<article>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#article09_12_04_1350252</id>
	<title>The Noisy and Prolonged Death of Journalism</title>
	<author>kdawson</author>
	<datestamp>1259935020000</datestamp>
	<htmltext>The war of words between the old and the new media is heating up some more. <a href="http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704107104574569570797550520.html?mod=rss\_Today's\_Most\_Popular">Eric Schmidt has an op-ed</a> in Rupert Murdoch's WSJ (ironic, that) explaining to newspapers how Google wants to, and is trying to, help them. Kara Swisher's BoomTown column <a href="http://kara.allthingsd.com/20091203/boomtown-decodes-google-ceo-schmidts-shut-up-you-whiny-news-folk-op-ed-so-you-dont-have-to/">translates and deconstructs</a> Schmidt's argument, hilariously. A few days back, the Washington Post's Michael Gerson became the latest journo to <a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/11/25/AR2009112503534\_pf.html">bemoan the death of journalism</a> at the hands of the Internet; and investigative blogger <a href="http://www.theagitator.com/2009/11/30/dem-thievin-blogs/">Radley Balko quickly called B.S.</a> on Gerson's claim that (all?) bloggers simply steal from (all?) hard-working, honest, ethical print journalists.</htmltext>
<tokenext>The war of words between the old and the new media is heating up some more .
Eric Schmidt has an op-ed in Rupert Murdoch 's WSJ ( ironic , that ) explaining to newspapers how Google wants to , and is trying to , help them .
Kara Swisher 's BoomTown column translates and deconstructs Schmidt 's argument , hilariously .
A few days back , the Washington Post 's Michael Gerson became the latest journo to bemoan the death of journalism at the hands of the Internet ; and investigative blogger Radley Balko quickly called B.S .
on Gerson 's claim that ( all ?
) bloggers simply steal from ( all ?
) hard-working , honest , ethical print journalists .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The war of words between the old and the new media is heating up some more.
Eric Schmidt has an op-ed in Rupert Murdoch's WSJ (ironic, that) explaining to newspapers how Google wants to, and is trying to, help them.
Kara Swisher's BoomTown column translates and deconstructs Schmidt's argument, hilariously.
A few days back, the Washington Post's Michael Gerson became the latest journo to bemoan the death of journalism at the hands of the Internet; and investigative blogger Radley Balko quickly called B.S.
on Gerson's claim that (all?
) bloggers simply steal from (all?
) hard-working, honest, ethical print journalists.</sentencetext>
</article>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1350252.30324940</id>
	<title>Death For Two</title>
	<author>b4upoo</author>
	<datestamp>1259947920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>          The death of news and journalism are highly locked to the trend established in the Reagen era of constantly cutting back on expenses. How many news sources are willing to maintain large staffs of reporters stationed not only in America but in every corner of the world? Knock off a few reporters from their jobs and nothing seems to change at all. So they fire more and more reporters. Then to take up space and try to maintain followers they carry lonely hearts pages or cooking and sports sections. The real news gets lost in the process. And then just to increase the stench in the slime pit they refuse to report anything that might offend their sponsors.<br>
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; The results of this are tragic. Entire elements in society have no faith at all in the news or press. But this does not stop with a bunch of people walking about feeling bitter. It erupts into crime, riots, drug usage and decline in general. This gloomy outlook transfers downward to our young people who do not believe the party line at all. Seeing so many parents who did get degrees and training and still either work way too hard or are not employed at all helps to cause kids quitting school and living only for the moment.<br>
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; If the common man believed the news we would not have had the riots in South Central L.A. and numerous other places.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The death of news and journalism are highly locked to the trend established in the Reagen era of constantly cutting back on expenses .
How many news sources are willing to maintain large staffs of reporters stationed not only in America but in every corner of the world ?
Knock off a few reporters from their jobs and nothing seems to change at all .
So they fire more and more reporters .
Then to take up space and try to maintain followers they carry lonely hearts pages or cooking and sports sections .
