003960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><a href="http://www.onthemedia.org/" title="onthemedia.org">On The Media</a> [onthemedia.org] has pretty good coverage in their October 30'th episode, which you can download as an<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.mp3.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>On The Media [ onthemedia.org ] has pretty good coverage in their October 30'th episode , which you can download as an .mp3 .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>On The Media [onthemedia.org] has pretty good coverage in their October 30'th episode, which you can download as an .mp3.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_31_137221.29934381</id>
	<title>good description</title>
	<author>the\_Bionic\_lemming</author>
	<datestamp>1257002700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>They have run journalism into the ground...</p><p>If they would move past "Infotainment" and got back to writing good "News" instead of creating "Crisis" and attacking an administration simply to raise advertising funding I'd be inclined to buy a newspaper to read.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>They have run journalism into the ground...If they would move past " Infotainment " and got back to writing good " News " instead of creating " Crisis " and attacking an administration simply to raise advertising funding I 'd be inclined to buy a newspaper to read .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>They have run journalism into the ground...If they would move past "Infotainment" and got back to writing good "News" instead of creating "Crisis" and attacking an administration simply to raise advertising funding I'd be inclined to buy a newspaper to read.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_31_137221.29937371</id>
	<title>"Whoever holds the purse strings is in control."</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256986980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You said: "Whoever holds the purse strings is in control."</p><p>The Canadian government funds the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation (CBC).  While the CBC has a mandate to promote Canadian unity, which I feel compromises its reporting on Quebec nationalism, I think nobody in Canada would say the government controls what the CBC reports.  It is well known the  current government has very little use for the CBC.</p><p>The CBC has in the past had a very strong independent culture of high quality reporting.  That is the key, no matter who is paying.</p><p>As the MSM audience bleeds away, the danger to quality journalism at the CBC comes from <i>market forces</i>, not government forces.  We don't need to worry so much about someone in power whispering into an editors ear.  Desperation to remain relevant (measured in mere-eyeballs) will lead the newsroom to compromise itself until it is nothing but infotainment, sensationalism, shock stories, and panic.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You said : " Whoever holds the purse strings is in control .
" The Canadian government funds the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation ( CBC ) .
While the CBC has a mandate to promote Canadian unity , which I feel compromises its reporting on Quebec nationalism , I think nobody in Canada would say the government controls what the CBC reports .
It is well known the current government has very little use for the CBC.The CBC has in the past had a very strong independent culture of high quality reporting .
That is the key , no matter who is paying.As the MSM audience bleeds away , the danger to quality journalism at the CBC comes from market forces , not government forces .
We do n't need to worry so much about someone in power whispering into an editors ear .
Desperation to remain relevant ( measured in mere-eyeballs ) will lead the newsroom to compromise itself until it is nothing but infotainment , sensationalism , shock stories , and panic .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You said: "Whoever holds the purse strings is in control.
"The Canadian government funds the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation (CBC).
While the CBC has a mandate to promote Canadian unity, which I feel compromises its reporting on Quebec nationalism, I think nobody in Canada would say the government controls what the CBC reports.
It is well known the  current government has very little use for the CBC.The CBC has in the past had a very strong independent culture of high quality reporting.
That is the key, no matter who is paying.As the MSM audience bleeds away, the danger to quality journalism at the CBC comes from market forces, not government forces.
We don't need to worry so much about someone in power whispering into an editors ear.
Desperation to remain relevant (measured in mere-eyeballs) will lead the newsroom to compromise itself until it is nothing but infotainment, sensationalism, shock stories, and panic.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_31_137221.29934605</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_31_137221.29938541</id>
	<title>Just like Wall Street's "Mortgage Bailout".</title>
	<author>occam</author>
	<datestamp>1256999820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Government in bed with... military industrial complex (Cheney)   Afghanistan/Iran/Iraq Hoax Wars and highway robbery of our youth.<br>Government in bed with... Wall St.  financial collapse + Wall St.'s "Mortgage Bailout" and highway robbery of the tax dollar.<br>Government in bed with... Journalism  government "tuned" journalism and highway robbery of any journalistic independence.<br>Dilution of Common Rights &amp; Principles  more Plutonomics (See Michael Moore's film, "Capitalism: A Love Story").<br>-- Bottom Line --<br>US Democracy  US Peasantocracy (no rights, no power, no money:  See "The Matrix"; yes, "The Matrix" but with a plutonomics view).</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Government in bed with... military industrial complex ( Cheney ) Afghanistan/Iran/Iraq Hoax Wars and highway robbery of our youth.Government in bed with... Wall St. financial collapse + Wall St. 's " Mortgage Bailout " and highway robbery of the tax dollar.Government in bed with... Journalism government " tuned " journalism and highway robbery of any journalistic independence.Dilution of Common Rights &amp; Principles more Plutonomics ( See Michael Moore 's film , " Capitalism : A Love Story " ) .-- Bottom Line --US Democracy US Peasantocracy ( no rights , no power , no money : See " The Matrix " ; yes , " The Matrix " but with a plutonomics view ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Government in bed with... military industrial complex (Cheney)   Afghanistan/Iran/Iraq Hoax Wars and highway robbery of our youth.Government in bed with... Wall St.  financial collapse + Wall St.'s "Mortgage Bailout" and highway robbery of the tax dollar.Government in bed with... Journalism  government "tuned" journalism and highway robbery of any journalistic independence.Dilution of Common Rights &amp; Principles  more Plutonomics (See Michael Moore's film, "Capitalism: A Love Story").-- Bottom Line --US Democracy  US Peasantocracy (no rights, no power, no money:  See "The Matrix"; yes, "The Matrix" but with a plutonomics view).</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_31_137221.29934625</id>
	<title>Re:Subsidize paper chauvinism now!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257004620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Mod this up!</p><p>The News CONTENT should be of more importance than the medium or the egos who control its delivery.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Mod this up ! The News CONTENT should be of more importance than the medium or the egos who control its delivery .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Mod this up!The News CONTENT should be of more importance than the medium or the egos who control its delivery.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_31_137221.29934507</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_31_137221.29936649</id>
	<title>Re:Two points</title>
	<author>Toonol</author>
	<datestamp>1256979900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><i>The BBC is a government institution that holds its own purse strings -- effectively having the right to raise its own taxes. </i> <br> <br>

Which gives it an innate political bias.  There are significant and important political ideologies that view the existence of such institutions as wrong; do you think the BBC isn't biased when reporting on them?</htmltext>
<tokenext>The BBC is a government institution that holds its own purse strings -- effectively having the right to raise its own taxes .
Which gives it an innate political bias .
There are significant and important political ideologies that view the existence of such institutions as wrong ; do you think the BBC is n't biased when reporting on them ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The BBC is a government institution that holds its own purse strings -- effectively having the right to raise its own taxes.
Which gives it an innate political bias.
There are significant and important political ideologies that view the existence of such institutions as wrong; do you think the BBC isn't biased when reporting on them?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_31_137221.29934923</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_31_137221.29936811</id>
	<title>The news on the net is way better..</title>
	<author>joocemann</author>
	<datestamp>1256981100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>... than the news in print and the news on TV.  Most of what is in print and TV is usually negative and shocking because it has become pretty clear that people care about bad things.</p><p>But I'm sick of it.  I'm old enough to know the world has bad things, and I respect those, but will not focus my interests around it.</p><p>It is sites like slashdot where I can find out information that is usually actually interesting or positive without the horrors and scares of mainstream media shock tactics.</p><p>And no, they don't deserve a frikkin handout.  You think the guys who do journalism on the net didn't innovate, adapt, and change with the market?  (Rhetorical question).  If we don't buy print media, why would we want to subsidize it?  That just a handout --- the people won't buy it willingly, so lobbyists convince our government to spend our money on it despite our lack of interest as people.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>... than the news in print and the news on TV .
Most of what is in print and TV is usually negative and shocking because it has become pretty clear that people care about bad things.But I 'm sick of it .
I 'm old enough to know the world has bad things , and I respect those , but will not focus my interests around it.It is sites like slashdot where I can find out information that is usually actually interesting or positive without the horrors and scares of mainstream media shock tactics.And no , they do n't deserve a frikkin handout .
You think the guys who do journalism on the net did n't innovate , adapt , and change with the market ?
( Rhetorical question ) .
If we do n't buy print media , why would we want to subsidize it ?
That just a handout --- the people wo n't buy it willingly , so lobbyists convince our government to spend our money on it despite our lack of interest as people .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>... than the news in print and the news on TV.
Most of what is in print and TV is usually negative and shocking because it has become pretty clear that people care about bad things.But I'm sick of it.
I'm old enough to know the world has bad things, and I respect those, but will not focus my interests around it.It is sites like slashdot where I can find out information that is usually actually interesting or positive without the horrors and scares of mainstream media shock tactics.And no, they don't deserve a frikkin handout.
You think the guys who do journalism on the net didn't innovate, adapt, and change with the market?
(Rhetorical question).
If we don't buy print media, why would we want to subsidize it?
That just a handout --- the people won't buy it willingly, so lobbyists convince our government to spend our money on it despite our lack of interest as people.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_31_137221.29934985</id>
	<title>As A Former Newspaper Employee</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257008100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I worked for the Rocky Mountain News and the Denver Newspaper Agency (DNA) for a number of years. I'd like to share my thoughts on why newspapers companies are failing.</p><p>First, in this era where Content is King, the quality of newspaper content has been declining steadily. Most reporting is little more than regurgitated press releases and wire stories. The original writing is largely confined to the sports section. Reporting quality has been discussed to death so I won't go into details. Suffice to say that most of the original reporting in the main section is stories about stories. These secondary stories have very little value.</p><p>Second is the rampant cronyism in the executive ranks. At the DNA I watched a seemingly endless parade of senior executives come and go. These people move from one newspaper to another every couple of years. Much ballyhooed when they arrive, they never accomplish anything. At least two senior execs are on their second round at the DNA. These are the people who lead the newspaper industry right to the brink. They do not know what to do now. Most of them are nearing retirement age and I doubt the newspaper industry can recover until they do retire.</p><p>Next, ignoring the web was a huge mistake. It might be fatal. As an example, in the spring of 2009, the new President of the DNA (he was President of The Denver Post a few years ago) said something like "We've barely scratched the surface of what we're going to do with the web". The voice in my head was screaming "That's why they're eating our lunch!" So what have they done with the web since then? If you read the preceding paragraph you already know the answer to that question.</p><p>Finally, there is the revenue problem. The last twenty years or so have seen an explosion in the amount of available advertising space. Think back a few years, half a dozen local TV stations, a few radio stations, and your local newspaper were the main venues for advertising. Today, advertising is everywhere. It's a simple case of Supply and Demand. The skyrocketing supply drove prices down. Meanwhile, the price of newsprint was also skyrocketing. It's reached the point where newspapers can't compete because their costs are too high.</p><p>So what's the solution? I don't know. I do know that government subsidies aren't the answer. Propping up an industry that's killing itself won't help you or me. It will help those old newspaper execs retire comfortably. That is all.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I worked for the Rocky Mountain News and the Denver Newspaper Agency ( DNA ) for a number of years .
I 'd like to share my thoughts on why newspapers companies are failing.First , in this era where Content is King , the quality of newspaper content has been declining steadily .
Most reporting is little more than regurgitated press releases and wire stories .
The original writing is largely confined to the sports section .
Reporting quality has been discussed to death so I wo n't go into details .
Suffice to say that most of the original reporting in the main section is stories about stories .
These secondary stories have very little value.Second is the rampant cronyism in the executive ranks .
At the DNA I watched a seemingly endless parade of senior executives come and go .
These people move from one newspaper to another every couple of years .
Much ballyhooed when they arrive , they never accomplish anything .
At least two senior execs are on their second round at the DNA .
These are the people who lead the newspaper industry right to the brink .
They do not know what to do now .
Most of them are nearing retirement age and I doubt the newspaper industry can recover until they do retire.Next , ignoring the web was a huge mistake .
It might be fatal .
As an example , in the spring of 2009 , the new President of the DNA ( he was President of The Denver Post a few years ago ) said something like " We 've barely scratched the surface of what we 're going to do with the web " .
The voice in my head was screaming " That 's why they 're eating our lunch !
" So what have they done with the web since then ?
If you read the preceding paragraph you already know the answer to that question.Finally , there is the revenue problem .
The last twenty years or so have seen an explosion in the amount of available advertising space .
Think back a few years , half a dozen local TV stations , a few radio stations , and your local newspaper were the main venues for advertising .
Today , advertising is everywhere .
It 's a simple case of Supply and Demand .
The skyrocketing supply drove prices down .
Meanwhile , the price of newsprint was also skyrocketing .
It 's reached the point where newspapers ca n't compete because their costs are too high.So what 's the solution ?
I do n't know .
I do know that government subsidies are n't the answer .
Propping up an industry that 's killing itself wo n't help you or me .
It will help those old newspaper execs retire comfortably .
That is all .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I worked for the Rocky Mountain News and the Denver Newspaper Agency (DNA) for a number of years.
I'd like to share my thoughts on why newspapers companies are failing.First, in this era where Content is King, the quality of newspaper content has been declining steadily.
Most reporting is little more than regurgitated press releases and wire stories.
The original writing is largely confined to the sports section.
Reporting quality has been discussed to death so I won't go into details.
Suffice to say that most of the original reporting in the main section is stories about stories.
These secondary stories have very little value.Second is the rampant cronyism in the executive ranks.
At the DNA I watched a seemingly endless parade of senior executives come and go.
These people move from one newspaper to another every couple of years.
Much ballyhooed when they arrive, they never accomplish anything.
At least two senior execs are on their second round at the DNA.
These are the people who lead the newspaper industry right to the brink.
They do not know what to do now.
Most of them are nearing retirement age and I doubt the newspaper industry can recover until they do retire.Next, ignoring the web was a huge mistake.
It might be fatal.
As an example, in the spring of 2009, the new President of the DNA (he was President of The Denver Post a few years ago) said something like "We've barely scratched the surface of what we're going to do with the web".
The voice in my head was screaming "That's why they're eating our lunch!
" So what have they done with the web since then?
If you read the preceding paragraph you already know the answer to that question.Finally, there is the revenue problem.
The last twenty years or so have seen an explosion in the amount of available advertising space.
Think back a few years, half a dozen local TV stations, a few radio stations, and your local newspaper were the main venues for advertising.
Today, advertising is everywhere.
It's a simple case of Supply and Demand.
The skyrocketing supply drove prices down.
Meanwhile, the price of newsprint was also skyrocketing.
It's reached the point where newspapers can't compete because their costs are too high.So what's the solution?
I don't know.
I do know that government subsidies aren't the answer.
Propping up an industry that's killing itself won't help you or me.
It will help those old newspaper execs retire comfortably.
That is all.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_31_137221.29934749</id>
	<title>Faux News</title>
	<author>Lord Byron II</author>
	<datestamp>1257005880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Flamebait</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I really, really, really don't want any of my money going toward Fox "News". Thank you.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I really , really , really do n't want any of my money going toward Fox " News " .
Thank you .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I really, really, really don't want any of my money going toward Fox "News".
Thank you.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_31_137221.29935611</id>
	<title>Re:The BBC is a good example.</title>
	<author>witch-doktor</author>
	<datestamp>1257014160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This is missing sarcasm tags.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This is missing sarcasm tags .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This is missing sarcasm tags.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_31_137221.29935355</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_31_137221.29935575</id>
	<title>Re:Hmmm</title>
	<author>jadavis</author>
	<datestamp>1257013680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>but because [FNC] doesn't really care about actual truth</i></p><p>News outlets should also be judged by the stories they run that other news outlets ignore, like corruption in Acorn, Van Jones, etc.</p><p>If your news outlets aren't reporting these things, maybe you should include FNC so that you get all of the relevant information? I'm sure if FNC gets anything wrong, it will be debunked by various FNC critics, so you won't be misinformed.</p><p><i>The BBC is a good example</i></p><p>Everyone uses the BBC as a good example. But we're afraid of the bad examples.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>but because [ FNC ] does n't really care about actual truthNews outlets should also be judged by the stories they run that other news outlets ignore , like corruption in Acorn , Van Jones , etc.If your news outlets are n't reporting these things , maybe you should include FNC so that you get all of the relevant information ?
I 'm sure if FNC gets anything wrong , it will be debunked by various FNC critics , so you wo n't be misinformed.The BBC is a good exampleEveryone uses the BBC as a good example .
But we 're afraid of the bad examples .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>but because [FNC] doesn't really care about actual truthNews outlets should also be judged by the stories they run that other news outlets ignore, like corruption in Acorn, Van Jones, etc.If your news outlets aren't reporting these things, maybe you should include FNC so that you get all of the relevant information?
I'm sure if FNC gets anything wrong, it will be debunked by various FNC critics, so you won't be misinformed.The BBC is a good exampleEveryone uses the BBC as a good example.
But we're afraid of the bad examples.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_31_137221.29934843</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_31_137221.29934739</id>
	<title>MSNBC</title>
	<author>rlp</author>
	<datestamp>1257005820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>We already have state-run media.  They might as well get paid by the government for their services.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>We already have state-run media .
They might as well get paid by the government for their services .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>We already have state-run media.
They might as well get paid by the government for their services.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_31_137221.29935027</id>
	<title>Bunch of hacks</title>
	<author>Sean</author>
	<datestamp>1257008400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Are already bought and paid for anyway. Who are they kidding?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Are already bought and paid for anyway .
Who are they kidding ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Are already bought and paid for anyway.
Who are they kidding?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_31_137221.29935055</id>
	<title>The BBC model works.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257008760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The BBC is paid for by a Tax.  They are not influenced by government or commercial interests, and run a highly respected news organisation.</p><p>I vote for a \% of GDP tax to be given to a organisations like the BBC whose job is to entertain and inform.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The BBC is paid for by a Tax .
They are not influenced by government or commercial interests , and run a highly respected news organisation.I vote for a \ % of GDP tax to be given to a organisations like the BBC whose job is to entertain and inform .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The BBC is paid for by a Tax.
They are not influenced by government or commercial interests, and run a highly respected news organisation.I vote for a \% of GDP tax to be given to a organisations like the BBC whose job is to entertain and inform.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_31_137221.29936915</id>
	<title>Re:Two points</title>
	<author>joocemann</author>
	<datestamp>1256982060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>&gt;&gt;&gt;The BBC is a government institution that holds its own purse strings --</p><p>Except when you don't pay that TV license fee (tax), then the BBC calls on the government to round you up and toss you in jail, or extract the funds from your paycheck.  So the BBC is not really independent of the government - its *beholden* to the government to enforce its collection of funds.<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.</p><p>&gt;&gt;&gt;In western countries, public news organisations offer by far the highest quality of reporting</p><p>Not in the States.  NPR and PBS sucks when it comes to news gathering since it was biased towards a statist regime (more/bigger government).  If the reporters at this organizations had their way private ownership would be dead and our homes/car/et cetera would all be government owned.  Okay I maybe be exaggerating a little but that is how their reporting leans.</p><p>The only good news is that NPR/PBS only costs me about $10 a year in taxation, so it doesn't really "hurt" me that much.</p></div><p>ITS A COMMUNIST PLOT!</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>&gt; &gt; &gt; The BBC is a government institution that holds its own purse strings --Except when you do n't pay that TV license fee ( tax ) , then the BBC calls on the government to round you up and toss you in jail , or extract the funds from your paycheck .
So the BBC is not really independent of the government - its * beholden * to the government to enforce its collection of funds .
. &gt; &gt; &gt; In western countries , public news organisations offer by far the highest quality of reportingNot in the States .
NPR and PBS sucks when it comes to news gathering since it was biased towards a statist regime ( more/bigger government ) .
If the reporters at this organizations had their way private ownership would be dead and our homes/car/et cetera would all be government owned .
Okay I maybe be exaggerating a little but that is how their reporting leans.The only good news is that NPR/PBS only costs me about $ 10 a year in taxation , so it does n't really " hurt " me that much.ITS A COMMUNIST PLOT !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>&gt;&gt;&gt;The BBC is a government institution that holds its own purse strings --Except when you don't pay that TV license fee (tax), then the BBC calls on the government to round you up and toss you in jail, or extract the funds from your paycheck.
So the BBC is not really independent of the government - its *beholden* to the government to enforce its collection of funds.
.&gt;&gt;&gt;In western countries, public news organisations offer by far the highest quality of reportingNot in the States.
NPR and PBS sucks when it comes to news gathering since it was biased towards a statist regime (more/bigger government).
If the reporters at this organizations had their way private ownership would be dead and our homes/car/et cetera would all be government owned.
Okay I maybe be exaggerating a little but that is how their reporting leans.The only good news is that NPR/PBS only costs me about $10 a year in taxation, so it doesn't really "hurt" me that much.ITS A COMMUNIST PLOT!
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_31_137221.29935559</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_31_137221.29937263</id>
	<title>No sympathy</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256985720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It's about the time that several of my local newspapers started using child labor that I stopped having any sympathy for the plight of the newspapers. Convincing a school full of high schoolers to sell newspaper subscriptions door to door, not for money, but for some nebulous reward that they'll never see fits my definition of "underpaid child labor" perfectly. Very very shady, it's also why I won't shed any tears when the Long Beach Press Telegram dies. Of course, they're actually doing decently well due to the aforementioned child labor...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's about the time that several of my local newspapers started using child labor that I stopped having any sympathy for the plight of the newspapers .
Convincing a school full of high schoolers to sell newspaper subscriptions door to door , not for money , but for some nebulous reward that they 'll never see fits my definition of " underpaid child labor " perfectly .
Very very shady , it 's also why I wo n't shed any tears when the Long Beach Press Telegram dies .
Of course , they 're actually doing decently well due to the aforementioned child labor.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's about the time that several of my local newspapers started using child labor that I stopped having any sympathy for the plight of the newspapers.
Convincing a school full of high schoolers to sell newspaper subscriptions door to door, not for money, but for some nebulous reward that they'll never see fits my definition of "underpaid child labor" perfectly.
Very very shady, it's also why I won't shed any tears when the Long Beach Press Telegram dies.
Of course, they're actually doing decently well due to the aforementioned child labor...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_31_137221.29940397</id>
	<title>Re:Two points</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257071160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>So the BBC is not really independent of the government - its *beholden* to the government to enforce its collection of funds.</p></div><p>Doesn't that apply to any business?  If I take a loaf of bread from the corner store without paying for it, they need the government to enforce their collection of funds too.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>So the BBC is not really independent of the government - its * beholden * to the government to enforce its collection of funds.Does n't that apply to any business ?
If I take a loaf of bread from the corner store without paying for it , they need the government to enforce their collection of funds too .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So the BBC is not really independent of the government - its *beholden* to the government to enforce its collection of funds.Doesn't that apply to any business?
If I take a loaf of bread from the corner store without paying for it, they need the government to enforce their collection of funds too.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_31_137221.29935559</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_31_137221.29941715</id>
	<title>Re:The BBC is a good example.</title>
	<author>The\_Quinn</author>
	<datestamp>1257091620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>if you think NPR is biased, as many conservatives do, it just shows where YOU stand.</p></div><p>Of course it is biased.  Just as with all communication, they choose what content to present, what angle to cover, which details to explore, which guests to bring on, etc.</p><p>The real question is, by what <i>standard</i> do they make these decisions.  I don't have a good answer to this, but I suspect it lies somewhere in the Leftist philosophy stack (skepticism, altruism, collectivism).</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>if you think NPR is biased , as many conservatives do , it just shows where YOU stand.Of course it is biased .
Just as with all communication , they choose what content to present , what angle to cover , which details to explore , which guests to bring on , etc.The real question is , by what standard do they make these decisions .
I do n't have a good answer to this , but I suspect it lies somewhere in the Leftist philosophy stack ( skepticism , altruism , collectivism ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>if you think NPR is biased, as many conservatives do, it just shows where YOU stand.Of course it is biased.
Just as with all communication, they choose what content to present, what angle to cover, which details to explore, which guests to bring on, etc.The real question is, by what standard do they make these decisions.
I don't have a good answer to this, but I suspect it lies somewhere in the Leftist philosophy stack (skepticism, altruism, collectivism).
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_31_137221.29935355</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_31_137221.29934731</id>
	<title>What a brilliant idea!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257005760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If you can't convince people to pay for your product, have the government take it for you. It works for auto companies, why not reporters?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If you ca n't convince people to pay for your product , have the government take it for you .
It works for auto companies , why not reporters ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If you can't convince people to pay for your product, have the government take it for you.
It works for auto companies, why not reporters?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_31_137221.29935083</id>
	<title>Um, yes.</title>
	<author>ErikZ</author>
	<datestamp>1257009120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Yes you called for a state run media.</p><p>Just like angry advertisers can get an objectionable story pulled, so can an angry government. Because they pay you.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Yes you called for a state run media.Just like angry advertisers can get an objectionable story pulled , so can an angry government .
Because they pay you .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yes you called for a state run media.Just like angry advertisers can get an objectionable story pulled, so can an angry government.
Because they pay you.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_31_137221.29935521</id>
	<title>Re:Just look around</title>
	<author>elygre</author>
	<datestamp>1257013080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The political role of Norwegian media is very much an individual opinion, and opinions vary. This compares very much to the discussion of for example Fox News: Are they "tough and vibrant", or are they "not a news organization" (quotes from other entries in this story). I'd wager that in Noway, most people disagree with the opinion voiced above, but your milage may vary.</p><p>Government subsidies take many forms. The major part of press subsidies in Norway is a tax break, where there are little to no opportunity for political intervention, but there is also a significant flow of direct money.</p><p>Svirre seems to believe that the largest takers of subsidies are the same that are "publishing fronts for [the] four leftist political parties". Ignoring the discussion of "leftist", this is factually wrong. The number 2 receiver is the newspaper called "V&#229;rt Land", the major christian conservative newspaper in Norway. Google translate says this about their self-proclaimed mission: "V&#229;rt land should be an independent daily newspaper for people who want to read about the most significant is happening, and about faith's role in this. The newspaper will administer the Christian faith and thought, and help to ensure that this will dominate the society and people's lives and choices."</p><p>It is a fact that Norwegian newspapers enjoy readership that is amongst the highest in the world, with 550  600 copies are sold per 1000 inhabitants. This may or may not be related to the government subsidies.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The political role of Norwegian media is very much an individual opinion , and opinions vary .
This compares very much to the discussion of for example Fox News : Are they " tough and vibrant " , or are they " not a news organization " ( quotes from other entries in this story ) .
I 'd wager that in Noway , most people disagree with the opinion voiced above , but your milage may vary.Government subsidies take many forms .
The major part of press subsidies in Norway is a tax break , where there are little to no opportunity for political intervention , but there is also a significant flow of direct money.Svirre seems to believe that the largest takers of subsidies are the same that are " publishing fronts for [ the ] four leftist political parties " .
Ignoring the discussion of " leftist " , this is factually wrong .
The number 2 receiver is the newspaper called " V   rt Land " , the major christian conservative newspaper in Norway .
Google translate says this about their self-proclaimed mission : " V   rt land should be an independent daily newspaper for people who want to read about the most significant is happening , and about faith 's role in this .
The newspaper will administer the Christian faith and thought , and help to ensure that this will dominate the society and people 's lives and choices .
" It is a fact that Norwegian newspapers enjoy readership that is amongst the highest in the world , with 550 600 copies are sold per 1000 inhabitants .
This may or may not be related to the government subsidies .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The political role of Norwegian media is very much an individual opinion, and opinions vary.
This compares very much to the discussion of for example Fox News: Are they "tough and vibrant", or are they "not a news organization" (quotes from other entries in this story).
I'd wager that in Noway, most people disagree with the opinion voiced above, but your milage may vary.Government subsidies take many forms.
The major part of press subsidies in Norway is a tax break, where there are little to no opportunity for political intervention, but there is also a significant flow of direct money.Svirre seems to believe that the largest takers of subsidies are the same that are "publishing fronts for [the] four leftist political parties".
Ignoring the discussion of "leftist", this is factually wrong.
The number 2 receiver is the newspaper called "Vårt Land", the major christian conservative newspaper in Norway.
Google translate says this about their self-proclaimed mission: "Vårt land should be an independent daily newspaper for people who want to read about the most significant is happening, and about faith's role in this.
The newspaper will administer the Christian faith and thought, and help to ensure that this will dominate the society and people's lives and choices.
"It is a fact that Norwegian newspapers enjoy readership that is amongst the highest in the world, with 550  600 copies are sold per 1000 inhabitants.
This may or may not be related to the government subsidies.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_31_137221.29934685</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_31_137221.29939781</id>
	<title>Re:What planet are you all living on?</title>
	<author>Dave Emami</author>
	<datestamp>1257016020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>I can't believe the comments that say that government-funded media will be Soviet-style Propaganda machines. Are you people out of your minds? Can anyone here name me one program or reporter more critical of the government than Bill Moyers? His programs get financed by PBS, a government corporation.</p></div><p>To pick one issue that's in the news and that I know he's spoken on a lot: can you name me a program or reporter <i>less</i> skeptical of the propriety and/or efficacy of government-run health care, than Bill Moyers?</p><p><div class="quote"><p>In fact, that's exactly what corporations want you to believe, because public funding will be the only thing that frees journalists from the corporate teat. It will effectively shut down the corporate media oligarchy we have today.<br> <br>

Are you all slaves for the corporations or whatever organization pays your salaries? Is that the only lens through which you can see the world?</p></div><p>

Oh, please. Most corporations don't give a damn about government policies that don't visibly impact them. I highly doubt the upper management of my employer (a software/hardware company) would care what I said about government press funding one way or another. You're basically espousing the Marxist idea of "class interest" (not that I'm calling you a Marxist), the belief that people act to further their perceived interests as "workers" or "the rich" or whatever -- in your case, "corporation" being an equivalent of a "class." Which is, of course, why Larry Ellison and Bill Gates got along so well, and why Apple and Google are in such agreement.<br> <br>

Actually, now that I think about it, my employer would probably <i>prefer</i> a government-funded press. Our biggest customers are Las Vegas casinos. As the major tax base in Nevada they definitely get listened to by politicians, all the way up to Harry Reid, the Senate majority leader. I'm sure if some news story came along that would hurt the casinos, they'd love to be able to ask Senator Reid to drop a pointed hint to the right people about not covering the story (can't have reporters wasting tax money on something that's "not newsworthy" after all), and what's good for my employer's customers is good for my employer.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I ca n't believe the comments that say that government-funded media will be Soviet-style Propaganda machines .
Are you people out of your minds ?
Can anyone here name me one program or reporter more critical of the government than Bill Moyers ?
His programs get financed by PBS , a government corporation.To pick one issue that 's in the news and that I know he 's spoken on a lot : can you name me a program or reporter less skeptical of the propriety and/or efficacy of government-run health care , than Bill Moyers ? In fact , that 's exactly what corporations want you to believe , because public funding will be the only thing that frees journalists from the corporate teat .
It will effectively shut down the corporate media oligarchy we have today .
Are you all slaves for the corporations or whatever organization pays your salaries ?
Is that the only lens through which you can see the world ?
Oh , please .
Most corporations do n't give a damn about government policies that do n't visibly impact them .
I highly doubt the upper management of my employer ( a software/hardware company ) would care what I said about government press funding one way or another .
You 're basically espousing the Marxist idea of " class interest " ( not that I 'm calling you a Marxist ) , the belief that people act to further their perceived interests as " workers " or " the rich " or whatever -- in your case , " corporation " being an equivalent of a " class .
" Which is , of course , why Larry Ellison and Bill Gates got along so well , and why Apple and Google are in such agreement .
Actually , now that I think about it , my employer would probably prefer a government-funded press .
Our biggest customers are Las Vegas casinos .
As the major tax base in Nevada they definitely get listened to by politicians , all the way up to Harry Reid , the Senate majority leader .
I 'm sure if some news story came along that would hurt the casinos , they 'd love to be able to ask Senator Reid to drop a pointed hint to the right people about not covering the story ( ca n't have reporters wasting tax money on something that 's " not newsworthy " after all ) , and what 's good for my employer 's customers is good for my employer .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I can't believe the comments that say that government-funded media will be Soviet-style Propaganda machines.
Are you people out of your minds?
Can anyone here name me one program or reporter more critical of the government than Bill Moyers?
His programs get financed by PBS, a government corporation.To pick one issue that's in the news and that I know he's spoken on a lot: can you name me a program or reporter less skeptical of the propriety and/or efficacy of government-run health care, than Bill Moyers?In fact, that's exactly what corporations want you to believe, because public funding will be the only thing that frees journalists from the corporate teat.
It will effectively shut down the corporate media oligarchy we have today.
Are you all slaves for the corporations or whatever organization pays your salaries?
Is that the only lens through which you can see the world?
Oh, please.
Most corporations don't give a damn about government policies that don't visibly impact them.
I highly doubt the upper management of my employer (a software/hardware company) would care what I said about government press funding one way or another.
You're basically espousing the Marxist idea of "class interest" (not that I'm calling you a Marxist), the belief that people act to further their perceived interests as "workers" or "the rich" or whatever -- in your case, "corporation" being an equivalent of a "class.
" Which is, of course, why Larry Ellison and Bill Gates got along so well, and why Apple and Google are in such agreement.
Actually, now that I think about it, my employer would probably prefer a government-funded press.
Our biggest customers are Las Vegas casinos.
As the major tax base in Nevada they definitely get listened to by politicians, all the way up to Harry Reid, the Senate majority leader.
I'm sure if some news story came along that would hurt the casinos, they'd love to be able to ask Senator Reid to drop a pointed hint to the right people about not covering the story (can't have reporters wasting tax money on something that's "not newsworthy" after all), and what's good for my employer's customers is good for my employer.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_31_137221.29935325</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_31_137221.29935457</id>
	<title>I need some money too</title>
	<author>CHRONOSS2008</author>
	<datestamp>1257012660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>yea the state after i get it can thell me what where when and how to jump<br>they can dress me ( former mothers job but i supposedly grew out of , but hey why not  )<br>they can teach me ( oh yea already do )<br>they can arrest me ( um oooops did i do it wrong sirs )<br>they can shoot me<br>they can control my internet<br>they can video me<br>they can xray me<br>they can......</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>yea the state after i get it can thell me what where when and how to jumpthey can dress me ( former mothers job but i supposedly grew out of , but hey why not ) they can teach me ( oh yea already do ) they can arrest me ( um oooops did i do it wrong sirs ) they can shoot methey can control my internetthey can video methey can xray methey can..... .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>yea the state after i get it can thell me what where when and how to jumpthey can dress me ( former mothers job but i supposedly grew out of , but hey why not  )they can teach me ( oh yea already do )they can arrest me ( um oooops did i do it wrong sirs )they can shoot methey can control my internetthey can video methey can xray methey can......</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_31_137221.29934843</id>
	<title>Re:Hmmm</title>
	<author>jo\_ham</author>
	<datestamp>1257006660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Fox News isn't a real news organisation not because it is right wing, but because it doesn't really care about actual truth, it just broadcasts whatever it likes regardless of the facts.</p><p>There are plenty of right wing news organisations that are critical of the Obama administration and the left in general that haven't been classified as "not news".</p><p>Faux News is a special case.</p><p>The BBC is a good example of a "state funded" news outlet. Not beholden to advertising, and managed by a trust (not the government) while drawing funding from the licence fee. I don't think it's any surprise to most people that in general opinion BBC news is considered to be high quality. You will get people from both sides of the spectrum claiming it is biased either too heavily left, or too heavily conservative but the fact that it is often accused of being both a left wing and right wing propaganda machine seems to indicate it might actually be doing ok.</p><p>If you think that a state funded news organisation could never criticise the money source then just check out the sexing up of the Iraq dossier and subsequent aftermath - a subject the BBC got themselves into hot water over. <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hutton\_Inquiry" title="wikipedia.org" rel="nofollow">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hutton\_Inquiry</a> [wikipedia.org] While ultimately it resulted in the resignation of the director general, the BBC pursued the story in the face of major government displeasure.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Fox News is n't a real news organisation not because it is right wing , but because it does n't really care about actual truth , it just broadcasts whatever it likes regardless of the facts.There are plenty of right wing news organisations that are critical of the Obama administration and the left in general that have n't been classified as " not news " .Faux News is a special case.The BBC is a good example of a " state funded " news outlet .
Not beholden to advertising , and managed by a trust ( not the government ) while drawing funding from the licence fee .
I do n't think it 's any surprise to most people that in general opinion BBC news is considered to be high quality .
You will get people from both sides of the spectrum claiming it is biased either too heavily left , or too heavily conservative but the fact that it is often accused of being both a left wing and right wing propaganda machine seems to indicate it might actually be doing ok.If you think that a state funded news organisation could never criticise the money source then just check out the sexing up of the Iraq dossier and subsequent aftermath - a subject the BBC got themselves into hot water over .
http : //en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hutton \ _Inquiry [ wikipedia.org ] While ultimately it resulted in the resignation of the director general , the BBC pursued the story in the face of major government displeasure .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Fox News isn't a real news organisation not because it is right wing, but because it doesn't really care about actual truth, it just broadcasts whatever it likes regardless of the facts.There are plenty of right wing news organisations that are critical of the Obama administration and the left in general that haven't been classified as "not news".Faux News is a special case.The BBC is a good example of a "state funded" news outlet.
Not beholden to advertising, and managed by a trust (not the government) while drawing funding from the licence fee.
I don't think it's any surprise to most people that in general opinion BBC news is considered to be high quality.
You will get people from both sides of the spectrum claiming it is biased either too heavily left, or too heavily conservative but the fact that it is often accused of being both a left wing and right wing propaganda machine seems to indicate it might actually be doing ok.If you think that a state funded news organisation could never criticise the money source then just check out the sexing up of the Iraq dossier and subsequent aftermath - a subject the BBC got themselves into hot water over.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hutton\_Inquiry [wikipedia.org] While ultimately it resulted in the resignation of the director general, the BBC pursued the story in the face of major government displeasure.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_31_137221.29934583</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_31_137221.29935823</id>
	<title>Tie one white elephant to the other.</title>
	<author>crovira</author>
	<datestamp>1257015960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Here I go again.</p><p>No I'm NOT trying to revive dead tree edition, but "I'm advocating for consumers paying to use the Post Office's IT infrastructure to get access to RSS files to get access to the publishers' content and for the post office paying for publishers for giving access to that content, regardless of where the consumer and the publisher are."*</p><p>Think about it.</p><p>The US Post Office is part of an international information distribution network. (What is the internet?)</p><p>It has franking privileges (stamps are legal tender.)</p><p>It is used to dealing in small amounts.</p><p>It is legally entitled to be a common carrier.</p><p>It has an IT infrastructure.</p><p>It can collect for and grant access to RSS files.</p><p>It operates at "arms length" from every government.</p><p>This would work.</p><p>*Google it.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Here I go again.No I 'm NOT trying to revive dead tree edition , but " I 'm advocating for consumers paying to use the Post Office 's IT infrastructure to get access to RSS files to get access to the publishers ' content and for the post office paying for publishers for giving access to that content , regardless of where the consumer and the publisher are .
" * Think about it.The US Post Office is part of an international information distribution network .
( What is the internet ?
) It has franking privileges ( stamps are legal tender .
) It is used to dealing in small amounts.It is legally entitled to be a common carrier.It has an IT infrastructure.It can collect for and grant access to RSS files.It operates at " arms length " from every government.This would work .
* Google it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Here I go again.No I'm NOT trying to revive dead tree edition, but "I'm advocating for consumers paying to use the Post Office's IT infrastructure to get access to RSS files to get access to the publishers' content and for the post office paying for publishers for giving access to that content, regardless of where the consumer and the publisher are.
"*Think about it.The US Post Office is part of an international information distribution network.
(What is the internet?
)It has franking privileges (stamps are legal tender.
)It is used to dealing in small amounts.It is legally entitled to be a common carrier.It has an IT infrastructure.It can collect for and grant access to RSS files.It operates at "arms length" from every government.This would work.
*Google it.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_31_137221.29934929</id>
	<title>the news is important</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257007440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I can't stress how important good journalism is. It's vital to a democracy. Look around, Kwame Kilpatrick, the former Mayor of Detroit, was taken down by hard work done by a newspaper. Feet on the ground, reviewing the details detecting millions of dollars of waste and fraud. I believe they said they had over $70k in legal expenses just in that one story. A newspaper did what the feds couldn't.</p><p>I think the model that might be sustainable is switching to a more NPR format. Supported by people who value the news, not by the ad revenue. Go non-profit, rely on donations. I believe NPR gets a majority of it's funding from donations, not from the government. But I strongly strongly hope that good journalism doesn't die. And don't cite blogs and the new journalism. How many blogs do anything more than recycle news from whatever news source.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I ca n't stress how important good journalism is .
It 's vital to a democracy .
Look around , Kwame Kilpatrick , the former Mayor of Detroit , was taken down by hard work done by a newspaper .
Feet on the ground , reviewing the details detecting millions of dollars of waste and fraud .
I believe they said they had over $ 70k in legal expenses just in that one story .
A newspaper did what the feds could n't.I think the model that might be sustainable is switching to a more NPR format .
Supported by people who value the news , not by the ad revenue .
Go non-profit , rely on donations .
I believe NPR gets a majority of it 's funding from donations , not from the government .
But I strongly strongly hope that good journalism does n't die .
And do n't cite blogs and the new journalism .
How many blogs do anything more than recycle news from whatever news source .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I can't stress how important good journalism is.
It's vital to a democracy.
Look around, Kwame Kilpatrick, the former Mayor of Detroit, was taken down by hard work done by a newspaper.
Feet on the ground, reviewing the details detecting millions of dollars of waste and fraud.
I believe they said they had over $70k in legal expenses just in that one story.
A newspaper did what the feds couldn't.I think the model that might be sustainable is switching to a more NPR format.
Supported by people who value the news, not by the ad revenue.
Go non-profit, rely on donations.
I believe NPR gets a majority of it's funding from donations, not from the government.
But I strongly strongly hope that good journalism doesn't die.
And don't cite blogs and the new journalism.
How many blogs do anything more than recycle news from whatever news source.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_31_137221.29939785</id>
	<title>Bill in Congress removes political endorsements</title>
	<author>ThinkTwice</author>
	<datestamp>1257016080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>The current bill in Congress allows newspapers to become non-profits. The thinking behind it, is that they have been losing money and don't pay taxes anyway.  They must follow different rules if a newspaper wants to take this route.  There in a educational content to ad ratio of 50:50 and they can't endorse any party or politician.  They also have to provide equal access to parties/candidates/issues. This would be much better than the heavily left leaning paper where I live.  After subscribing for many years, I finally stopped my subscription last year, because I was sick of their politics. I stopped the national edition of the NY Times shortly after.  I would gladly subscribe to a non-union, non-biased paper, if I could find one.</htmltext>
<tokenext>The current bill in Congress allows newspapers to become non-profits .
The thinking behind it , is that they have been losing money and do n't pay taxes anyway .
They must follow different rules if a newspaper wants to take this route .
There in a educational content to ad ratio of 50 : 50 and they ca n't endorse any party or politician .
They also have to provide equal access to parties/candidates/issues .
This would be much better than the heavily left leaning paper where I live .
After subscribing for many years , I finally stopped my subscription last year , because I was sick of their politics .
I stopped the national edition of the NY Times shortly after .
I would gladly subscribe to a non-union , non-biased paper , if I could find one .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The current bill in Congress allows newspapers to become non-profits.
The thinking behind it, is that they have been losing money and don't pay taxes anyway.
They must follow different rules if a newspaper wants to take this route.
There in a educational content to ad ratio of 50:50 and they can't endorse any party or politician.
They also have to provide equal access to parties/candidates/issues.
This would be much better than the heavily left leaning paper where I live.
After subscribing for many years, I finally stopped my subscription last year, because I was sick of their politics.
I stopped the national edition of the NY Times shortly after.
I would gladly subscribe to a non-union, non-biased paper, if I could find one.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_31_137221.29935901</id>
	<title>Re:Wha?</title>
	<author>jmorris42</author>
	<datestamp>1257016560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>&gt; How would government financing of media be anything but state-run media?</p><p>It would quickly be even worse.  How often do the 'serious journalist' talking heads bemoan the corporate influence in politics and then offer up public financing of campaigns as the solution?  So you will quickly have government sponsered/licensed 'journalists' reporting the official government line.  And if you don't like the government line you will have two choices, suckle the government teat and run for office with their official rules for what, when and where you can speak or you can go into the media and if they deign to license you, you will be permitted to speak what you are told when you are told.  In short the government will be a power unto itself, essentially picking its own members and criticism of the government will itself be a government function.  Needless to say that 'criticism' will in fact be cheerleading of the MSNBC sort.  I have a suggestion!  The first government subsidized newspaper can be renamed to News and the next one can be Truth.</p><p>Don't think these are unrelated issues.  This government is hellbent on suppressing all dissent like no other administration since Wilson or FDR.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>&gt; How would government financing of media be anything but state-run media ? It would quickly be even worse .
How often do the 'serious journalist ' talking heads bemoan the corporate influence in politics and then offer up public financing of campaigns as the solution ?
So you will quickly have government sponsered/licensed 'journalists ' reporting the official government line .
And if you do n't like the government line you will have two choices , suckle the government teat and run for office with their official rules for what , when and where you can speak or you can go into the media and if they deign to license you , you will be permitted to speak what you are told when you are told .
In short the government will be a power unto itself , essentially picking its own members and criticism of the government will itself be a government function .
Needless to say that 'criticism ' will in fact be cheerleading of the MSNBC sort .
I have a suggestion !
The first government subsidized newspaper can be renamed to News and the next one can be Truth.Do n't think these are unrelated issues .
This government is hellbent on suppressing all dissent like no other administration since Wilson or FDR .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>&gt; How would government financing of media be anything but state-run media?It would quickly be even worse.
How often do the 'serious journalist' talking heads bemoan the corporate influence in politics and then offer up public financing of campaigns as the solution?
So you will quickly have government sponsered/licensed 'journalists' reporting the official government line.
And if you don't like the government line you will have two choices, suckle the government teat and run for office with their official rules for what, when and where you can speak or you can go into the media and if they deign to license you, you will be permitted to speak what you are told when you are told.
In short the government will be a power unto itself, essentially picking its own members and criticism of the government will itself be a government function.
Needless to say that 'criticism' will in fact be cheerleading of the MSNBC sort.
I have a suggestion!
The first government subsidized newspaper can be renamed to News and the next one can be Truth.Don't think these are unrelated issues.
This government is hellbent on suppressing all dissent like no other administration since Wilson or FDR.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_31_137221.29934449</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_31_137221.29940109</id>
	<title>Re:The BBC is a good example.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257108180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The BBC wasn't so politically neutral in their Question Time with Nick Griffin. They were already bordering on inane insults in the first minutes of the ''show''.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The BBC was n't so politically neutral in their Question Time with Nick Griffin .
They were already bordering on inane insults in the first minutes of the ''show'' .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The BBC wasn't so politically neutral in their Question Time with Nick Griffin.
They were already bordering on inane insults in the first minutes of the ''show''.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_31_137221.29935355</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_31_137221.29936253</id>
	<title>Re:The BBC is a good example.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257019860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Because no one would ever break the law... I call BS on that anyway -- show me the definition of "politically neutral" and the statute that requires it.</p><p>There's a good lemming. Keep walking</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Because no one would ever break the law... I call BS on that anyway -- show me the definition of " politically neutral " and the statute that requires it.There 's a good lemming .
Keep walking</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Because no one would ever break the law... I call BS on that anyway -- show me the definition of "politically neutral" and the statute that requires it.There's a good lemming.
Keep walking</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_31_137221.29935355</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_31_137221.29937471</id>
	<title>"government financing = state run-media"?</title>
	<author>michaelhawk</author>
	<datestamp>1256988000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>"How would government financing of media be anything but state-run media?"
<p>
It takes more than just funding to have state-run media.  It would require direct or indirect oversight of reporting by government bodies.
</p><p>
Countries with quality publicly funded journalism do not dictate what can and cannot be reported.  Instead there are ombuds positions through which complaints can be lodged after the fact.
</p><p>
That's how!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" How would government financing of media be anything but state-run media ?
" It takes more than just funding to have state-run media .
It would require direct or indirect oversight of reporting by government bodies .
Countries with quality publicly funded journalism do not dictate what can and can not be reported .
Instead there are ombuds positions through which complaints can be lodged after the fact .
That 's how !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"How would government financing of media be anything but state-run media?
"