The real news gets lost in the process .
And then just to increase the stench in the slime pit they refuse to report anything that might offend their sponsors .
                    The results of this are tragic .
Entire elements in society have no faith at all in the news or press .
But this does not stop with a bunch of people walking about feeling bitter .
It erupts into crime , riots , drug usage and decline in general .
This gloomy outlook transfers downward to our young people who do not believe the party line at all .
Seeing so many parents who did get degrees and training and still either work way too hard or are not employed at all helps to cause kids quitting school and living only for the moment .
                    If the common man believed the news we would not have had the riots in South Central L.A. and numerous other places .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>          The death of news and journalism are highly locked to the trend established in the Reagen era of constantly cutting back on expenses.
How many news sources are willing to maintain large staffs of reporters stationed not only in America but in every corner of the world?
Knock off a few reporters from their jobs and nothing seems to change at all.
So they fire more and more reporters.
Then to take up space and try to maintain followers they carry lonely hearts pages or cooking and sports sections.
The real news gets lost in the process.
And then just to increase the stench in the slime pit they refuse to report anything that might offend their sponsors.
                    The results of this are tragic.
Entire elements in society have no faith at all in the news or press.
But this does not stop with a bunch of people walking about feeling bitter.
It erupts into crime, riots, drug usage and decline in general.
This gloomy outlook transfers downward to our young people who do not believe the party line at all.
Seeing so many parents who did get degrees and training and still either work way too hard or are not employed at all helps to cause kids quitting school and living only for the moment.
                    If the common man believed the news we would not have had the riots in South Central L.A. and numerous other places.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1350252.30324696</id>
	<title>praying for the death of blogs</title>
	<author>peter303</author>
	<datestamp>1259946840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Never waded through so much unedited, infantile crap in my life.
<br>
Unfortunately I dont think this will happen.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Never waded through so much unedited , infantile crap in my life .
Unfortunately I dont think this will happen .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Never waded through so much unedited, infantile crap in my life.
Unfortunately I dont think this will happen.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1350252.30324318</id>
	<title>Mistranslation of "fair use"</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259945160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I thought the "translation" by Swisher was pretty funny, but this part:</p><p>"Also, have you ever heard of &ldquo;fair use&rdquo;? It&rsquo;s the law now<nobr> <wbr></nobr>..."</p><p>Was ridiculous, even for satire.  Fair use has *always* been the law, and newspapers rely on it themselves all the time.  It isn't anything new.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I thought the " translation " by Swisher was pretty funny , but this part : " Also , have you ever heard of    fair use    ?
It    s the law now ... " Was ridiculous , even for satire .
Fair use has * always * been the law , and newspapers rely on it themselves all the time .
It is n't anything new .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I thought the "translation" by Swisher was pretty funny, but this part:"Also, have you ever heard of “fair use”?
It’s the law now ..."Was ridiculous, even for satire.
Fair use has *always* been the law, and newspapers rely on it themselves all the time.
It isn't anything new.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1350252.30324252</id>
	<title>Kara's useless.  What does Bob Cringley say?</title>
	<author>wonkavader</author>
	<datestamp>1259944860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>While slightly amusing, Kara's translation really doesn't explain anything.</p><p>Not helpful at all.</p><p>Her insight into Google's secret plans is roughly "Google has secret plans."  She adds "They're evil."</p><p>Thanks, Kara.  That's helpful.</p><p>Where's Bob Cringley's analysis of Google's position?  I know it must be somewhere...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>While slightly amusing , Kara 's translation really does n't explain anything.Not helpful at all.Her insight into Google 's secret plans is roughly " Google has secret plans .
" She adds " They 're evil .
" Thanks , Kara .
That 's helpful.Where 's Bob Cringley 's analysis of Google 's position ?
I know it must be somewhere.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>While slightly amusing, Kara's translation really doesn't explain anything.Not helpful at all.Her insight into Google's secret plans is roughly "Google has secret plans.