It takes more than just funding to have state-run media.
It would require direct or indirect oversight of reporting by government bodies.
Countries with quality publicly funded journalism do not dictate what can and cannot be reported.
Instead there are ombuds positions through which complaints can be lodged after the fact.
That's how!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_31_137221.29934449</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_31_137221.29934449</id>
	<title>Wha?</title>
	<author>jav1231</author>
	<datestamp>1257003180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>How would government financing of media be anything but state-run media? The media is already tainted with clear and evident bias. And that's on all fronts, for those who want to taunt Fox news. We expect it from commentators and that is generally where the most overt lies but most news agencies get their news from AP and Reuters feeds. And many of them frankly read like commentary. As if personal bias hasn't destroyed true journalism over the past several decades what do you think asking for a hand-out from an administration already quite intolerant of dissent is going to do?</htmltext>
<tokenext>How would government financing of media be anything but state-run media ?
The media is already tainted with clear and evident bias .
And that 's on all fronts , for those who want to taunt Fox news .
We expect it from commentators and that is generally where the most overt lies but most news agencies get their news from AP and Reuters feeds .
And many of them frankly read like commentary .
As if personal bias has n't destroyed true journalism over the past several decades what do you think asking for a hand-out from an administration already quite intolerant of dissent is going to do ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>How would government financing of media be anything but state-run media?
The media is already tainted with clear and evident bias.
And that's on all fronts, for those who want to taunt Fox news.
We expect it from commentators and that is generally where the most overt lies but most news agencies get their news from AP and Reuters feeds.
And many of them frankly read like commentary.
As if personal bias hasn't destroyed true journalism over the past several decades what do you think asking for a hand-out from an administration already quite intolerant of dissent is going to do?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_31_137221.29936103</id>
	<title>Re:Two points</title>
	<author>pudge</author>
	<datestamp>1257018360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>The BBC is a government institution that holds its own purse strings -- effectively having the right to raise its own taxes.</p></div><p>Yes.  And the BBC also is controlled by the government, which regulates content and can fine news organizations for not doing what the government thinks they should do.</p><p><div class="quote"><p>In western countries, public news organisations offer by far the highest quality of reporting.</p></div><p>False.</p><p><div class="quote"><p>Furthermore, we get that without advertising, and for less total cost.</p></div><p>Also false.  There IS advertising -- in the U.S. anyway -- and the total cost is only less depending on how you're looking at it.</p><p>Now keep in mind, my favorite news program is NewsHour -- I watch it every day -- which is funded in part from government sources.  So it's not like I am saying they do poor reporting.</p><p>But my argument is that quality isn't the point -- as there is also outstanding reporting from "corporate media" -- rather, the point is liberty, freedom, trust, rights, responsibility.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>The BBC is a government institution that holds its own purse strings -- effectively having the right to raise its own taxes.Yes .
And the BBC also is controlled by the government , which regulates content and can fine news organizations for not doing what the government thinks they should do.In western countries , public news organisations offer by far the highest quality of reporting.False.Furthermore , we get that without advertising , and for less total cost.Also false .
There IS advertising -- in the U.S. anyway -- and the total cost is only less depending on how you 're looking at it.Now keep in mind , my favorite news program is NewsHour -- I watch it every day -- which is funded in part from government sources .
So it 's not like I am saying they do poor reporting.But my argument is that quality is n't the point -- as there is also outstanding reporting from " corporate media " -- rather , the point is liberty , freedom , trust , rights , responsibility .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The BBC is a government institution that holds its own purse strings -- effectively having the right to raise its own taxes.Yes.
And the BBC also is controlled by the government, which regulates content and can fine news organizations for not doing what the government thinks they should do.In western countries, public news organisations offer by far the highest quality of reporting.False.Furthermore, we get that without advertising, and for less total cost.Also false.
There IS advertising -- in the U.S. anyway -- and the total cost is only less depending on how you're looking at it.Now keep in mind, my favorite news program is NewsHour -- I watch it every day -- which is funded in part from government sources.
So it's not like I am saying they do poor reporting.But my argument is that quality isn't the point -- as there is also outstanding reporting from "corporate media" -- rather, the point is liberty, freedom, trust, rights, responsibility.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_31_137221.29934923</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_31_137221.29934603</id>
	<title>Re:good description</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257004440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>They have run journalism into the ground...</i></p><p>Without a doubt.</p><p><i>attacking an administration simply to raise advertising funding</i></p><p>I have nothing against attacks on administrations, but what passes for such today is largely irrelevant misdirection. Journalists with any significant insight into the subjects reported about, necessary to avoid being just a spokespuppet, are rare. Which is largely why professional 'reporters' are losing out to people with knowledge about the subject matter but with only amateurish reporting skills. If the journalist is merely a conduit, well, then frankly a blog page can do that.</p><p>But neither is really relevant. The real problem for the journalism business is there's simply too much of it. Barring the prospects of consumers suddenly getting vast amounts of new free time, it simply needs to be massively downsized. In the modern world we don't need 100 reporters at a White House press conference. The job can be done by three or four, and then aggregated and translated. We don't need one reporter per olympic sportsman. Consumers can only read that much in a day, and when output is globally available, there isn't enough time in the world to consume even a miniscule fraction of it.</p><p>Once far more of the business is dead and gone, then the remaining outlets will get many more eyeballs and much better advertising rates. Redundant work will have been eliminated, and in a functioning economy we'd all have gotten a little bit more free time as less actual work needs to be done. In this one we'll instead get a slight tax raise and get forced to subsidize work that has no demand and shouldn't be done.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>They have run journalism into the ground...Without a doubt.attacking an administration simply to raise advertising fundingI have nothing against attacks on administrations , but what passes for such today is largely irrelevant misdirection .
Journalists with any significant insight into the subjects reported about , necessary to avoid being just a spokespuppet , are rare .
Which is largely why professional 'reporters ' are losing out to people with knowledge about the subject matter but with only amateurish reporting skills .
If the journalist is merely a conduit , well , then frankly a blog page can do that.But neither is really relevant .
The real problem for the journalism business is there 's simply too much of it .
Barring the prospects of consumers suddenly getting vast amounts of new free time , it simply needs to be massively downsized .
In the modern world we do n't need 100 reporters at a White House press conference .
The job can be done by three or four , and then aggregated and translated .
We do n't need one reporter per olympic sportsman .
Consumers can only read that much in a day , and when output is globally available , there is n't enough time in the world to consume even a miniscule fraction of it.Once far more of the business is dead and gone , then the remaining outlets will get many more eyeballs and much better advertising rates .
Redundant work will have been eliminated , and in a functioning economy we 'd all have gotten a little bit more free time as less actual work needs to be done .
In this one we 'll instead get a slight tax raise and get forced to subsidize work that has no demand and should n't be done .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>They have run journalism into the ground...Without a doubt.attacking an administration simply to raise advertising fundingI have nothing against attacks on administrations, but what passes for such today is largely irrelevant misdirection.
Journalists with any significant insight into the subjects reported about, necessary to avoid being just a spokespuppet, are rare.
Which is largely why professional 'reporters' are losing out to people with knowledge about the subject matter but with only amateurish reporting skills.
If the journalist is merely a conduit, well, then frankly a blog page can do that.But neither is really relevant.
The real problem for the journalism business is there's simply too much of it.
Barring the prospects of consumers suddenly getting vast amounts of new free time, it simply needs to be massively downsized.
In the modern world we don't need 100 reporters at a White House press conference.
The job can be done by three or four, and then aggregated and translated.
We don't need one reporter per olympic sportsman.
Consumers can only read that much in a day, and when output is globally available, there isn't enough time in the world to consume even a miniscule fraction of it.Once far more of the business is dead and gone, then the remaining outlets will get many more eyeballs and much better advertising rates.
Redundant work will have been eliminated, and in a functioning economy we'd all have gotten a little bit more free time as less actual work needs to be done.
In this one we'll instead get a slight tax raise and get forced to subsidize work that has no demand and shouldn't be done.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_31_137221.29934381</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_31_137221.29935235</id>
	<title>Here's a solution...</title>
	<author>braindrainbahrain</author>
	<datestamp>1257010740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Bring back <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Calvin\_and\_Hobbes" title="wikipedia.org" rel="nofollow"> Calvin &amp; Hobbes </a> [wikipedia.org] !</p><p>Yes the above in in jest, but only partly so.  As part of the downhill slide of newspapers, has been an old staple, the funnies.  Even if you can find them in your local paper, they are usually too small to read.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Bring back Calvin &amp; Hobbes [ wikipedia.org ] ! Yes the above in in jest , but only partly so .
As part of the downhill slide of newspapers , has been an old staple , the funnies .
Even if you can find them in your local paper , they are usually too small to read .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Bring back  Calvin &amp; Hobbes  [wikipedia.org] !Yes the above in in jest, but only partly so.
As part of the downhill slide of newspapers, has been an old staple, the funnies.
Even if you can find them in your local paper, they are usually too small to read.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_31_137221.29934599</id>
	<title>Should not subsidise private media</title>
	<author>Eravnrekaree</author>
	<datestamp>1257004380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Government bailouts for private media companies would be a bad idea, similar to the unwise nature of subsidising private insurance companies. We are simply funding a biased source of information controlled by plutocratic media instutions with conflicts of interest.</p><p>Immediately when anyone mentioned public funding of a media institution, however, they assume immediately that would be a state run media that would propogate governments version of the story.</p><p>This is not the way it has to be set up. We could have a completely independnat source of news and information that was funded not by congress but directly from tax revenue, and whose directors are elected by the people. By charter design of this independant media all of the journalists involved would have complete journalistic freedom and would have a tenure, meaning that they would not have some corporation which receives financing from advertisers and perhaps is tied in with other economic interests looking over their shoulder. Such journalists could be randomly selected (like a jury selection pool from the general population), and some elected to assure all of the different ideological viewpoints are being represented. Since it is not tied to corporations or government, it would be completely free to report on things without having a conflict of interest.</p><p>The private media today is not independant, and instead of having an independant watch dog we have a media that has sympathies with large corporate interests which drive their advertising revenue, it is a conflict of interest, and therefore the media can be pushed into ignoring or whitewashing corporate corruption that it is exposing. Since the media today is owned by large corporate entities, which are connected to large parts of the corporate economy, it basically is an establishment "state media" that propagates an elites interests and viewpoints. People get far too wrapped up in terms like "government", "public", and so on, we need to realise that corporations are manifestation characteristics of government, they perhaps have even more power than government and have used their wealth to basically purchase the government, they are gaining control of almost the entire economy and effectively control our lives, if they dont like your hair or political views, they can fire you, and in this ownership society where all basic essentials are tied to money which is increasingly controlled in corporate dominated markets, this basically is a death sentence. Real power today lies with corporations, and unlike government, everyone does not have an equal right these corporations which have such  a dramatic effect on our lives and our economy. Libertarians, ironically, attack the very democratic institutions that we have and that we actually elect, while at the same time supporting private corporations which are effectively enslaving us. All you need to do is control resources and you can control people by making people dependant on uyou for those resources. This is possible under capitalism and all you need is to get rid of any government regulation to have yourself a corporate police state where corporations for instance can tell you not to protest the way it is polluting a river or beating up workers, or else you will be fired and left absolutely homeless.</p><p>An independant media I think would be essential to helping us regain control over our democracy and our lives, as an independant media and source of news and information, and the ability for their to be pluralistic diversity where all sides are able to be heard equally so people can make up their own minds and are not indoctrinated and propogandised is essential to a functioning democracy and to freedom.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Government bailouts for private media companies would be a bad idea , similar to the unwise nature of subsidising private insurance companies .
We are simply funding a biased source of information controlled by plutocratic media instutions with conflicts of interest.Immediately when anyone mentioned public funding of a media institution , however , they assume immediately that would be a state run media that would propogate governments version of the story.This is not the way it has to be set up .
We could have a completely independnat source of news and information that was funded not by congress but directly from tax revenue , and whose directors are elected by the people .
By charter design of this independant media all of the journalists involved would have complete journalistic freedom and would have a tenure , meaning that they would not have some corporation which receives financing from advertisers and perhaps is tied in with other economic interests looking over their shoulder .
Such journalists could be randomly selected ( like a jury selection pool from the general population ) , and some elected to assure all of the different ideological viewpoints are being represented .
Since it is not tied to corporations or government , it would be completely free to report on things without having a conflict of interest.The private media today is not independant , and instead of having an independant watch dog we have a media that has sympathies with large corporate interests which drive their advertising revenue , it is a conflict of interest , and therefore the media can be pushed into ignoring or whitewashing corporate corruption that it is exposing .
Since the media today is owned by large corporate entities , which are connected to large parts of the corporate economy , it basically is an establishment " state media " that propagates an elites interests and viewpoints .
People get far too wrapped up in terms like " government " , " public " , and so on , we need to realise that corporations are manifestation characteristics of government , they perhaps have even more power than government and have used their wealth to basically purchase the government , they are gaining control of almost the entire economy and effectively control our lives , if they dont like your hair or political views , they can fire you , and in this ownership society where all basic essentials are tied to money which is increasingly controlled in corporate dominated markets , this basically is a death sentence .
Real power today lies with corporations , and unlike government , everyone does not have an equal right these corporations which have such a dramatic effect on our lives and our economy .
Libertarians , ironically , attack the very democratic institutions that we have and that we actually elect , while at the same time supporting private corporations which are effectively enslaving us .
All you need to do is control resources and you can control people by making people dependant on uyou for those resources .
This is possible under capitalism and all you need is to get rid of any government regulation to have yourself a corporate police state where corporations for instance can tell you not to protest the way it is polluting a river or beating up workers , or else you will be fired and left absolutely homeless.An independant media I think would be essential to helping us regain control over our democracy and our lives , as an independant media and source of news and information , and the ability for their to be pluralistic diversity where all sides are able to be heard equally so people can make up their own minds and are not indoctrinated and propogandised is essential to a functioning democracy and to freedom .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Government bailouts for private media companies would be a bad idea, similar to the unwise nature of subsidising private insurance companies.
We are simply funding a biased source of information controlled by plutocratic media instutions with conflicts of interest.Immediately when anyone mentioned public funding of a media institution, however, they assume immediately that would be a state run media that would propogate governments version of the story.This is not the way it has to be set up.
We could have a completely independnat source of news and information that was funded not by congress but directly from tax revenue, and whose directors are elected by the people.
By charter design of this independant media all of the journalists involved would have complete journalistic freedom and would have a tenure, meaning that they would not have some corporation which receives financing from advertisers and perhaps is tied in with other economic interests looking over their shoulder.
Such journalists could be randomly selected (like a jury selection pool from the general population), and some elected to assure all of the different ideological viewpoints are being represented.
Since it is not tied to corporations or government, it would be completely free to report on things without having a conflict of interest.The private media today is not independant, and instead of having an independant watch dog we have a media that has sympathies with large corporate interests which drive their advertising revenue, it is a conflict of interest, and therefore the media can be pushed into ignoring or whitewashing corporate corruption that it is exposing.
Since the media today is owned by large corporate entities, which are connected to large parts of the corporate economy, it basically is an establishment "state media" that propagates an elites interests and viewpoints.
People get far too wrapped up in terms like "government", "public", and so on, we need to realise that corporations are manifestation characteristics of government, they perhaps have even more power than government and have used their wealth to basically purchase the government, they are gaining control of almost the entire economy and effectively control our lives, if they dont like your hair or political views, they can fire you, and in this ownership society where all basic essentials are tied to money which is increasingly controlled in corporate dominated markets, this basically is a death sentence.
Real power today lies with corporations, and unlike government, everyone does not have an equal right these corporations which have such  a dramatic effect on our lives and our economy.
Libertarians, ironically, attack the very democratic institutions that we have and that we actually elect, while at the same time supporting private corporations which are effectively enslaving us.
All you need to do is control resources and you can control people by making people dependant on uyou for those resources.
This is possible under capitalism and all you need is to get rid of any government regulation to have yourself a corporate police state where corporations for instance can tell you not to protest the way it is polluting a river or beating up workers, or else you will be fired and left absolutely homeless.An independant media I think would be essential to helping us regain control over our democracy and our lives, as an independant media and source of news and information, and the ability for their to be pluralistic diversity where all sides are able to be heard equally so people can make up their own minds and are not indoctrinated and propogandised is essential to a functioning democracy and to freedom.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_31_137221.29935375</id>
	<title>Re:Subsidize paper chauvinism now!</title>
	<author>munitor</author>
	<datestamp>1257011880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Amen. Their business model is shite and unsupportable, that's their problem. Look at broadcast television, which carries both national scope ads as well as slots for local ads. It's just gotten to the point where you can't support such an expensive medium when the web ads are a micro fraction of the price per reader. The papers just need to broaden their advertiser base to include more big national brands, subscribe to cheap wire service for any national/international news, and focus on local stories to get local readers.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Amen .
Their business model is shite and unsupportable , that 's their problem .
Look at broadcast television , which carries both national scope ads as well as slots for local ads .
It 's just gotten to the point where you ca n't support such an expensive medium when the web ads are a micro fraction of the price per reader .
The papers just need to broaden their advertiser base to include more big national brands , subscribe to cheap wire service for any national/international news , and focus on local stories to get local readers .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Amen.
Their business model is shite and unsupportable, that's their problem.
Look at broadcast television, which carries both national scope ads as well as slots for local ads.
It's just gotten to the point where you can't support such an expensive medium when the web ads are a micro fraction of the price per reader.
The papers just need to broaden their advertiser base to include more big national brands, subscribe to cheap wire service for any national/international news, and focus on local stories to get local readers.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_31_137221.29934507</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_31_137221.29935943</id>
	<title>Uh, where have the advertisers gone?</title>
	<author>crovira</author>
	<datestamp>1257016980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>News<b>PAPERS</b> are dying and for a couple of reasons.