"  She adds "They're evil.
"Thanks, Kara.
That's helpful.Where's Bob Cringley's analysis of Google's position?
I know it must be somewhere...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1350252.30324162</id>
	<title>Re:Rupert Murdock...</title>
	<author>Anonymous Struct</author>
	<datestamp>1259944440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You didn't see major news outlets complaining when their TV ratings were soaring again and again over the last 15 years on hyped up, over-sensationalized stories.  Now they're upset because their relevance is about on par with what you'd read on some guy's blog.  They did this to themselves by sacrificing their credibility for ratings.</p><p>Of course, maybe the real problem is that most people didn't ever actually want the news in the first place.  They just wanted to be entertained, and the internet at large is simply way better than Fox or CNN could ever be in that department.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You did n't see major news outlets complaining when their TV ratings were soaring again and again over the last 15 years on hyped up , over-sensationalized stories .
Now they 're upset because their relevance is about on par with what you 'd read on some guy 's blog .
They did this to themselves by sacrificing their credibility for ratings.Of course , maybe the real problem is that most people did n't ever actually want the news in the first place .
They just wanted to be entertained , and the internet at large is simply way better than Fox or CNN could ever be in that department .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You didn't see major news outlets complaining when their TV ratings were soaring again and again over the last 15 years on hyped up, over-sensationalized stories.
Now they're upset because their relevance is about on par with what you'd read on some guy's blog.
They did this to themselves by sacrificing their credibility for ratings.Of course, maybe the real problem is that most people didn't ever actually want the news in the first place.
They just wanted to be entertained, and the internet at large is simply way better than Fox or CNN could ever be in that department.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1350252.30323168</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1350252.30323964</id>
	<title>journalism is already dead</title>
	<author>david\_bonn</author>
	<datestamp>1259943480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Let's see, the big news stories this week:  (1) Tiger Woods gets in a fender bender after he gets in a fight with his wife, and (2) the White House party crashers apparently lied about other stuff, too.</p><p>Journalism is already dead.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Let 's see , the big news stories this week : ( 1 ) Tiger Woods gets in a fender bender after he gets in a fight with his wife , and ( 2 ) the White House party crashers apparently lied about other stuff , too.Journalism is already dead .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Let's see, the big news stories this week:  (1) Tiger Woods gets in a fender bender after he gets in a fight with his wife, and (2) the White House party crashers apparently lied about other stuff, too.Journalism is already dead.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1350252.30323518</id>
	<title>VLAD FARTED</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259941140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>On a throne of feces surrounded by a diarrhea moat, Vlad rules over his kingdom of filth.  LEAVE THE BABY MARTICOCK ALONE AND go #$#^ yourself lockwood</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>On a throne of feces surrounded by a diarrhea moat , Vlad rules over his kingdom of filth .
LEAVE THE BABY MARTICOCK ALONE AND go # $ # ^ yourself lockwood</tokentext>
<sentencetext>On a throne of feces surrounded by a diarrhea moat, Vlad rules over his kingdom of filth.
LEAVE THE BABY MARTICOCK ALONE AND go #$#^ yourself lockwood</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1350252.30323180</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1350252.30323160</id>
	<title>the real threat will be government intervention</title>
	<author>Shivetya</author>
	<datestamp>1259938980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>seeing an "emergency" someone will step in with government money, more regulation, etc, and it just goes downhill from here.</p><p>Democrat Henry Waxman says that our imperial federal government will be involved in shaping the future of journalism in this country. He claims that it is "essential to U.S. democracy." John Leibowitz, the Chairman of the FTC says, "News is a public good<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... We should be willing to take action if necessary to preserve the news that is vital to democracy."</p><p>See one story at <a href="http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D9CAJBQ80&amp;show\_article=1" title="breitbart.com" rel="nofollow">http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D9CAJBQ80&amp;show\_article=1</a> [breitbart.com]</p><p>I am far less worried about big media companies and the like.  I am more than inclined to fear the Federal Government getting involved.  Worse, they will twist the meaning to lay claim that any press other than "printed" is not covered "exactly" by the Constitution thereby allowing them to "help" out by providing some regulation.  Very similar to how they exploit the fact that Radio isn't specifically listed in the Constitution/BOR and therefor they have a right to affect them.  Sad is how many cheer it on who don't like AM talk radio without understanding that giving the government a foot in the door opens all to the affect.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>seeing an " emergency " someone will step in with government money , more regulation , etc , and it just goes downhill from here.Democrat Henry Waxman says that our imperial federal government will be involved in shaping the future of journalism in this country .