1) Pulping a tree is a stupid, disconnected way to get a message out there.

2) Advertisers are deserting the 1:N communication capabilities of the old media for the N:M communication capabilities of the web.

You, the reader of a paper, or even of a news web site, don't enter into the equation.

The advertisers are disappearing because the web gives them a better ways to do what arboricide or even a news organization's web site can do: advertise their brand and their products in a a quiet, uncluttered space.

Not to mention that they can:
 collect customer and potential customer info,
 take orders,
 follow up on orders,
 track shipments,
 do post-sale follow-up
 do interactive problem resolution.

Tell me again why I would want somebody to slaughter a tree for me.

The internet is winning.

Deal with it.</htmltext>
<tokenext>NewsPAPERS are dying and for a couple of reasons .
1 ) Pulping a tree is a stupid , disconnected way to get a message out there .
2 ) Advertisers are deserting the 1 : N communication capabilities of the old media for the N : M communication capabilities of the web .
You , the reader of a paper , or even of a news web site , do n't enter into the equation .
The advertisers are disappearing because the web gives them a better ways to do what arboricide or even a news organization 's web site can do : advertise their brand and their products in a a quiet , uncluttered space .
Not to mention that they can : collect customer and potential customer info , take orders , follow up on orders , track shipments , do post-sale follow-up do interactive problem resolution .
Tell me again why I would want somebody to slaughter a tree for me .
The internet is winning .
Deal with it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>NewsPAPERS are dying and for a couple of reasons.
1) Pulping a tree is a stupid, disconnected way to get a message out there.
2) Advertisers are deserting the 1:N communication capabilities of the old media for the N:M communication capabilities of the web.
You, the reader of a paper, or even of a news web site, don't enter into the equation.
The advertisers are disappearing because the web gives them a better ways to do what arboricide or even a news organization's web site can do: advertise their brand and their products in a a quiet, uncluttered space.
Not to mention that they can:
 collect customer and potential customer info,
 take orders,
 follow up on orders,
 track shipments,
 do post-sale follow-up
 do interactive problem resolution.
Tell me again why I would want somebody to slaughter a tree for me.
The internet is winning.
Deal with it.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_31_137221.29934539</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_31_137221.29936889</id>
	<title>Re:What planet are you all living on?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256981760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Now:<br>Big corp media sends lobbyists to Washington with hookers and blow currying back door favors. Big corp media gets the breaks it wants and in return only prints what Washington wants and stories about which star fucking bimbo got drunk and showed the world her goods.</p><p>Then:<br>After doing hookers and blow, the government writes a check to state supported media. Since we owe our souls to Russia and China, state owned media prints nothing of substance except which star fucking bimbo got drunk and showed the world her goods.</p><p>Meet the new boss<br>Same as the old boss</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Now : Big corp media sends lobbyists to Washington with hookers and blow currying back door favors .
Big corp media gets the breaks it wants and in return only prints what Washington wants and stories about which star fucking bimbo got drunk and showed the world her goods.Then : After doing hookers and blow , the government writes a check to state supported media .
Since we owe our souls to Russia and China , state owned media prints nothing of substance except which star fucking bimbo got drunk and showed the world her goods.Meet the new bossSame as the old boss</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Now:Big corp media sends lobbyists to Washington with hookers and blow currying back door favors.
Big corp media gets the breaks it wants and in return only prints what Washington wants and stories about which star fucking bimbo got drunk and showed the world her goods.Then:After doing hookers and blow, the government writes a check to state supported media.
Since we owe our souls to Russia and China, state owned media prints nothing of substance except which star fucking bimbo got drunk and showed the world her goods.Meet the new bossSame as the old boss</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_31_137221.29935325</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_31_137221.29936533</id>
	<title>Re:Government media CAN be objective and unbiased.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257022260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>&gt;&gt;&gt;When was the last, really hard hitting documentary you saw on American television?</p><p>Glenn Beck does a virtual documentary every day.  You may think he's an ass or a joke but he is right about one thing: We should be asking questions.  What is the government up to, why are they doing it, and who is behind these decisions?  What, why, who are the questions we should all be asking.</p><p>Rachel Maddow operates a similar program over at MSNBC.</p></div><p>Both Glenn and Rachel are still mouthpieces for the corporate elite.  <a href="https://www.infowars.com/" title="infowars.com" rel="nofollow">Alex Jones</a> [infowars.com] does a much better job at documenting and exposing the globalists and enemies of liberty.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>&gt; &gt; &gt; When was the last , really hard hitting documentary you saw on American television ? Glenn Beck does a virtual documentary every day .
You may think he 's an ass or a joke but he is right about one thing : We should be asking questions .
What is the government up to , why are they doing it , and who is behind these decisions ?
What , why , who are the questions we should all be asking.Rachel Maddow operates a similar program over at MSNBC.Both Glenn and Rachel are still mouthpieces for the corporate elite .
Alex Jones [ infowars.com ] does a much better job at documenting and exposing the globalists and enemies of liberty .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>&gt;&gt;&gt;When was the last, really hard hitting documentary you saw on American television?Glenn Beck does a virtual documentary every day.
You may think he's an ass or a joke but he is right about one thing: We should be asking questions.
What is the government up to, why are they doing it, and who is behind these decisions?
What, why, who are the questions we should all be asking.Rachel Maddow operates a similar program over at MSNBC.Both Glenn and Rachel are still mouthpieces for the corporate elite.
Alex Jones [infowars.com] does a much better job at documenting and exposing the globalists and enemies of liberty.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_31_137221.29935497</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_31_137221.29935119</id>
	<title>All for profit media is state run</title>
	<author>TheRealRainFall</author>
	<datestamp>1257009480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>" Remember, in times of conflict all for-profit media repeats the ruling paty's information. Therefore, all for-profit media becomes state-run."- Anti-Flag</htmltext>
<tokenext>" Remember , in times of conflict all for-profit media repeats the ruling paty 's information .
Therefore , all for-profit media becomes state-run .
" - Anti-Flag</tokentext>
<sentencetext>" Remember, in times of conflict all for-profit media repeats the ruling paty's information.
Therefore, all for-profit media becomes state-run.
"- Anti-Flag</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_31_137221.29935405</id>
	<title>Manufacturing Consent</title>
	<author>conner\_bw</author>
	<datestamp>1257012180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Every time there's a job crisis in the automotive industry, there's a news story. If there's a crisis in any other industry, the stories don't happen at the same frequency. Plain and simple, car manufacturers are the big advertisers. Why is "recession" a big story? Because the industries affected are advertisers, and it affects media revenues. <a href="http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0104810/" title="imdb.com" rel="nofollow">Smells like 1992.</a> [imdb.com]</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Every time there 's a job crisis in the automotive industry , there 's a news story .
If there 's a crisis in any other industry , the stories do n't happen at the same frequency .
Plain and simple , car manufacturers are the big advertisers .
Why is " recession " a big story ?
Because the industries affected are advertisers , and it affects media revenues .
Smells like 1992 .
[ imdb.com ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Every time there's a job crisis in the automotive industry, there's a news story.
If there's a crisis in any other industry, the stories don't happen at the same frequency.
Plain and simple, car manufacturers are the big advertisers.
Why is "recession" a big story?
Because the industries affected are advertisers, and it affects media revenues.
Smells like 1992.
[imdb.com]</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_31_137221.29935479</id>
	<title>The answer is for ...</title>
	<author>Skapare</author>
	<datestamp>1257012780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>... newspapers and journalists to start "getting it" and understand how this new media can work to keep the world informed.  "get it" number 1 is that the profit model is not going to work the way it used to<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... news will no longer be a monopoly affair that allows the newspaper owners to get rich.  If they want to get rich they will have to compete and bring in the eyeballs.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>... newspapers and journalists to start " getting it " and understand how this new media can work to keep the world informed .
" get it " number 1 is that the profit model is not going to work the way it used to ... news will no longer be a monopoly affair that allows the newspaper owners to get rich .
If they want to get rich they will have to compete and bring in the eyeballs .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>... newspapers and journalists to start "getting it" and understand how this new media can work to keep the world informed.
"get it" number 1 is that the profit model is not going to work the way it used to ... news will no longer be a monopoly affair that allows the newspaper owners to get rich.
If they want to get rich they will have to compete and bring in the eyeballs.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_31_137221.29935081</id>
	<title>Wrong way around</title>
	<author>GrubLord</author>
	<datestamp>1257009120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>Seems to me, if people are turning away from the 'educated' journalists in news-media and reading bloggers, etc., instead... a better solution than forcing the government to artificially extend the life of print publications would be to launch education or certification programmes to improve the quality of the free online news-media.

Bloggers and websites are already giving us for free what we used to pay journalists for... if we can use these programmes to increase the quality of these news sources to be equal to or greater than the current print media (not hard in some cases), and give them the rights, resources and opportunities to investigate and report unbiased, factual news, then the death of the traditional media would hardly be felt by anybody.

It's easy to slip partisan politics and sensationalist bullshit past your editor these days - but try to post that kind of crap on Wikipedia, and see how long it takes for the real facts to reassert themselves. People don't need newspapers any more, they just need to work together and to know what they're doing.