He claims that it is " essential to U.S .
democracy. " John Leibowitz , the Chairman of the FTC says , " News is a public good ... We should be willing to take action if necessary to preserve the news that is vital to democracy .
" See one story at http : //www.breitbart.com/article.php ? id = D9CAJBQ80&amp;show \ _article = 1 [ breitbart.com ] I am far less worried about big media companies and the like .
I am more than inclined to fear the Federal Government getting involved .
Worse , they will twist the meaning to lay claim that any press other than " printed " is not covered " exactly " by the Constitution thereby allowing them to " help " out by providing some regulation .
Very similar to how they exploit the fact that Radio is n't specifically listed in the Constitution/BOR and therefor they have a right to affect them .
Sad is how many cheer it on who do n't like AM talk radio without understanding that giving the government a foot in the door opens all to the affect .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>seeing an "emergency" someone will step in with government money, more regulation, etc, and it just goes downhill from here.Democrat Henry Waxman says that our imperial federal government will be involved in shaping the future of journalism in this country.
He claims that it is "essential to U.S.
democracy." John Leibowitz, the Chairman of the FTC says, "News is a public good ... We should be willing to take action if necessary to preserve the news that is vital to democracy.
"See one story at http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D9CAJBQ80&amp;show\_article=1 [breitbart.com]I am far less worried about big media companies and the like.
I am more than inclined to fear the Federal Government getting involved.
Worse, they will twist the meaning to lay claim that any press other than "printed" is not covered "exactly" by the Constitution thereby allowing them to "help" out by providing some regulation.
Very similar to how they exploit the fact that Radio isn't specifically listed in the Constitution/BOR and therefor they have a right to affect them.
Sad is how many cheer it on who don't like AM talk radio without understanding that giving the government a foot in the door opens all to the affect.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1350252.30325030</id>
	<title>Re:hard-working, honest, ethical print journalists</title>
	<author>Julie188</author>
	<datestamp>1259948280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>This reminds me of the old story<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... when I was a kid I used to walk five miles to school, uphill, both ways!

Anyone can fire up a blog and "be a journalist" which adds a lot of noise to the conversation -- but people have hated/blamed the media since forever. All of these types of journalists have always existed, but there are plenty of hard-working ethical journalists today, too. Want someone to blame? Blame the reader, who is more interested in reading/supporting stories about Tiger Woods love life than an in-depth analysis of the Afghanistan war.

Julie</htmltext>
<tokenext>This reminds me of the old story ... when I was a kid I used to walk five miles to school , uphill , both ways !
Anyone can fire up a blog and " be a journalist " which adds a lot of noise to the conversation -- but people have hated/blamed the media since forever .
All of these types of journalists have always existed , but there are plenty of hard-working ethical journalists today , too .
Want someone to blame ?
Blame the reader , who is more interested in reading/supporting stories about Tiger Woods love life than an in-depth analysis of the Afghanistan war .
Julie</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This reminds me of the old story ... when I was a kid I used to walk five miles to school, uphill, both ways!
Anyone can fire up a blog and "be a journalist" which adds a lot of noise to the conversation -- but people have hated/blamed the media since forever.
All of these types of journalists have always existed, but there are plenty of hard-working ethical journalists today, too.
Want someone to blame?