Look at the quality of Wikinews today, with no paid employees, no particular educational aids or special resources, and tell me the government's money is better spent propping up failing media rather than making the New Media better.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Seems to me , if people are turning away from the 'educated ' journalists in news-media and reading bloggers , etc. , instead... a better solution than forcing the government to artificially extend the life of print publications would be to launch education or certification programmes to improve the quality of the free online news-media .
Bloggers and websites are already giving us for free what we used to pay journalists for... if we can use these programmes to increase the quality of these news sources to be equal to or greater than the current print media ( not hard in some cases ) , and give them the rights , resources and opportunities to investigate and report unbiased , factual news , then the death of the traditional media would hardly be felt by anybody .
It 's easy to slip partisan politics and sensationalist bullshit past your editor these days - but try to post that kind of crap on Wikipedia , and see how long it takes for the real facts to reassert themselves .
People do n't need newspapers any more , they just need to work together and to know what they 're doing .
Look at the quality of Wikinews today , with no paid employees , no particular educational aids or special resources , and tell me the government 's money is better spent propping up failing media rather than making the New Media better .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Seems to me, if people are turning away from the 'educated' journalists in news-media and reading bloggers, etc., instead... a better solution than forcing the government to artificially extend the life of print publications would be to launch education or certification programmes to improve the quality of the free online news-media.
Bloggers and websites are already giving us for free what we used to pay journalists for... if we can use these programmes to increase the quality of these news sources to be equal to or greater than the current print media (not hard in some cases), and give them the rights, resources and opportunities to investigate and report unbiased, factual news, then the death of the traditional media would hardly be felt by anybody.
It's easy to slip partisan politics and sensationalist bullshit past your editor these days - but try to post that kind of crap on Wikipedia, and see how long it takes for the real facts to reassert themselves.
People don't need newspapers any more, they just need to work together and to know what they're doing.
Look at the quality of Wikinews today, with no paid employees, no particular educational aids or special resources, and tell me the government's money is better spent propping up failing media rather than making the New Media better.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_31_137221.29936655</id>
	<title>I prefer edited media - print these days</title>
	<author>peter303</author>
	<datestamp>1256979960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I prefer articles that have been edited for accuracy and English usage.  This could be either print or electronic.  However most electronc sources- called blogs- are not edited for either.  They are often a waste of time then.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I prefer articles that have been edited for accuracy and English usage .
This could be either print or electronic .
However most electronc sources- called blogs- are not edited for either .
They are often a waste of time then .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I prefer articles that have been edited for accuracy and English usage.
This could be either print or electronic.
However most electronc sources- called blogs- are not edited for either.
They are often a waste of time then.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_31_137221.29941825</id>
	<title>News or entertainment?</title>
	<author>minstrelmike</author>
	<datestamp>1257092460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>The problem with newspapers is that they wish to provide news but people only want to receive entertainment. As newspapers increased their circulation, they increased the entertainment portions of their paper and eventually they ended up competing with radio, television and the music industry and making all their profits off classified ads instead of display ads.<br> <br>
They cannot fix the issue because if they drop entertainment (comix, horoscope, sudoku), they lose what they refer to as 'readers' so they cut the news instead (to keep circulation dollars for a short time) and end up losing the only customers who have few places to go for real news. It's a death spiral after that.</htmltext>
<tokenext>The problem with newspapers is that they wish to provide news but people only want to receive entertainment .
As newspapers increased their circulation , they increased the entertainment portions of their paper and eventually they ended up competing with radio , television and the music industry and making all their profits off classified ads instead of display ads .
They can not fix the issue because if they drop entertainment ( comix , horoscope , sudoku ) , they lose what they refer to as 'readers ' so they cut the news instead ( to keep circulation dollars for a short time ) and end up losing the only customers who have few places to go for real news .
It 's a death spiral after that .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The problem with newspapers is that they wish to provide news but people only want to receive entertainment.
As newspapers increased their circulation, they increased the entertainment portions of their paper and eventually they ended up competing with radio, television and the music industry and making all their profits off classified ads instead of display ads.
They cannot fix the issue because if they drop entertainment (comix, horoscope, sudoku), they lose what they refer to as 'readers' so they cut the news instead (to keep circulation dollars for a short time) and end up losing the only customers who have few places to go for real news.
It's a death spiral after that.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_31_137221.29935559</id>
	<title>Re:Two points</title>
	<author>commodore64\_love</author>
	<datestamp>1257013440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>&gt;&gt;&gt;The BBC is a government institution that holds its own purse strings --</p><p>Except when you don't pay that TV license fee (tax), then the BBC calls on the government to round you up and toss you in jail, or extract the funds from your paycheck.  So the BBC is not really independent of the government - its *beholden* to the government to enforce its collection of funds.<br>.</p><p>&gt;&gt;&gt;In western countries, public news organisations offer by far the highest quality of reporting</p><p>Not in the States.  NPR and PBS sucks when it comes to news gathering since it was biased towards a statist regime (more/bigger government).  If the reporters at this organizations had their way private ownership would be dead and our homes/car/et cetera would all be government owned.  Okay I maybe be exaggerating a little but that is how their reporting leans.</p><p>The only good news is that NPR/PBS only costs me about $10 a year in taxation, so it doesn't really "hurt" me that much.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>&gt; &gt; &gt; The BBC is a government institution that holds its own purse strings --Except when you do n't pay that TV license fee ( tax ) , then the BBC calls on the government to round you up and toss you in jail , or extract the funds from your paycheck .
So the BBC is not really independent of the government - its * beholden * to the government to enforce its collection of funds.. &gt; &gt; &gt; In western countries , public news organisations offer by far the highest quality of reportingNot in the States .
NPR and PBS sucks when it comes to news gathering since it was biased towards a statist regime ( more/bigger government ) .
If the reporters at this organizations had their way private ownership would be dead and our homes/car/et cetera would all be government owned .
Okay I maybe be exaggerating a little but that is how their reporting leans.The only good news is that NPR/PBS only costs me about $ 10 a year in taxation , so it does n't really " hurt " me that much .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>&gt;&gt;&gt;The BBC is a government institution that holds its own purse strings --Except when you don't pay that TV license fee (tax), then the BBC calls on the government to round you up and toss you in jail, or extract the funds from your paycheck.
So the BBC is not really independent of the government - its *beholden* to the government to enforce its collection of funds..&gt;&gt;&gt;In western countries, public news organisations offer by far the highest quality of reportingNot in the States.
NPR and PBS sucks when it comes to news gathering since it was biased towards a statist regime (more/bigger government).
If the reporters at this organizations had their way private ownership would be dead and our homes/car/et cetera would all be government owned.
Okay I maybe be exaggerating a little but that is how their reporting leans.The only good news is that NPR/PBS only costs me about $10 a year in taxation, so it doesn't really "hurt" me that much.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_31_137221.29934923</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_31_137221.29934841</id>
	<title>Let them die</title>
	<author>duffbeer703</author>
	<datestamp>1257006660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>News is alive an well, just not in the traditional, dominant media outlets. We have online blogs and weekly newspapers that are in many cases thriving. In my hometown, a tiny rural weekly called "The Altamont Enterprise" has such a demand for local advertising that they've had to add a second section. 15 years ago, it was a 10 page weekly, now its closer to 50.</p><p>Why the growth? The local newspaper, the Hearst-owned Albany Times-Union doesn't really provide a service to people in the outlying areas of Albany. Even within the area that the traditional paper claims to serve, the editorial practices of the paper marginalize it as a provider of news that people want to hear. Often, you know when important things are going on because they don't appear in the paper.</p><p>When the daily papers die, others will take their place. The only thing missing will be the editorial boards that are typically in cahoots with politicians and business. Keeping them on life support is suppressing the development of new news organizations.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>News is alive an well , just not in the traditional , dominant media outlets .
We have online blogs and weekly newspapers that are in many cases thriving .
In my hometown , a tiny rural weekly called " The Altamont Enterprise " has such a demand for local advertising that they 've had to add a second section .
15 years ago , it was a 10 page weekly , now its closer to 50.Why the growth ?
The local newspaper , the Hearst-owned Albany Times-Union does n't really provide a service to people in the outlying areas of Albany .
Even within the area that the traditional paper claims to serve , the editorial practices of the paper marginalize it as a provider of news that people want to hear .
Often , you know when important things are going on because they do n't appear in the paper.When the daily papers die , others will take their place .
The only thing missing will be the editorial boards that are typically in cahoots with politicians and business .
Keeping them on life support is suppressing the development of new news organizations .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>News is alive an well, just not in the traditional, dominant media outlets.
We have online blogs and weekly newspapers that are in many cases thriving.
In my hometown, a tiny rural weekly called "The Altamont Enterprise" has such a demand for local advertising that they've had to add a second section.
15 years ago, it was a 10 page weekly, now its closer to 50.Why the growth?
The local newspaper, the Hearst-owned Albany Times-Union doesn't really provide a service to people in the outlying areas of Albany.
Even within the area that the traditional paper claims to serve, the editorial practices of the paper marginalize it as a provider of news that people want to hear.
Often, you know when important things are going on because they don't appear in the paper.When the daily papers die, others will take their place.
The only thing missing will be the editorial boards that are typically in cahoots with politicians and business.
Keeping them on life support is suppressing the development of new news organizations.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_31_137221.29935667</id>
	<title>Re:Hmmm</title>
	<author>commodore64\_love</author>
	<datestamp>1257014640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><b>&gt;&gt;&gt;[DNC-NBC] isn't a real news organisation not because it is right wing, but because it doesn't really care about actual truth, it just broadcasts whatever it likes regardless of the facts.<br>&gt;&gt;&gt; </b></p><p>Fixed.  After all it was MS-NBC that showed a man toting a rifle at a presidential protest and had their reporters wax eloquently about "white racists who fear having a black president" for 5 solid minutes.</p><p>Turns-out the video was creatively-edited.  The rifle-carrying protester was black.  MSNBC was guilty of reporting fake news, altering video, instilling fear amongst blacks, hate speech about whites ("racists"), and creating propaganda.  And the rifle-guy was actually a black man!  -   link <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UYKQJ4-N7LI" title="youtube.com">http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UYKQJ4-N7LI</a> [youtube.com]</p><p>Unbelievable.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>&gt; &gt; &gt; [ DNC-NBC ] is n't a real news organisation not because it is right wing , but because it does n't really care about actual truth , it just broadcasts whatever it likes regardless of the facts. &gt; &gt; &gt; Fixed .
After all it was MS-NBC that showed a man toting a rifle at a presidential protest and had their reporters wax eloquently about " white racists who fear having a black president " for 5 solid minutes.Turns-out the video was creatively-edited .
The rifle-carrying protester was black .
MSNBC was guilty of reporting fake news , altering video , instilling fear amongst blacks , hate speech about whites ( " racists " ) , and creating propaganda .
And the rifle-guy was actually a black man !
- link http : //www.youtube.com/watch ? v = UYKQJ4-N7LI [ youtube.com ] Unbelievable .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>&gt;&gt;&gt;[DNC-NBC] isn't a real news organisation not because it is right wing, but because it doesn't really care about actual truth, it just broadcasts whatever it likes regardless of the facts.&gt;&gt;&gt; Fixed.
After all it was MS-NBC that showed a man toting a rifle at a presidential protest and had their reporters wax eloquently about "white racists who fear having a black president" for 5 solid minutes.Turns-out the video was creatively-edited.
The rifle-carrying protester was black.
MSNBC was guilty of reporting fake news, altering video, instilling fear amongst blacks, hate speech about whites ("racists"), and creating propaganda.
And the rifle-guy was actually a black man!
-   link http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UYKQJ4-N7LI [youtube.com]Unbelievable.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_31_137221.29934843</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_31_137221.29936173</id>
	<title>Re:What planet are you all living on?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257018900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Bill Moyers was forced out of NPR when the administration threatened to cut NPR funding. He returned when a congress that is friendly to his biased view of the world took control. This illustrates exactly what people are saying, a government that pays for the media controls the media.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Bill Moyers was forced out of NPR when the administration threatened to cut NPR funding .
He returned when a congress that is friendly to his biased view of the world took control .
This illustrates exactly what people are saying , a government that pays for the media controls the media .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Bill Moyers was forced out of NPR when the administration threatened to cut NPR funding.
He returned when a congress that is friendly to his biased view of the world took control.
This illustrates exactly what people are saying, a government that pays for the media controls the media.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_31_137221.29935325</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_31_137221.29936401</id>
	<title>Dear Print Media...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257021240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Dear Print Media,</p><p>Please fuck off and die already.</p><p>Sincerely,</p><p>The Internet</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Dear Print Media,Please fuck off and die already.Sincerely,The Internet</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Dear Print Media,Please fuck off and die already.Sincerely,The Internet</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_31_137221.29941501</id>
	<title>Re:Hurray for the "free" press!</title>
	<author>The\_Quinn</author>
	<datestamp>1257089760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>What a fantastic way to ensure a free press: have them paid by the very institution they're supposed to be the watchdogs for</p></div><p>That's an excellent point.</p><p>The same idea applies to higher education - the U.S. is taking over all lending to higher ed.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>What a fantastic way to ensure a free press : have them paid by the very institution they 're supposed to be the watchdogs forThat 's an excellent point.The same idea applies to higher education - the U.S. is taking over all lending to higher ed .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What a fantastic way to ensure a free press: have them paid by the very institution they're supposed to be the watchdogs forThat's an excellent point.The same idea applies to higher education - the U.S. is taking over all lending to higher ed.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_31_137221.29934433</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_31_137221.29938733</id>
	<title>Re:Hmmm</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257001740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>BBC isn't a good example.</p><p><a href="http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-411846/We-biased-admit-stars-BBC-News.html" title="dailymail.co.uk" rel="nofollow">http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-411846/We-biased-admit-stars-BBC-News.html</a> [dailymail.co.uk]</p><p>The BBC is biased and held up by government money.<br>Can anyone outside of England think of a large competing British news service?<br>I certainly can't.</p><p>And it's totally unjust to force those who disagree with the BBC to fund it through their tax dollars.  Extortion via taxation.  It's the same with NPR in the US.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>BBC is n't a good example.http : //www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-411846/We-biased-admit-stars-BBC-News.html [ dailymail.co.uk ] The BBC is biased and held up by government money.Can anyone outside of England think of a large competing British news service ? I certainly ca n't.And it 's totally unjust to force those who disagree with the BBC to fund it through their tax dollars .
Extortion via taxation .
It 's the same with NPR in the US .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>BBC isn't a good example.http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-411846/We-biased-admit-stars-BBC-News.html [dailymail.co.uk]The BBC is biased and held up by government money.Can anyone outside of England think of a large competing British news service?I certainly can't.And it's totally unjust to force those who disagree with the BBC to fund it through their tax dollars.
Extortion via taxation.
It's the same with NPR in the US.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_31_137221.29935575</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_31_137221.29936117</id>
	<title>I Agree, Sort Of</title>
	<author>Bob9113</author>
	<datestamp>1257018480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>Did we just call for state-run media? Quite the opposite.</i></p><p><i>We seek to renew a rich if largely forgotten legacy of the American free-press tradition, one that speaks directly to today's crisis. The First Amendment necessarily prohibits state censorship, but it does not prevent citizens from using their government to subsidize and spawn independent media.</i></p><p><i>Indeed, the post-colonial press system was built on massive postal and printing subsidies. The first generations of Americans never imagined that the market would provide sound or sufficient journalism. The notion was unthinkable. They established enlightened subsidies, which broadened the marketplace of ideas and enhanced and protected core freedoms. Their initiatives were essential to America's progress.</i></p><p>So, the subsidies were on the infrastructure of free speech, eh?</p><p>Fine; how about this: The government subsidizes the Internent, and to satisfy that "first amendment" thing you mention, they also require net neutrality. For the subsidy side, I propose that the United States government establish and fund some sort of entity for assigned names and numbers that can remove the expense of individual corporations having to develop their own contentious and lawsuit-encumbered system for apportioning such things, and a do the same for a name resolution system of some sort, with root nameservers provisioned largely at government expense. Perhaps the government could even go back in time and invent the system itself.</p><p>Would that be enough of a subsidy and guarantee of freedom of speech? I think it is a pretty solid foundation at the least.</p><p>Now, jerkwad, go forth and take advantage of all that we taxpayers have given ourselves through the creation of the Internet and the continued provision of its core infrastructural metadata. You want to journalize? Good! Be fruitful and journalize. Compete, you putz. And if you think the competition is skewed (and I think it is) perhaps you can start by journalizing about what is wrong with the system, just as the pamphleteers started not by begging for handouts but by invigorating the public furor.</p><p>But stop trying to dip in my pocket, you welfare queen.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Did we just call for state-run media ?
Quite the opposite.We seek to renew a rich if largely forgotten legacy of the American free-press tradition , one that speaks directly to today 's crisis .
The First Amendment necessarily prohibits state censorship , but it does not prevent citizens from using their government to subsidize and spawn independent media.Indeed , the post-colonial press system was built on massive postal and printing subsidies .
The first generations of Americans never imagined that the market would provide sound or sufficient journalism .
The notion was unthinkable .
They established enlightened subsidies , which broadened the marketplace of ideas and enhanced and protected core freedoms .
Their initiatives were essential to America 's progress.So , the subsidies were on the infrastructure of free speech , eh ? Fine ; how about this : The government subsidizes the Internent , and to satisfy that " first amendment " thing you mention , they also require net neutrality .
For the subsidy side , I propose that the United States government establish and fund some sort of entity for assigned names and numbers that can remove the expense of individual corporations having to develop their own contentious and lawsuit-encumbered system for apportioning such things , and a do the same for a name resolution system of some sort , with root nameservers provisioned largely at government expense .
Perhaps the government could even go back in time and invent the system itself.Would that be enough of a subsidy and guarantee of freedom of speech ?
I think it is a pretty solid foundation at the least.Now , jerkwad , go forth and take advantage of all that we taxpayers have given ourselves through the creation of the Internet and the continued provision of its core infrastructural metadata .
You want to journalize ?
Good ! Be fruitful and journalize .
Compete , you putz .
And if you think the competition is skewed ( and I think it is ) perhaps you can start by journalizing about what is wrong with the system , just as the pamphleteers started not by begging for handouts but by invigorating the public furor.But stop trying to dip in my pocket , you welfare queen .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Did we just call for state-run media?
Quite the opposite.We seek to renew a rich if largely forgotten legacy of the American free-press tradition, one that speaks directly to today's crisis.
The First Amendment necessarily prohibits state censorship, but it does not prevent citizens from using their government to subsidize and spawn independent media.Indeed, the post-colonial press system was built on massive postal and printing subsidies.
The first generations of Americans never imagined that the market would provide sound or sufficient journalism.
The notion was unthinkable.
They established enlightened subsidies, which broadened the marketplace of ideas and enhanced and protected core freedoms.
Their initiatives were essential to America's progress.So, the subsidies were on the infrastructure of free speech, eh?Fine; how about this: The government subsidizes the Internent, and to satisfy that "first amendment" thing you mention, they also require net neutrality.
For the subsidy side, I propose that the United States government establish and fund some sort of entity for assigned names and numbers that can remove the expense of individual corporations having to develop their own contentious and lawsuit-encumbered system for apportioning such things, and a do the same for a name resolution system of some sort, with root nameservers provisioned largely at government expense.
Perhaps the government could even go back in time and invent the system itself.Would that be enough of a subsidy and guarantee of freedom of speech?
I think it is a pretty solid foundation at the least.Now, jerkwad, go forth and take advantage of all that we taxpayers have given ourselves through the creation of the Internet and the continued provision of its core infrastructural metadata.
You want to journalize?
Good! Be fruitful and journalize.
Compete, you putz.
And if you think the competition is skewed (and I think it is) perhaps you can start by journalizing about what is wrong with the system, just as the pamphleteers started not by begging for handouts but by invigorating the public furor.But stop trying to dip in my pocket, you welfare queen.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_31_137221.29934433</id>
	<title>Hurray for the "free" press!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257003120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>What a fantastic way to ensure a free press:  have them paid by the very institution they're supposed to be the watchdogs for.

I'm sure they won't forget how to be objective and unbiased though...<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/sarcasm</htmltext>
<tokenext>What a fantastic way to ensure a free press : have them paid by the very institution they 're supposed to be the watchdogs for .
I 'm sure they wo n't forget how to be objective and unbiased though... /sarcasm</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What a fantastic way to ensure a free press:  have them paid by the very institution they're supposed to be the watchdogs for.
I'm sure they won't forget how to be objective and unbiased though... /sarcasm</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_31_137221.29934615</id>
	<title>Re:Subsidize paper chauvinism now!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257004560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"Bloggers" don't control shit, and you know it.  If the internet is your only medium for posting, or finding news, you've failed.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" Bloggers " do n't control shit , and you know it .
If the internet is your only medium for posting , or finding news , you 've failed .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"Bloggers" don't control shit, and you know it.
If the internet is your only medium for posting, or finding news, you've failed.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_31_137221.29934507</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_31_137221.29936587</id>
	<title>Government Money? No Such Thing!</title>
	<author>flyneye</author>
	<datestamp>1257022680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>There is no such thing as "Government Money". The Government is constitutionally required to derive funds for upkeep and maintenance of their duties by laying tariffs on imports<nobr> <wbr></nobr>,so they obviously don't have enough money to become powerful enough to oppress the citizenry.( you can jam that bullshit amendment about congress laying taxes up your own ass, hoodwinked sucker)<br>
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; Seriously, all that money is money worked for by the non lazy among us and supposed to go to relevant serious needs. Journalism should be a civic duty not a job description and the definition of modern journalism is not serious nor a REAL occupation, instead it is a pretend job, pretending to report relevant things of interest . In reality, it is just a control device for any wack job special interest to thrust its lies and propaganda in your face. Journalism in the 21st century is useless as pet rocks. Reading or observing the "news" is just a timekiller like solitaire. No one really believes anything they see or hear from the media (unless they are wack jobs too)<br>
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; We might as well use the money to pay the poor chronically unemployed so they can drive Cadillacs and sports cars and breed like rabbits to increase their monies. LOL , yeah I guess we do.<br>
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; Betcha T. Jeffersons thoughts on bloody revolutions is closer than the next episode of  "Fringe".</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>There is no such thing as " Government Money " .
The Government is constitutionally required to derive funds for upkeep and maintenance of their duties by laying tariffs on imports ,so they obviously do n't have enough money to become powerful enough to oppress the citizenry .
( you can jam that bullshit amendment about congress laying taxes up your own ass , hoodwinked sucker )           Seriously , all that money is money worked for by the non lazy among us and supposed to go to relevant serious needs .
Journalism should be a civic duty not a job description and the definition of modern journalism is not serious nor a REAL occupation , instead it is a pretend job , pretending to report relevant things of interest .
In reality , it is just a control device for any wack job special interest to thrust its lies and propaganda in your face .
Journalism in the 21st century is useless as pet rocks .
Reading or observing the " news " is just a timekiller like solitaire .
No one really believes anything they see or hear from the media ( unless they are wack jobs too )           We might as well use the money to pay the poor chronically unemployed so they can drive Cadillacs and sports cars and breed like rabbits to increase their monies .
LOL , yeah I guess we do .
            Betcha T. Jeffersons thoughts on bloody revolutions is closer than the next episode of " Fringe " .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There is no such thing as "Government Money".
The Government is constitutionally required to derive funds for upkeep and maintenance of their duties by laying tariffs on imports ,so they obviously don't have enough money to become powerful enough to oppress the citizenry.
( you can jam that bullshit amendment about congress laying taxes up your own ass, hoodwinked sucker)
          Seriously, all that money is money worked for by the non lazy among us and supposed to go to relevant serious needs.
Journalism should be a civic duty not a job description and the definition of modern journalism is not serious nor a REAL occupation, instead it is a pretend job, pretending to report relevant things of interest .
In reality, it is just a control device for any wack job special interest to thrust its lies and propaganda in your face.
Journalism in the 21st century is useless as pet rocks.
Reading or observing the "news" is just a timekiller like solitaire.
No one really believes anything they see or hear from the media (unless they are wack jobs too)
          We might as well use the money to pay the poor chronically unemployed so they can drive Cadillacs and sports cars and breed like rabbits to increase their monies.
LOL , yeah I guess we do.
            Betcha T. Jeffersons thoughts on bloody revolutions is closer than the next episode of  "Fringe".</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_31_137221.29936391</id>
	<title>No More Bailouts</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257021240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Mr Murdock et al : Fuck you and the horse you rode in on.</p><p>Your business model sucks, your content is trash.  We don't need you or want your services.</p><p>Go Away.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Mr Murdock et al : Fuck you and the horse you rode in on.Your business model sucks , your content is trash .
We do n't need you or want your services.Go Away .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Mr Murdock et al : Fuck you and the horse you rode in on.Your business model sucks, your content is trash.
We don't need you or want your services.Go Away.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_31_137221.29935505</id>
	<title>Re:Hurray for the "free" press!</title>
	<author>Vintermann</author>
	<datestamp>1257013020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>There is public funding of the arts in many countries - this does not produce pro-government art. Instead, it produces things that about five people in a million enjoy. With sufficient government funding, you would probably get something similar out of journalism...</p><p>Seriously, as long as it's structured right, government funding of newspapers isn't a disaster. It needs to be structured in such a way that the degree of support (or lack of it) is based on objective criteria, like the number of subscribers.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>There is public funding of the arts in many countries - this does not produce pro-government art .
Instead , it produces things that about five people in a million enjoy .
With sufficient government funding , you would probably get something similar out of journalism...Seriously , as long as it 's structured right , government funding of newspapers is n't a disaster .
It needs to be structured in such a way that the degree of support ( or lack of it ) is based on objective criteria , like the number of subscribers .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There is public funding of the arts in many countries - this does not produce pro-government art.
Instead, it produces things that about five people in a million enjoy.
With sufficient government funding, you would probably get something similar out of journalism...Seriously, as long as it's structured right, government funding of newspapers isn't a disaster.
It needs to be structured in such a way that the degree of support (or lack of it) is based on objective criteria, like the number of subscribers.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_31_137221.29934433</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_31_137221.29934873</id>
	<title>Re:There Is No News Crisis</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257006960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I think the problem is just the opposite, in that they are doing EVERYTHING wrong, because they are still trying to print the same paper they did in 1965, when if you missed the 6 'o clock news you were SOL. The reason I gave up on the local and state papers were the ONLY actual local and state stories were bake sales, who died, which little league team won the local game. That's it. No hard hitting questions, no looking into local or state grafts and corruption, just local "fluffy kitten" stories and the same old AP crap spewed with a hard spin on top to try to make it look like it wasn't a straight copypasta.</p><p>I just don't know if they CAN recover, or if they have been so infected with the "too big to fail" mentality, where they think they can just keep churning out the same tired old crap, "maximizing profit potential" by only keeping a few 'reporters" around to add spin and retype press releases, and generally acting the same as when LBJ was president. I bet if you took any of the failing papers and switched them for any of the other failing papers, frankly the readers wouldn't notice.</p><p>

So I don't know whether the Internet bloggers can take up where they left off, but frankly the "reporting" done by the state and local papers I have read is simply worthless, and is therefor failing because its readers recognize it to be lousy. They simply don't report from what I have seen, at least around here, they just regurgitate and spin. With all the talk about how much we "need" a free press, if this is the sort of free press they are talking about frankly they can keep it.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I think the problem is just the opposite , in that they are doing EVERYTHING wrong , because they are still trying to print the same paper they did in 1965 , when if you missed the 6 'o clock news you were SOL .
The reason I gave up on the local and state papers were the ONLY actual local and state stories were bake sales , who died , which little league team won the local game .
That 's it .
No hard hitting questions , no looking into local or state grafts and corruption , just local " fluffy kitten " stories and the same old AP crap spewed with a hard spin on top to try to make it look like it was n't a straight copypasta.I just do n't know if they CAN recover , or if they have been so infected with the " too big to fail " mentality , where they think they can just keep churning out the same tired old crap , " maximizing profit potential " by only keeping a few 'reporters " around to add spin and retype press releases , and generally acting the same as when LBJ was president .
I bet if you took any of the failing papers and switched them for any of the other failing papers , frankly the readers would n't notice .
So I do n't know whether the Internet bloggers can take up where they left off , but frankly the " reporting " done by the state and local papers I have read is simply worthless , and is therefor failing because its readers recognize it to be lousy .
They simply do n't report from what I have seen , at least around here , they just regurgitate and spin .
With all the talk about how much we " need " a free press , if this is the sort of free press they are talking about frankly they can keep it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I think the problem is just the opposite, in that they are doing EVERYTHING wrong, because they are still trying to print the same paper they did in 1965, when if you missed the 6 'o clock news you were SOL.
The reason I gave up on the local and state papers were the ONLY actual local and state stories were bake sales, who died, which little league team won the local game.
That's it.
No hard hitting questions, no looking into local or state grafts and corruption, just local "fluffy kitten" stories and the same old AP crap spewed with a hard spin on top to try to make it look like it wasn't a straight copypasta.I just don't know if they CAN recover, or if they have been so infected with the "too big to fail" mentality, where they think they can just keep churning out the same tired old crap, "maximizing profit potential" by only keeping a few 'reporters" around to add spin and retype press releases, and generally acting the same as when LBJ was president.
I bet if you took any of the failing papers and switched them for any of the other failing papers, frankly the readers wouldn't notice.
So I don't know whether the Internet bloggers can take up where they left off, but frankly the "reporting" done by the state and local papers I have read is simply worthless, and is therefor failing because its readers recognize it to be lousy.
They simply don't report from what I have seen, at least around here, they just regurgitate and spin.
With all the talk about how much we "need" a free press, if this is the sort of free press they are talking about frankly they can keep it.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_31_137221.29934607</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_31_137221.29936819</id>
	<title>Re:Hurray for the "free" press!</title>
	<author>BeanThere</author>
	<datestamp>1256981160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>They long since stopped being watchdogs for the government anyway. When I watch things like <a href="http://vids.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=vids.individual&amp;videoid=54162036" title="myspace.com">http://vids.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=vids.individual&amp;videoid=54162036</a> [myspace.com] it's more obvious than ever.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>They long since stopped being watchdogs for the government anyway .
When I watch things like http : //vids.myspace.com/index.cfm ? fuseaction = vids.individual&amp;videoid = 54162036 [ myspace.com ] it 's more obvious than ever .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>They long since stopped being watchdogs for the government anyway.
When I watch things like http://vids.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=vids.individual&amp;videoid=54162036 [myspace.com] it's more obvious than ever.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_31_137221.29934433</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_31_137221.29937771</id>
	<title>Re:Government media CAN be objective and unbiased.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256991540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Hypocritical insults without any substance are not "hard hitting questions".</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Hypocritical insults without any substance are not " hard hitting questions " .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Hypocritical insults without any substance are not "hard hitting questions".</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_31_137221.29935497</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_31_137221.29934751</id>
	<title>Re:Hurray for the "free" press!</title>
	<author>The Archon V2.0</author>
	<datestamp>1257005880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>What a fantastic way to ensure a free press:  have them paid by the very institution they're supposed to be the watchdogs for.</p></div><p>I find that hard to believe. Where are Jon and Kate Gosselin going to get the money?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>What a fantastic way to ensure a free press : have them paid by the very institution they 're supposed to be the watchdogs for.I find that hard to believe .
Where are Jon and Kate Gosselin going to get the money ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What a fantastic way to ensure a free press:  have them paid by the very institution they're supposed to be the watchdogs for.I find that hard to believe.
Where are Jon and Kate Gosselin going to get the money?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_31_137221.29934433</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_31_137221.29934797</id>
	<title>what nature of flock has no shepherd?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257006300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>lost perhaps? clearly easier game for the 'wolves'.</p><p>the lights are all about us now.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>lost perhaps ?
clearly easier game for the 'wolves'.the lights are all about us now .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>lost perhaps?
clearly easier game for the 'wolves'.the lights are all about us now.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_31_137221.29940503</id>
	<title>Re:What planet are you all living on?</title>
	<author>khallow</author>
	<datestamp>1257073380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>I can't believe the comments that say that government-funded media will be Soviet-style Propaganda machines.</p></div><p>Well, looking at PBS and the BBC, I'd have to say that yes, it's a real danger. Those news sources are merely slanted a bit. They can't afford to slant too much or funding will be eliminated by their foes or by natural market forces.<br> <br>

However, suppose we have a Brave New World, where a large portion of the media is subsidized. That leads to two effects. First, it drives out media sources that aren't so subsidized since those are working at a competitive disadvantage. That means that state-funded media sources no longer have to worry about excessive bias resulting in lower market share. Second, it generates a power source for any would-be despot to exploit. Let's put it this way, taking over PBS or the BBC doesn't yield enough power to take over a country. Taking over most of the US media would.</p><p><div class="quote"><p>Can anyone here name me one program or reporter more critical of the government than Bill Moyers?</p></div><p>Rush Limbaugh or any number of conservative journalists/entertainers. Sure, they tend to be extremely biased. But they are more critical of the current administration than Bill Moyers is. And that answers the question you asked.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I ca n't believe the comments that say that government-funded media will be Soviet-style Propaganda machines.Well , looking at PBS and the BBC , I 'd have to say that yes , it 's a real danger .
Those news sources are merely slanted a bit .
They ca n't afford to slant too much or funding will be eliminated by their foes or by natural market forces .
However , suppose we have a Brave New World , where a large portion of the media is subsidized .
That leads to two effects .
First , it drives out media sources that are n't so subsidized since those are working at a competitive disadvantage .
That means that state-funded media sources no longer have to worry about excessive bias resulting in lower market share .
Second , it generates a power source for any would-be despot to exploit .
Let 's put it this way , taking over PBS or the BBC does n't yield enough power to take over a country .
Taking over most of the US media would.Can anyone here name me one program or reporter more critical of the government than Bill Moyers ? Rush Limbaugh or any number of conservative journalists/entertainers .
Sure , they tend to be extremely biased .
But they are more critical of the current administration than Bill Moyers is .
And that answers the question you asked .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I can't believe the comments that say that government-funded media will be Soviet-style Propaganda machines.Well, looking at PBS and the BBC, I'd have to say that yes, it's a real danger.
Those news sources are merely slanted a bit.
They can't afford to slant too much or funding will be eliminated by their foes or by natural market forces.
However, suppose we have a Brave New World, where a large portion of the media is subsidized.
That leads to two effects.
First, it drives out media sources that aren't so subsidized since those are working at a competitive disadvantage.
That means that state-funded media sources no longer have to worry about excessive bias resulting in lower market share.
Second, it generates a power source for any would-be despot to exploit.
Let's put it this way, taking over PBS or the BBC doesn't yield enough power to take over a country.
Taking over most of the US media would.Can anyone here name me one program or reporter more critical of the government than Bill Moyers?Rush Limbaugh or any number of conservative journalists/entertainers.
Sure, they tend to be extremely biased.
But they are more critical of the current administration than Bill Moyers is.
And that answers the question you asked.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_31_137221.29935325</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_31_137221.29945996</id>
	<title>Subsidies no, tax exclusions yes.</title>
	<author>PortHaven</author>
	<datestamp>1257084480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"The problem is that newspaper newsrooms, once packed with reporters, are disappearing, and neither broadcast nor digital media are filling the void."</p><p>First off, I'd argue that digital media is not filling the void.  Many sections have supplanted the print.  Classifieds are not much better served by Craigslist - and cheaper.  National and global news is addressed quite well via the internet.  Local news is pretty prevalent on my iPhone. In fact, I didn't start reading my newspaper much until I started viewing the articles online via the Associated Press' application.  I have Dilbert in my RSS reader.</p><p>So I'd argue that what we're really in is a transitional period from print to digital. And of course there will be some who will not move to digital - largely the older generations.  But for the rest the transition is coming, and it's happening now.</p><p>***</p><p>"Obama is right when he says that finding a model to pay journalists to question, analyze and speak truth to power "is absolutely critical to the health of our democracy.""</p><p>Maybe if the media actually questioned, analyzed and spoke the truth it would not be in such a critical state. But the media which has long been filled with bias has become increasingly one-sided.  In taking such biased positions and ostracizing and offending 50\% of their potential readership the media has sealed their own fate.</p><p>Further add the fact that few in the media even research their articles. Take for example how many times the media refers to some firearm as an AK or fully automatic incorrectly.  Do your research if you want respect. Stop just politicking soundbites.</p><p>"For the first time in American history, we are nearing a point where we will no longer have more than minimal resources (relative to the nation's size) dedicated to reporting the news."</p><p>I would argue that for the first time in nearly a century we are nearing a point where we have an abundance of resources dedicated to reporting the news.</p><p>Rather than one or two dedicated papers in a given town or journals on a given issue. We now have thousands of blogs, online papers and franchises reporting.  Instead of having photographers taking pictures after the events we have onsite photographers capturing the events as they happen with their cell phones.</p><p>***</p><p>"The prospect that this "information age" could be characterized by unchecked spin and propaganda, where the best-financed voice almost always wins, and cynicism, ignorance and demoralization reach pandemic levels, is real."</p><p>This is EXACTLY what many people feel has been going on for decades.  I'll give a great case in point. How well did the mainstream media with their leftist bias cover the shooting and murder of pro-life protestors.  How did that coverage compare to the incidents where abortion doctors were killed.  Why was coverage literally a 1-2 magnitude in difference.  The murder of the pro-life protestors nearly ignored by the media.  A side note tucked away in back pages.</p><p>So the real issue is that the expansion of media and reporting is affecting the ability of the left to control spin, and to deride all opposition with cynicism.</p><p>***</p><p>"Our Constitution is, the Supreme Court reminds us, predicated on the assumption of an informed and participating citizenry. If insufficient news media exist to make that a realistic outcome, the foundation crumbles."</p><p>We've already concluded it is not insufficient. If anything we are leaving a period of insufficiency for more coverage.</p><p>A moving away from the mega newspaper and media conglomerates back to the "pamphleteers" such as Thomas Payne and Benjamin Franklin - only now they're called "bloggers".</p><p>***</p><p>"Obama, the former constitutional law professor, says, "Government without a tough and vibrant media is not an option for the United States of America.""</p><p>Where is this so called tough media?  You mean like CNN which leapt to defend Obama from a mild Saturday Night Live skit?</p><p>***</p><p>"Unfortunately, the marketplace now e</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" The problem is that newspaper newsrooms , once packed with reporters , are disappearing , and neither broadcast nor digital media are filling the void .
" First off , I 'd argue that digital media is not filling the void .
Many sections have supplanted the print .
Classifieds are not much better served by Craigslist - and cheaper .
National and global news is addressed quite well via the internet .
Local news is pretty prevalent on my iPhone .
In fact , I did n't start reading my newspaper much until I started viewing the articles online via the Associated Press ' application .
I have Dilbert in my RSS reader.So I 'd argue that what we 're really in is a transitional period from print to digital .
And of course there will be some who will not move to digital - largely the older generations .
But for the rest the transition is coming , and it 's happening now .
* * * " Obama is right when he says that finding a model to pay journalists to question , analyze and speak truth to power " is absolutely critical to the health of our democracy .
" " Maybe if the media actually questioned , analyzed and spoke the truth it would not be in such a critical state .
But the media which has long been filled with bias has become increasingly one-sided .
In taking such biased positions and ostracizing and offending 50 \ % of their potential readership the media has sealed their own fate.Further add the fact that few in the media even research their articles .
Take for example how many times the media refers to some firearm as an AK or fully automatic incorrectly .
Do your research if you want respect .
Stop just politicking soundbites .
" For the first time in American history , we are nearing a point where we will no longer have more than minimal resources ( relative to the nation 's size ) dedicated to reporting the news .
" I would argue that for the first time in nearly a century we are nearing a point where we have an abundance of resources dedicated to reporting the news.Rather than one or two dedicated papers in a given town or journals on a given issue .
We now have thousands of blogs , online papers and franchises reporting .
Instead of having photographers taking pictures after the events we have onsite photographers capturing the events as they happen with their cell phones .
* * * " The prospect that this " information age " could be characterized by unchecked spin and propaganda , where the best-financed voice almost always wins , and cynicism , ignorance and demoralization reach pandemic levels , is real .
" This is EXACTLY what many people feel has been going on for decades .
I 'll give a great case in point .
How well did the mainstream media with their leftist bias cover the shooting and murder of pro-life protestors .
How did that coverage compare to the incidents where abortion doctors were killed .
Why was coverage literally a 1-2 magnitude in difference .
The murder of the pro-life protestors nearly ignored by the media .
A side note tucked away in back pages.So the real issue is that the expansion of media and reporting is affecting the ability of the left to control spin , and to deride all opposition with cynicism .
* * * " Our Constitution is , the Supreme Court reminds us , predicated on the assumption of an informed and participating citizenry .
If insufficient news media exist to make that a realistic outcome , the foundation crumbles .
" We 've already concluded it is not insufficient .
If anything we are leaving a period of insufficiency for more coverage.A moving away from the mega newspaper and media conglomerates back to the " pamphleteers " such as Thomas Payne and Benjamin Franklin - only now they 're called " bloggers " .
* * * " Obama , the former constitutional law professor , says , " Government without a tough and vibrant media is not an option for the United States of America .
" " Where is this so called tough media ?
You mean like CNN which leapt to defend Obama from a mild Saturday Night Live skit ?
* * * " Unfortunately , the marketplace now e</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"The problem is that newspaper newsrooms, once packed with reporters, are disappearing, and neither broadcast nor digital media are filling the void.
"First off, I'd argue that digital media is not filling the void.
Many sections have supplanted the print.
Classifieds are not much better served by Craigslist - and cheaper.
National and global news is addressed quite well via the internet.
Local news is pretty prevalent on my iPhone.
In fact, I didn't start reading my newspaper much until I started viewing the articles online via the Associated Press' application.
I have Dilbert in my RSS reader.So I'd argue that what we're really in is a transitional period from print to digital.
And of course there will be some who will not move to digital - largely the older generations.
But for the rest the transition is coming, and it's happening now.
***"Obama is right when he says that finding a model to pay journalists to question, analyze and speak truth to power "is absolutely critical to the health of our democracy.
""Maybe if the media actually questioned, analyzed and spoke the truth it would not be in such a critical state.
But the media which has long been filled with bias has become increasingly one-sided.
In taking such biased positions and ostracizing and offending 50\% of their potential readership the media has sealed their own fate.Further add the fact that few in the media even research their articles.
Take for example how many times the media refers to some firearm as an AK or fully automatic incorrectly.
Do your research if you want respect.
Stop just politicking soundbites.
"For the first time in American history, we are nearing a point where we will no longer have more than minimal resources (relative to the nation's size) dedicated to reporting the news.
"I would argue that for the first time in nearly a century we are nearing a point where we have an abundance of resources dedicated to reporting the news.Rather than one or two dedicated papers in a given town or journals on a given issue.
We now have thousands of blogs, online papers and franchises reporting.
Instead of having photographers taking pictures after the events we have onsite photographers capturing the events as they happen with their cell phones.
***"The prospect that this "information age" could be characterized by unchecked spin and propaganda, where the best-financed voice almost always wins, and cynicism, ignorance and demoralization reach pandemic levels, is real.
"This is EXACTLY what many people feel has been going on for decades.
I'll give a great case in point.
How well did the mainstream media with their leftist bias cover the shooting and murder of pro-life protestors.
How did that coverage compare to the incidents where abortion doctors were killed.
Why was coverage literally a 1-2 magnitude in difference.
The murder of the pro-life protestors nearly ignored by the media.
A side note tucked away in back pages.So the real issue is that the expansion of media and reporting is affecting the ability of the left to control spin, and to deride all opposition with cynicism.
***"Our Constitution is, the Supreme Court reminds us, predicated on the assumption of an informed and participating citizenry.
If insufficient news media exist to make that a realistic outcome, the foundation crumbles.
"We've already concluded it is not insufficient.
If anything we are leaving a period of insufficiency for more coverage.A moving away from the mega newspaper and media conglomerates back to the "pamphleteers" such as Thomas Payne and Benjamin Franklin - only now they're called "bloggers".
***"Obama, the former constitutional law professor, says, "Government without a tough and vibrant media is not an option for the United States of America.
""Where is this so called tough media?
You mean like CNN which leapt to defend Obama from a mild Saturday Night Live skit?
***"Unfortunately, the marketplace now e</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_31_137221.29935387</id>
	<title>Re:Government media CAN be objective and unbiased.</title>
	<author>TheRaven64</author>
	<datestamp>1257012000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>One of the advantages something like the BBC has is that it is too big for government officials to blackball.  It an MP goes on Question Time or Newsnight and gets a grilling, then clips from that will show up everywhere.  If they then refuse to talk to BBC reporters then that will be reported.  The journalistic establishment is quite close nit in London and if you are refusing to talk to some reporters then you can bet that the ones that you will talk to are going to go out of their way to give you a hard time.  If you don't talk to any, then they'll just get your opponents to talk about you instead of letting you speak.</htmltext>
<tokenext>One of the advantages something like the BBC has is that it is too big for government officials to blackball .
It an MP goes on Question Time or Newsnight and gets a grilling , then clips from that will show up everywhere .
If they then refuse to talk to BBC reporters then that will be reported .
The journalistic establishment is quite close nit in London and if you are refusing to talk to some reporters then you can bet that the ones that you will talk to are going to go out of their way to give you a hard time .
If you do n't talk to any , then they 'll just get your opponents to talk about you instead of letting you speak .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>One of the advantages something like the BBC has is that it is too big for government officials to blackball.
It an MP goes on Question Time or Newsnight and gets a grilling, then clips from that will show up everywhere.
If they then refuse to talk to BBC reporters then that will be reported.
The journalistic establishment is quite close nit in London and if you are refusing to talk to some reporters then you can bet that the ones that you will talk to are going to go out of their way to give you a hard time.
If you don't talk to any, then they'll just get your opponents to talk about you instead of letting you speak.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_31_137221.29934573</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_31_137221.29934377</id>
	<title>Did I just say First Post?</title>
	<author>OakDragon</author>
	<datestamp>1257002640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Quite the opposite!</htmltext>
<tokenext>Quite the opposite !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Quite the opposite!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_31_137221.29937955</id>
	<title>"simply too much" journalism</title>
	<author>michaelhawk</author>
	<datestamp>1256993880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>You said: "The real problem for the journalism business is there's simply too much of it. Barring the prospects of consumers suddenly getting vast amounts of new free time, it simply needs to be massively downsized. In the modern world we don't need 100 reporters at a White House press conference. The job can be done by three or four, and then aggregated and translated."</p></div></blockquote><p>

The problem is not numbers but culture.  If 100 uncritical, unsavvy, cowards show up at the Whitehouse, nothing will be accomplished.  If 3 or 4 critical, savvy, and courageous journalists in the pocket of the big corporations show up, nothing will be accomplished.  Personally, I'd rather we have 100 journalists than 3 because 100 are more difficult to control than 3.
</p><p>
What we need is a strong culture of quality journalism.  This culture has been in decline for decades now.  We are at the point where the major network television is imploding with sensationalism and irrelevance.  Their failure to ask critical questions in the run up to Iraq ought to prove their value.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>You said : " The real problem for the journalism business is there 's simply too much of it .
Barring the prospects of consumers suddenly getting vast amounts of new free time , it simply needs to be massively downsized .
In the modern world we do n't need 100 reporters at a White House press conference .
The job can be done by three or four , and then aggregated and translated .
" The problem is not numbers but culture .
If 100 uncritical , unsavvy , cowards show up at the Whitehouse , nothing will be accomplished .
If 3 or 4 critical , savvy , and courageous journalists in the pocket of the big corporations show up , nothing will be accomplished .
Personally , I 'd rather we have 100 journalists than 3 because 100 are more difficult to control than 3 .
What we need is a strong culture of quality journalism .
This culture has been in decline for decades now .
We are at the point where the major network television is imploding with sensationalism and irrelevance .
Their failure to ask critical questions in the run up to Iraq ought to prove their value .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You said: "The real problem for the journalism business is there's simply too much of it.
Barring the prospects of consumers suddenly getting vast amounts of new free time, it simply needs to be massively downsized.
In the modern world we don't need 100 reporters at a White House press conference.
The job can be done by three or four, and then aggregated and translated.
"

The problem is not numbers but culture.
If 100 uncritical, unsavvy, cowards show up at the Whitehouse, nothing will be accomplished.
If 3 or 4 critical, savvy, and courageous journalists in the pocket of the big corporations show up, nothing will be accomplished.
Personally, I'd rather we have 100 journalists than 3 because 100 are more difficult to control than 3.
What we need is a strong culture of quality journalism.
This culture has been in decline for decades now.
We are at the point where the major network television is imploding with sensationalism and irrelevance.
Their failure to ask critical questions in the run up to Iraq ought to prove their value.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_31_137221.29934603</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_31_137221.29934857</id>
	<title>And let's not forget...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257006720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Government money = tax money = our money.</p><p>This is just an end run around the consumer: Pay us voluntarily or we'll reach into your wallet ourselves. Of course, right now we're reaching into our childrens' childrens' wallets.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Government money = tax money = our money.This is just an end run around the consumer : Pay us voluntarily or we 'll reach into your wallet ourselves .
Of course , right now we 're reaching into our childrens ' childrens ' wallets .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Government money = tax money = our money.This is just an end run around the consumer: Pay us voluntarily or we'll reach into your wallet ourselves.
Of course, right now we're reaching into our childrens' childrens' wallets.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_31_137221.29934433</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_31_137221.29938303</id>
	<title>Re:Hmmm</title>
	<author>Idiomatick</author>
	<datestamp>1256997540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Agreed, and I'm sure GP would also agree. That's bullshit and not news. Just like faux news. Which goes to show EXACTLY what he said in the quote. So it's not "Fixed.", you are both in agreement. News companies that lie fucking suck. Regardless of left or right wingedness. And you attempt to correct him by showing a left wing fuck up?</div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Agreed , and I 'm sure GP would also agree .
That 's bullshit and not news .
Just like faux news .
Which goes to show EXACTLY what he said in the quote .
So it 's not " Fixed .
" , you are both in agreement .
News companies that lie fucking suck .
Regardless of left or right wingedness .
And you attempt to correct him by showing a left wing fuck up ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Agreed, and I'm sure GP would also agree.
That's bullshit and not news.
Just like faux news.
Which goes to show EXACTLY what he said in the quote.
So it's not "Fixed.
", you are both in agreement.
News companies that lie fucking suck.
Regardless of left or right wingedness.
And you attempt to correct him by showing a left wing fuck up?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_31_137221.29935667</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_31_137221.29935947</id>
	<title>Re:The BBC is a good example.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257016980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>NPR is absolutely biased. From entertainment programs like 'Prairie Home Companion' (Garrison Keillor has released books titled 'Homegrown Democrat') to the blocks of time they give to speakers like Noam Chomsky -- They choose programs which do, in fact, reflect a very slanted tilt. Some of their news programs (TOTN/ATC) are fine.</p><p>But isn't that the same MO as Fox news? Unbiased news and biased opinion pieces? At least Fox doesn't take government money.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>NPR is absolutely biased .
From entertainment programs like 'Prairie Home Companion ' ( Garrison Keillor has released books titled 'Homegrown Democrat ' ) to the blocks of time they give to speakers like Noam Chomsky -- They choose programs which do , in fact , reflect a very slanted tilt .
Some of their news programs ( TOTN/ATC ) are fine.But is n't that the same MO as Fox news ?
Unbiased news and biased opinion pieces ?
At least Fox does n't take government money .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>NPR is absolutely biased.
From entertainment programs like 'Prairie Home Companion' (Garrison Keillor has released books titled 'Homegrown Democrat') to the blocks of time they give to speakers like Noam Chomsky -- They choose programs which do, in fact, reflect a very slanted tilt.
Some of their news programs (TOTN/ATC) are fine.But isn't that the same MO as Fox news?
Unbiased news and biased opinion pieces?
At least Fox doesn't take government money.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_31_137221.29935355</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_31_137221.29935855</id>
	<title>Re:Government media CAN be objective and unbiased.</title>
	<author>CrimsonAvenger</author>
	<datestamp>1257016260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>One of the best Australian TV shows that is quite prepared to ask tough/embaressing questions of any member of parliament is the "7:30 Report", on the ABC.</p></div></blockquote><p>How does the show pick the guests to question?
</p><p>That's probably the key question that determines whether they're really non-political...</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>One of the best Australian TV shows that is quite prepared to ask tough/embaressing questions of any member of parliament is the " 7 : 30 Report " , on the ABC.How does the show pick the guests to question ?
That 's probably the key question that determines whether they 're really non-political.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>One of the best Australian TV shows that is quite prepared to ask tough/embaressing questions of any member of parliament is the "7:30 Report", on the ABC.How does the show pick the guests to question?
That's probably the key question that determines whether they're really non-political...
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_31_137221.29934573</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_31_137221.29941649</id>
	<title>Re:What planet are you all living on?</title>
	<author>The\_Quinn</author>
	<datestamp>1257091080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>that's exactly what corporations want you to believe, because public funding will be the only thing that frees journalists from the corporate teat. It will effectively shut down the corporate media oligarchy we have today.</p></div><p>If governments and corporations were not effectively organs of each other, there would be no advantage to lobbying for government favortism.</p><p>That's why we need a separation between state and economics, just as - and for the same reason as - the separation of church and state.</p><p>Governments hold a legal monopoly on the use of physical force.  If a bureaucrat can hurt your business by withholding permits and licenses, and can help your competitors through special franchises and subsidies, then it is perfectly rational for corporations to try to influence the outcome.</p><p>Take away the government guns, and all a business can do is use persuasion and voluntary agreements.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>that 's exactly what corporations want you to believe , because public funding will be the only thing that frees journalists from the corporate teat .
It will effectively shut down the corporate media oligarchy we have today.If governments and corporations were not effectively organs of each other , there would be no advantage to lobbying for government favortism.That 's why we need a separation between state and economics , just as - and for the same reason as - the separation of church and state.Governments hold a legal monopoly on the use of physical force .
If a bureaucrat can hurt your business by withholding permits and licenses , and can help your competitors through special franchises and subsidies , then it is perfectly rational for corporations to try to influence the outcome.Take away the government guns , and all a business can do is use persuasion and voluntary agreements .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>that's exactly what corporations want you to believe, because public funding will be the only thing that frees journalists from the corporate teat.
It will effectively shut down the corporate media oligarchy we have today.If governments and corporations were not effectively organs of each other, there would be no advantage to lobbying for government favortism.That's why we need a separation between state and economics, just as - and for the same reason as - the separation of church and state.Governments hold a legal monopoly on the use of physical force.
If a bureaucrat can hurt your business by withholding permits and licenses, and can help your competitors through special franchises and subsidies, then it is perfectly rational for corporations to try to influence the outcome.Take away the government guns, and all a business can do is use persuasion and voluntary agreements.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_31_137221.29935325</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_31_137221.29935583</id>
	<title>Re:You IDIOT</title>
	<author>commodore64\_love</author>
	<datestamp>1257013920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The difference is that government can reach into my wallet and swipe money (and if I refuse to open my wallet voluntarily the government can jail me).   In contrast a media conglomerate (like Comcast) can not.  I can hide my wallet and tell Comcast to "frak off".</p><p>If enough people tell the media conglomerate to frak off, then it will end-up like Circuit City (bankrupt).</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The difference is that government can reach into my wallet and swipe money ( and if I refuse to open my wallet voluntarily the government can jail me ) .
In contrast a media conglomerate ( like Comcast ) can not .
I can hide my wallet and tell Comcast to " frak off " .If enough people tell the media conglomerate to frak off , then it will end-up like Circuit City ( bankrupt ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The difference is that government can reach into my wallet and swipe money (and if I refuse to open my wallet voluntarily the government can jail me).
In contrast a media conglomerate (like Comcast) can not.
I can hide my wallet and tell Comcast to "frak off".If enough people tell the media conglomerate to frak off, then it will end-up like Circuit City (bankrupt).</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_31_137221.29935115</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_31_137221.29935177</id>
	<title>Re:good description</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257010020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Eh, obama bin laden has already offered to bailout the papers. This is not about journalism nor jobs. It is simply more govt and less freedom, which is EXACTLY why obama bib laden suggested it previously. That maggot thinks he can buy everyone to support his fascist viewpoint. BITCH needs to die</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Eh , obama bin laden has already offered to bailout the papers .
This is not about journalism nor jobs .
It is simply more govt and less freedom , which is EXACTLY why obama bib laden suggested it previously .
That maggot thinks he can buy everyone to support his fascist viewpoint .
BITCH needs to die</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Eh, obama bin laden has already offered to bailout the papers.
This is not about journalism nor jobs.
It is simply more govt and less freedom, which is EXACTLY why obama bib laden suggested it previously.
That maggot thinks he can buy everyone to support his fascist viewpoint.
BITCH needs to die</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_31_137221.29934381</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_31_137221.29934941</id>
	<title>Government money for newspapers...</title>
	<author>russotto</author>
	<datestamp>1257007620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>...won't lead to government-controlled newspapers like government money for car companies won't lead to government controlled car companies.  You'll never see a President firing a CEO of a private company just because that company gets governmen.... err, wait, that actually did happen, didn't it?  Never mind.</p><p>Though the Washington Post could accept government money without conflict so long as a Democratic administration was in charge.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>...wo n't lead to government-controlled newspapers like government money for car companies wo n't lead to government controlled car companies .
You 'll never see a President firing a CEO of a private company just because that company gets governmen.... err , wait , that actually did happen , did n't it ?
Never mind.Though the Washington Post could accept government money without conflict so long as a Democratic administration was in charge .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>...won't lead to government-controlled newspapers like government money for car companies won't lead to government controlled car companies.
You'll never see a President firing a CEO of a private company just because that company gets governmen.... err, wait, that actually did happen, didn't it?
Never mind.Though the Washington Post could accept government money without conflict so long as a Democratic administration was in charge.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_31_137221.29936503</id>
	<title>Re:Hurray for the "free" press!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257021960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>...for government to give every citizen the same rights...</p></div><p>Governments to not give rights.  Governments only take rights away or place limits upon them.</p><p>Rights are things that people have independently of any government say-so.  That's why we call them rights.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>...for government to give every citizen the same rights...Governments to not give rights .
Governments only take rights away or place limits upon them.Rights are things that people have independently of any government say-so .
That 's why we call them rights .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>...for government to give every citizen the same rights...Governments to not give rights.
Governments only take rights away or place limits upon them.Rights are things that people have independently of any government say-so.
That's why we call them rights.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_31_137221.29934605</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_31_137221.29934617</id>
	<title>It is the overhead</title>
	<author>fermion</author>
	<datestamp>1257004560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I can't help but thinking the problem with journalism, like anything else, is the overhead.  Sure we all know that for most people the primary reason to have a business is to rake in the profits and have a high rise building,a chauffeured towncar, and a private plane.  While there is nothing wrong with that, the question we can ask is should the government pay to support such a lifestyle, as it has done in the past.
<p>
Sure everyone says the problem is the cost of health care, and government regulation, and the excessive wages negotiated by unions.  But none of this explains why AIG payed a multi hundred million dollar bonus to executives responsible for bankrupting the company(and before any says that they were not responsible, if management is not responsible, who is?  The labour who everyone says is overpaid?) The fact is that management all too often overextends itself assuming that profits will accelerate and cover the additional expenses.  For instance, the United way recently build a huge building in the most expensive part of the city outside of downtown at the height of the housing bubble. I am sure this was an investment, and the assumption was that it would pay for itself over time, but one wonders if the core business of the United Way is provided luxurious office space to it's staff, and what impact this has recently had on it's funds.
</p><p>
So the issue is often overhead.  The local newspaper has a city block of prime downtown real estate. At one time this probably made sense.  It is near city hall, the courthouse, and many other news making entities.  Now I am not so sure.  I know I would want the newspaper to decentralize and cut costs before giving it any money.  Smaller cheaper office scattered through the city so it could more easily cover more news.  Offices near school district offices, since parents will buy newspapers about thier kids.  I know the printing press does not have to be downtown. Web services does not even have to be onsite.
</p><p>
And maybe none of this make sense.  Maybe a lush building downtown does make the most sense. I don't know.  I am not in the newspaper business, any more than I am in the finance business or the real estate business. Which is why my tax dollars should not go to directly propping up these businesses.  I don't know how to manage these businesses.  Evidently the people who think they do, don't, since the need a government bailout.  And since we don't know how to do it, the best thing to do might be to let the firms fail, and allow new blood in that might have a better feeling for what is needed to make a go of it.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I ca n't help but thinking the problem with journalism , like anything else , is the overhead .
Sure we all know that for most people the primary reason to have a business is to rake in the profits and have a high rise building,a chauffeured towncar , and a private plane .
While there is nothing wrong with that , the question we can ask is should the government pay to support such a lifestyle , as it has done in the past .
Sure everyone says the problem is the cost of health care , and government regulation , and the excessive wages negotiated by unions .
But none of this explains why AIG payed a multi hundred million dollar bonus to executives responsible for bankrupting the company ( and before any says that they were not responsible , if management is not responsible , who is ?
The labour who everyone says is overpaid ?
) The fact is that management all too often overextends itself assuming that profits will accelerate and cover the additional expenses .
For instance , the United way recently build a huge building in the most expensive part of the city outside of downtown at the height of the housing bubble .
I am sure this was an investment , and the assumption was that it would pay for itself over time , but one wonders if the core business of the United Way is provided luxurious office space to it 's staff , and what impact this has recently had on it 's funds .
So the issue is often overhead .
The local newspaper has a city block of prime downtown real estate .
At one time this probably made sense .
It is near city hall , the courthouse , and many other news making entities .
Now I am not so sure .
I know I would want the newspaper to decentralize and cut costs before giving it any money .
Smaller cheaper office scattered through the city so it could more easily cover more news .
Offices near school district offices , since parents will buy newspapers about thier kids .
I know the printing press does not have to be downtown .
Web services does not even have to be onsite .
And maybe none of this make sense .
Maybe a lush building downtown does make the most sense .
I do n't know .
I am not in the newspaper business , any more than I am in the finance business or the real estate business .
Which is why my tax dollars should not go to directly propping up these businesses .
I do n't know how to manage these businesses .
Evidently the people who think they do , do n't , since the need a government bailout .
And since we do n't know how to do it , the best thing to do might be to let the firms fail , and allow new blood in that might have a better feeling for what is needed to make a go of it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I can't help but thinking the problem with journalism, like anything else, is the overhead.
Sure we all know that for most people the primary reason to have a business is to rake in the profits and have a high rise building,a chauffeured towncar, and a private plane.
While there is nothing wrong with that, the question we can ask is should the government pay to support such a lifestyle, as it has done in the past.
Sure everyone says the problem is the cost of health care, and government regulation, and the excessive wages negotiated by unions.
But none of this explains why AIG payed a multi hundred million dollar bonus to executives responsible for bankrupting the company(and before any says that they were not responsible, if management is not responsible, who is?
The labour who everyone says is overpaid?
) The fact is that management all too often overextends itself assuming that profits will accelerate and cover the additional expenses.
For instance, the United way recently build a huge building in the most expensive part of the city outside of downtown at the height of the housing bubble.
I am sure this was an investment, and the assumption was that it would pay for itself over time, but one wonders if the core business of the United Way is provided luxurious office space to it's staff, and what impact this has recently had on it's funds.
So the issue is often overhead.
The local newspaper has a city block of prime downtown real estate.
At one time this probably made sense.
It is near city hall, the courthouse, and many other news making entities.
Now I am not so sure.
I know I would want the newspaper to decentralize and cut costs before giving it any money.
Smaller cheaper office scattered through the city so it could more easily cover more news.
Offices near school district offices, since parents will buy newspapers about thier kids.
I know the printing press does not have to be downtown.
Web services does not even have to be onsite.
And maybe none of this make sense.
Maybe a lush building downtown does make the most sense.
I don't know.
I am not in the newspaper business, any more than I am in the finance business or the real estate business.
Which is why my tax dollars should not go to directly propping up these businesses.
I don't know how to manage these businesses.
Evidently the people who think they do, don't, since the need a government bailout.
And since we don't know how to do it, the best thing to do might be to let the firms fail, and allow new blood in that might have a better feeling for what is needed to make a go of it.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_31_137221.29939155</id>
	<title>Re:Hurray for the "free" press!</title>
	<author>jmac\_the\_man</author>
	<datestamp>1257007320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>As a matter of fact, <a href="http://bighollywood.breitbart.com/mflynnjnolte/2009/09/20/pregame-report-the-nea-conference-call/#more-230454" title="breitbart.com" rel="nofollow">the Obama administration was caught trying to tie arts funding to agreeing with his message.</a> [breitbart.com]
<p>
This happened like a month ago. The only reason it didn't produce any pro-government art is because they got caught.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>As a matter of fact , the Obama administration was caught trying to tie arts funding to agreeing with his message .
[ breitbart.com ] This happened like a month ago .
The only reason it did n't produce any pro-government art is because they got caught .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>As a matter of fact, the Obama administration was caught trying to tie arts funding to agreeing with his message.
[breitbart.com]

This happened like a month ago.
The only reason it didn't produce any pro-government art is because they got caught.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_31_137221.29935505</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_31_137221.29935011</id>
	<title>Re:Hurray for the "free" press!</title>
	<author>oh2</author>
	<datestamp>1257008280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>We have subsidies for the press in Sweden, and its working fairly well. The way it works is that the biggest newspaper in a certain market gets no subsidies, but the smaller competitors do. Its intended to ensure that no one company or political organization gets a monopoly on news and published opinion just by being large enough that they can kill off their competitors through that. <p>

The government has no real say in who gets the subsidies since its illegal for a government minister to interfere with the day to day matters of his department. There are no purse strings to pull, and god help the politician in Sweden that even tries, the entire media would be all over him or her.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>We have subsidies for the press in Sweden , and its working fairly well .
The way it works is that the biggest newspaper in a certain market gets no subsidies , but the smaller competitors do .
Its intended to ensure that no one company or political organization gets a monopoly on news and published opinion just by being large enough that they can kill off their competitors through that .
The government has no real say in who gets the subsidies since its illegal for a government minister to interfere with the day to day matters of his department .
There are no purse strings to pull , and god help the politician in Sweden that even tries , the entire media would be all over him or her .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>We have subsidies for the press in Sweden, and its working fairly well.
The way it works is that the biggest newspaper in a certain market gets no subsidies, but the smaller competitors do.
Its intended to ensure that no one company or political organization gets a monopoly on news and published opinion just by being large enough that they can kill off their competitors through that.
The government has no real say in who gets the subsidies since its illegal for a government minister to interfere with the day to day matters of his department.
There are no purse strings to pull, and god help the politician in Sweden that even tries, the entire media would be all over him or her.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_31_137221.29934605</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_31_137221.29935425</id>
	<title>Re:Hurray for the "free" press!</title>
	<author>Nikker</author>
	<datestamp>1257012480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Wow, I just looked up that Blair guy, I must have had my head stuck in the sand for the past 6 years.  It seems that this kid was a liar from day one, makes you wonder how many more of these types are around taking up print.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Wow , I just looked up that Blair guy , I must have had my head stuck in the sand for the past 6 years .
It seems that this kid was a liar from day one , makes you wonder how many more of these types are around taking up print .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Wow, I just looked up that Blair guy, I must have had my head stuck in the sand for the past 6 years.
It seems that this kid was a liar from day one, makes you wonder how many more of these types are around taking up print.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_31_137221.29934605</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_31_137221.29934439</id>
	<title>Let them die.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257003120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Else we'll have the situation with Boscovs which was bailed-out, but after examining the store, I think should have died.</p><p>This store has not been modernized its look since the 1980s, still employs three people to man every single register (wasteful), and carries product a modern consumer has little-to-no interest in buying (sewing patterns &amp; machines to make your own clothes).   Other stores like Penneys and Sears have streamlined their operations, eliminating product that doesn't sell, and having 3 employees serve an entire QUARTER of a store not just one register.  They've cut costs and grown more efficient.  Boscovs has not.</p><p>Government bail-outs for stores just encourage inefficiency.  Ditto bail-outs for newspapers.  Let the papers innovate or pass-away into history (along with horsewhips and cobblers).</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Else we 'll have the situation with Boscovs which was bailed-out , but after examining the store , I think should have died.This store has not been modernized its look since the 1980s , still employs three people to man every single register ( wasteful ) , and carries product a modern consumer has little-to-no interest in buying ( sewing patterns &amp; machines to make your own clothes ) .
Other stores like Penneys and Sears have streamlined their operations , eliminating product that does n't sell , and having 3 employees serve an entire QUARTER of a store not just one register .
They 've cut costs and grown more efficient .
Boscovs has not.Government bail-outs for stores just encourage inefficiency .
Ditto bail-outs for newspapers .
Let the papers innovate or pass-away into history ( along with horsewhips and cobblers ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Else we'll have the situation with Boscovs which was bailed-out, but after examining the store, I think should have died.This store has not been modernized its look since the 1980s, still employs three people to man every single register (wasteful), and carries product a modern consumer has little-to-no interest in buying (sewing patterns &amp; machines to make your own clothes).
Other stores like Penneys and Sears have streamlined their operations, eliminating product that doesn't sell, and having 3 employees serve an entire QUARTER of a store not just one register.
They've cut costs and grown more efficient.
Boscovs has not.Government bail-outs for stores just encourage inefficiency.
Ditto bail-outs for newspapers.
Let the papers innovate or pass-away into history (along with horsewhips and cobblers).</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_31_137221.29934795</id>
	<title>Who pays the piper call the tune</title>
	<author>petes\_PoV</author>
	<datestamp>1257006300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Papers print what their owners tell them to.
<p>
If a newspaper owner holds a certain view, then that's the line the editorial tone will take. It's a long standing conclusion with "independent" publications and will only transfer into government subsidised publications. If you want state-subsidised newspapers, then expect them to carry stories that show their paymasters in a beneficial light.
</p><p>
God help you when elections come around.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Papers print what their owners tell them to .
If a newspaper owner holds a certain view , then that 's the line the editorial tone will take .
It 's a long standing conclusion with " independent " publications and will only transfer into government subsidised publications .
If you want state-subsidised newspapers , then expect them to carry stories that show their paymasters in a beneficial light .
God help you when elections come around .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Papers print what their owners tell them to.
If a newspaper owner holds a certain view, then that's the line the editorial tone will take.
It's a long standing conclusion with "independent" publications and will only transfer into government subsidised publications.
If you want state-subsidised newspapers, then expect them to carry stories that show their paymasters in a beneficial light.
God help you when elections come around.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_31_137221.29935115</id>
	<title>You IDIOT</title>
	<author>SmallFurryCreature</author>
	<datestamp>1257009420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The press is indeed the watchdog. So watches the media moguls? The journalists paid by those moguls?
</p><p>Why do you think you see so little info in the big media controlled press about copyright abuses by big media? Gosh, I wonder why.
</p><p>Amazing, you can spot that it is a bad idea for the press to be owned by anyone but only think it is bad if the government is the one doing the owning. My complements to your brainwasher, he did a wonderful job, especially considering how delicate it is to wash such a small brain.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The press is indeed the watchdog .
So watches the media moguls ?
The journalists paid by those moguls ?
Why do you think you see so little info in the big media controlled press about copyright abuses by big media ?
Gosh , I wonder why .
Amazing , you can spot that it is a bad idea for the press to be owned by anyone but only think it is bad if the government is the one doing the owning .
My complements to your brainwasher , he did a wonderful job , especially considering how delicate it is to wash such a small brain .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The press is indeed the watchdog.
So watches the media moguls?
The journalists paid by those moguls?
Why do you think you see so little info in the big media controlled press about copyright abuses by big media?
Gosh, I wonder why.
Amazing, you can spot that it is a bad idea for the press to be owned by anyone but only think it is bad if the government is the one doing the owning.
My complements to your brainwasher, he did a wonderful job, especially considering how delicate it is to wash such a small brain.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_31_137221.29934433</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_31_137221.29938927</id>
	<title>Re:Wha?</title>
	<author>An Onerous Coward</author>
	<datestamp>1257004260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>How would government financing of media be anything but state-run media?</p></div></blockquote><p>The same way that government giving out food stamps is something other than a state-run farm system, or the same way that government giving out rental assistance isn't the same as state-owned housing.</p><p>Or perhaps it would be more like the way publicly financed elections aren't the same as government-owned politicians.</p><p>My idea for government funded media is to give every American over the age of 18 a $50 coupon, which they can give to whatever journalistic enterprise warms their heart.  If that's Democracy Now, or Fox News, or grannygertslakeshirevalleynews.blogspot.com is irrelevant, so long as the recipient is doing something recognizably journalistic and has significant readership.  There might need to be rules to prevent money laundering, but that's just details.</p><p>Since it's ordinary people deciding what should get funded, there would be no danger of the Democrats shutting down Fox News, or the Republicans shutting down, well, everything that isn't Fox News (the only true journalists!)</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>How would government financing of media be anything but state-run media ? The same way that government giving out food stamps is something other than a state-run farm system , or the same way that government giving out rental assistance is n't the same as state-owned housing.Or perhaps it would be more like the way publicly financed elections are n't the same as government-owned politicians.My idea for government funded media is to give every American over the age of 18 a $ 50 coupon , which they can give to whatever journalistic enterprise warms their heart .
If that 's Democracy Now , or Fox News , or grannygertslakeshirevalleynews.blogspot.com is irrelevant , so long as the recipient is doing something recognizably journalistic and has significant readership .
There might need to be rules to prevent money laundering , but that 's just details.Since it 's ordinary people deciding what should get funded , there would be no danger of the Democrats shutting down Fox News , or the Republicans shutting down , well , everything that is n't Fox News ( the only true journalists !
)</tokentext>
<sentencetext>How would government financing of media be anything but state-run media?The same way that government giving out food stamps is something other than a state-run farm system, or the same way that government giving out rental assistance isn't the same as state-owned housing.Or perhaps it would be more like the way publicly financed elections aren't the same as government-owned politicians.My idea for government funded media is to give every American over the age of 18 a $50 coupon, which they can give to whatever journalistic enterprise warms their heart.
If that's Democracy Now, or Fox News, or grannygertslakeshirevalleynews.blogspot.com is irrelevant, so long as the recipient is doing something recognizably journalistic and has significant readership.
There might need to be rules to prevent money laundering, but that's just details.Since it's ordinary people deciding what should get funded, there would be no danger of the Democrats shutting down Fox News, or the Republicans shutting down, well, everything that isn't Fox News (the only true journalists!
)
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_31_137221.29934449</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_31_137221.29934607</id>
	<title>There Is No News Crisis</title>
	<author>logicnazi</author>
	<datestamp>1257004440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>There is a crisis for journalists as a result of the sudden crash in their industry but that crash isn't the result of some horrible failure of the market for journalism. Just the opposite. <strong>The newspaper industry has hit bottom because the internet has made the buisness of reporting so much more efficient.</strong> I mean just thinking about the huge number of daily papers across the states carrying the same national and international news <em>on print</em> is enough to make one sick at the waste. Not only does it cost a great deal to publish a print daily but each of these dailies employs editors and layout people to format the same news availible anywhere in their particular style. Many of them even insist on hiring their own reporters even when it's obviously duplicated effort (say reviewing national movies/TV shows). 
<br>
<br> <strong>Once competition drives most local papers to focus on local intersts and everyone to publish online it will free up a quite substantial amount of money for real reporting.</strong> Though actually a lot of what journalists call real reporting is duplicated effort for the sake of status. I mean does it really help the public understand what's going on better to have 40+ journalists at the white house press briefings and who knows how much AV equitment? If they just sent over a single camera crew and agreed on a way to pick questions there would be no harm to the quality of reporting. Much of this is just done because historically that behavior signaled prestige and seriousness in the news industry.
<br>
<br>I don't think the newspapers are doing anything wrong. But when technology lets you accomplish the same job with disruptively less total effort (delivering news to the nation) many people are going to lose their jobs and most of the companies in that industry will go out of buisness. I feel sorry for the people with careers in the industry but I think there is every reason to believe that after things settle down there will be just as much investigative reporting and important journalism. There will just be less redundancy and a more efficient use of reporting resources.</htmltext>
<tokenext>There is a crisis for journalists as a result of the sudden crash in their industry but that crash is n't the result of some horrible failure of the market for journalism .
Just the opposite .
The newspaper industry has hit bottom because the internet has made the buisness of reporting so much more efficient .
I mean just thinking about the huge number of daily papers across the states carrying the same national and international news on print is enough to make one sick at the waste .
Not only does it cost a great deal to publish a print daily but each of these dailies employs editors and layout people to format the same news availible anywhere in their particular style .
Many of them even insist on hiring their own reporters even when it 's obviously duplicated effort ( say reviewing national movies/TV shows ) .
Once competition drives most local papers to focus on local intersts and everyone to publish online it will free up a quite substantial amount of money for real reporting .
Though actually a lot of what journalists call real reporting is duplicated effort for the sake of status .
I mean does it really help the public understand what 's going on better to have 40 + journalists at the white house press briefings and who knows how much AV equitment ?
If they just sent over a single camera crew and agreed on a way to pick questions there would be no harm to the quality of reporting .
Much of this is just done because historically that behavior signaled prestige and seriousness in the news industry .
I do n't think the newspapers are doing anything wrong .
But when technology lets you accomplish the same job with disruptively less total effort ( delivering news to the nation ) many people are going to lose their jobs and most of the companies in that industry will go out of buisness .
I feel sorry for the people with careers in the industry but I think there is every reason to believe that after things settle down there will be just as much investigative reporting and important journalism .
There will just be less redundancy and a more efficient use of reporting resources .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There is a crisis for journalists as a result of the sudden crash in their industry but that crash isn't the result of some horrible failure of the market for journalism.
Just the opposite.
The newspaper industry has hit bottom because the internet has made the buisness of reporting so much more efficient.
I mean just thinking about the huge number of daily papers across the states carrying the same national and international news on print is enough to make one sick at the waste.
Not only does it cost a great deal to publish a print daily but each of these dailies employs editors and layout people to format the same news availible anywhere in their particular style.
Many of them even insist on hiring their own reporters even when it's obviously duplicated effort (say reviewing national movies/TV shows).
Once competition drives most local papers to focus on local intersts and everyone to publish online it will free up a quite substantial amount of money for real reporting.
Though actually a lot of what journalists call real reporting is duplicated effort for the sake of status.
I mean does it really help the public understand what's going on better to have 40+ journalists at the white house press briefings and who knows how much AV equitment?
If they just sent over a single camera crew and agreed on a way to pick questions there would be no harm to the quality of reporting.
Much of this is just done because historically that behavior signaled prestige and seriousness in the news industry.
I don't think the newspapers are doing anything wrong.
But when technology lets you accomplish the same job with disruptively less total effort (delivering news to the nation) many people are going to lose their jobs and most of the companies in that industry will go out of buisness.
I feel sorry for the people with careers in the industry but I think there is every reason to believe that after things settle down there will be just as much investigative reporting and important journalism.
There will just be less redundancy and a more efficient use of reporting resources.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_31_137221.29937813</id>
	<title>Re:Hmmm</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256992260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Thanks for demonstrating you're full of shit in your 2nd sentence, saved me some reading.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Thanks for demonstrating you 're full of shit in your 2nd sentence , saved me some reading .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Thanks for demonstrating you're full of shit in your 2nd sentence, saved me some reading.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_31_137221.29934583</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_31_137221.29935497</id>
	<title>Re:Government media CAN be objective and unbiased.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257012900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>&gt;&gt;&gt;When was the last, really hard hitting documentary you saw on American television?</p><p>Glenn Beck does a virtual documentary every day.  You may think he's an ass or a joke but he is right about one thing: We should be asking questions.  What is the government up to, why are they doing it, and who is behind these decisions?  What, why, who are the questions we should all be asking.</p><p>Rachel Maddow operates a similar program over at MSNBC.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>&gt; &gt; &gt; When was the last , really hard hitting documentary you saw on American television ? Glenn Beck does a virtual documentary every day .
You may think he 's an ass or a joke but he is right about one thing : We should be asking questions .
What is the government up to , why are they doing it , and who is behind these decisions ?
What , why , who are the questions we should all be asking.Rachel Maddow operates a similar program over at MSNBC .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>&gt;&gt;&gt;When was the last, really hard hitting documentary you saw on American television?Glenn Beck does a virtual documentary every day.
You may think he's an ass or a joke but he is right about one thing: We should be asking questions.
What is the government up to, why are they doing it, and who is behind these decisions?
What, why, who are the questions we should all be asking.Rachel Maddow operates a similar program over at MSNBC.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_31_137221.29934573</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_31_137221.29938535</id>
	<title>You get nothing for nothing</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256999760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>what will the government want in return?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>what will the government want in return ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>what will the government want in return?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_31_137221_37</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_31_137221.29934507
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_31_137221.29934625
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_31_137221_40</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_31_137221.29934507
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_31_137221.29934615
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_31_137221_6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_31_137221.29934607
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_31_137221.29934873
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_31_137221_0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_31_137221.29935325
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_31_137221.29936173
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_31_137221_27</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_31_137221.29934433
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_31_137221.29934605
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_31_137221.29937371
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_31_137221_30</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_31_137221.29935325
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_31_137221.29940503
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_31_137221_18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_31_137221.29934381
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_31_137221.29934539
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_31_137221.29935943
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_31_137221_3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_31_137221.29934381
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_31_137221.29935713
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_31_137221_46</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_31_137221.29934449
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_31_137221.29938927
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_31_137221_22</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_31_137221.29934381
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_31_137221.29934603
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_31_137221.29937955
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_31_137221_24</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_31_137221.29934433
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_31_137221.29934605
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_31_137221.29934923
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_31_137221.29935501
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_31_137221_49</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_31_137221.29934433
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_31_137221.29934857
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_31_137221_9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_31_137221.29934433
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_31_137221.29934605
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_31_137221.29934923
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_31_137221.29936103
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_31_137221_17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_31_137221.29934583
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_31_137221.29934891
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_31_137221_16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_31_137221.29935325
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_31_137221.29939781
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_31_137221_10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_31_137221.29935355
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_31_137221.29940109
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_31_137221_44</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_31_137221.29934433
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_31_137221.29934605
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_31_137221.29935011
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_31_137221_35</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_31_137221.29935355
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_31_137221.29936253
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_31_137221_34</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_31_137221.29935325
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_31_137221.29941649
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_31_137221_36</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_31_137221.29934433
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_31_137221.29934573
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_31_137221.29935497
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_31_137221.29948654
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_31_137221_7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_31_137221.29935355
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_31_137221.29935947
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_31_137221_15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_31_137221.29934381
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_31_137221.29934539
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_31_137221.29935137
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_31_137221_1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_31_137221.29934433
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_31_137221.29934573
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_31_137221.29935497
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_31_137221.29937771
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_31_137221_28</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_31_137221.29934433
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_31_137221.29935115
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_31_137221.29935583
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_31_137221_31</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_31_137221.29934381
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_31_137221.29935177
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_31_137221_33</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_31_137221.29934433
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_31_137221.29934605
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_31_137221.29934923
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_31_137221.29935559
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_31_137221.29936915
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_31_137221_47</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_31_137221.29934685
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_31_137221.29935521
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_31_137221_4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_31_137221.29934433
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_31_137221.29934573
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_31_137221.29935497
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_31_137221.29936533
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_31_137221_21</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_31_137221.29934583
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_31_137221.29934843
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_31_137221.29935511
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_31_137221_23</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_31_137221.29934433
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_31_137221.29941501
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_31_137221_25</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_31_137221.29934433
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_31_137221.29934605
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_31_137221.29936503
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_31_137221_26</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_31_137221.29934433
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_31_137221.29934605
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_31_137221.29934923
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_31_137221.29935559
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_31_137221.29940397
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_31_137221_20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_31_137221.29934433
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_31_137221.29934573
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_31_137221.29935497
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_31_137221.29937001
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_31_137221_43</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_31_137221.29934599
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_31_137221.29935677
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_31_137221_45</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_31_137221.29934583
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_31_137221.29934843
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_31_137221.29935667
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_31_137221.29938303
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_31_137221_2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_31_137221.29934433
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_31_137221.29936819
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_31_137221_19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_31_137221.29934507
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_31_137221.29935375
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_31_137221_50</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_31_137221.29934433
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_31_137221.29935505
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_31_137221.29939155
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_31_137221_14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_31_137221.29935355
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_31_137221.29941715
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_31_137221_48</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_31_137221.29934449
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_31_137221.29937471
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_31_137221_39</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_31_137221.29934433
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_31_137221.29934573
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_31_137221.29935855
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_31_137221_51</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_31_137221.29934433
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_31_137221.29934605
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_31_137221.29934923
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_31_137221.29936649
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_31_137221_42</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_31_137221.29934439
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_31_137221.29935831
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_31_137221_8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_31_137221.29934433
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_31_137221.29934751
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_31_137221_38</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_31_137221.29935355
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_31_137221.29935611
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_31_137221_29</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_31_137221.29934583
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_31_137221.29937813
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_31_137221_41</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_31_137221.29934583
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_31_137221.29934843
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_31_137221.29935575
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_31_137221.29938733
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_31_137221_32</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_31_137221.29934433
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_31_137221.29934573
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_31_137221.29935387
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_31_137221_11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_31_137221.29934449
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_31_137221.29938191
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_31_137221_5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_31_137221.29934449
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_31_137221.29935901
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_31_137221_13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_31_137221.29935325
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_31_137221.29936889
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_31_137221_12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_31_137221.29934433
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_31_137221.29934605
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_31_137221.29935425
</commentlist>
</thread>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_31_137221.16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_31_137221.29934545
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_31_137221.8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_31_137221.29935355
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_31_137221.29935947
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_31_137221.29935611
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_31_137221.29940109
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_31_137221.29941715
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_31_137221.29936253
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_31_137221.6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_31_137221.29934985
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_31_137221.9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_31_137221.29934583
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_31_137221.29937813
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_31_137221.29934891
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_31_137221.29934843
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_31_137221.29935575
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_31_137221.29938733
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_31_137221.29935667
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_31_137221.29938303
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_31_137221.29935511
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_31_137221.0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_31_137221.29934617
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_31_137221.7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_31_137221.29935325
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_31_137221.29941649
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_31_137221.29940503
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_31_137221.29936889
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_31_137221.29936173
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_31_137221.29939781
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_31_137221.1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_31_137221.29934507
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_31_137221.29934615
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_31_137221.29934625
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_31_137221.29935375
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_31_137221.4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_31_137221.29934433
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_31_137221.29941501
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_31_137221.29935115
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_31_137221.29935583
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_31_137221.29935505
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_31_137221.29939155
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_31_137221.29934857
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_31_137221.29934751
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_31_137221.29934573
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_31_137221.29935497
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_31_137221.29937771
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_31_137221.29936533
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_31_137221.29948654
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_31_137221.29937001
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_31_137221.29935387
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_31_137221.29935855
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_31_137221.29934605
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_31_137221.29937371
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_31_137221.29935011
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_31_137221.29935425
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_31_137221.29934923
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_31_137221.29936103
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_31_137221.29936649
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_31_137221.29935559
----http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_31_137221.29940397
----http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_31_137221.29936915
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_31_137221.29935501
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_31_137221.29936503
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_31_137221.29936819
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_31_137221.2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_31_137221.29934855
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_31_137221.5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_31_137221.29934607
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_31_137221.29934873
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_31_137221.3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_31_137221.29934449
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_31_137221.29938927
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_31_137221.29935901
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_31_137221.29938191
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_31_137221.29937471
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_31_137221.13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_31_137221.29934439
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_31_137221.29935831
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_31_137221.11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_31_137221.29934381
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_31_137221.29935177
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_31_137221.29935713
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_31_137221.29934603
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_31_137221.29937955
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_31_137221.29934539
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_31_137221.29935943
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_31_137221.29935137
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_31_137221.14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_31_137221.29934685
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_31_137221.29935521
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_31_137221.15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_31_137221.29934749
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_31_137221.12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_31_137221.29934443
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_31_137221.10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_31_137221.29934599
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_31_137221.29935677
</commentlist>
</conversation>