Blame the reader, who is more interested in reading/supporting stories about Tiger Woods love life than an in-depth analysis of the Afghanistan war.
Julie</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1350252.30323260</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1350252.30325170</id>
	<title>Whatever</title>
	<author>idiotnot</author>
	<datestamp>1259948760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Gerson's perspective is that of someone who's been imbued with the dogma of objective-journalism-is-the-way-and-the-truth.  Fact of the matter is that that idea is relatively new, and was largely a political reaction to his own industry's (print media's) egregiousness in the late 19th and early 20th centuries.  Good morning, Mr. Pulitzer.  Mr. Hearst, how are you today?  Until this backlash started, they weren't called "journalists," they were called "reporters."</p><p>Every person is biased.  Every outlet has biases that seep through (Hello, Green Week on NBC).  You can strive for objectivity, it's unattainable.  To deny that reality is folly.</p><p>If the newspaper conglomerates want to continue operating, they've got to fundamentally change their means of reporting.  The days of sending out a reporter to be there in person, interviewing authoritative sources, interviewing detractors to those authoritative sources, and spitting out an article are over.  "The revolution will not be televised."  No, but it will be tweeted, and if you've got a hundred people saying exactly the same thing, you can report that.  They're missing the big stories, and the outlets who understand where the information flow is are getting them.  TMZ, SmokingGun, National Enquirer, etc. etc.  But the print media's default position, after they're scooped, is to stay mum until they've been able to verify using their 1960s protocols.  Sorry, folks, just doesn't work that way.  And, if they don't adapt, they will die.  Google isn't the problem.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Gerson 's perspective is that of someone who 's been imbued with the dogma of objective-journalism-is-the-way-and-the-truth .
Fact of the matter is that that idea is relatively new , and was largely a political reaction to his own industry 's ( print media 's ) egregiousness in the late 19th and early 20th centuries .
Good morning , Mr. Pulitzer. Mr. Hearst , how are you today ?
Until this backlash started , they were n't called " journalists , " they were called " reporters .
" Every person is biased .
Every outlet has biases that seep through ( Hello , Green Week on NBC ) .
You can strive for objectivity , it 's unattainable .
To deny that reality is folly.If the newspaper conglomerates want to continue operating , they 've got to fundamentally change their means of reporting .
The days of sending out a reporter to be there in person , interviewing authoritative sources , interviewing detractors to those authoritative sources , and spitting out an article are over .
" The revolution will not be televised .
" No , but it will be tweeted , and if you 've got a hundred people saying exactly the same thing , you can report that .
They 're missing the big stories , and the outlets who understand where the information flow is are getting them .
TMZ , SmokingGun , National Enquirer , etc .
etc. But the print media 's default position , after they 're scooped , is to stay mum until they 've been able to verify using their 1960s protocols .
Sorry , folks , just does n't work that way .
And , if they do n't adapt , they will die .
Google is n't the problem .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Gerson's perspective is that of someone who's been imbued with the dogma of objective-journalism-is-the-way-and-the-truth.
Fact of the matter is that that idea is relatively new, and was largely a political reaction to his own industry's (print media's) egregiousness in the late 19th and early 20th centuries.
Good morning, Mr. Pulitzer.  Mr. Hearst, how are you today?
Until this backlash started, they weren't called "journalists," they were called "reporters.
"Every person is biased.
Every outlet has biases that seep through (Hello, Green Week on NBC).
You can strive for objectivity, it's unattainable.
To deny that reality is folly.If the newspaper conglomerates want to continue operating, they've got to fundamentally change their means of reporting.
The days of sending out a reporter to be there in person, interviewing authoritative sources, interviewing detractors to those authoritative sources, and spitting out an article are over.
"The revolution will not be televised.
"  No, but it will be tweeted, and if you've got a hundred people saying exactly the same thing, you can report that.
They're missing the big stories, and the outlets who understand where the information flow is are getting them.
TMZ, SmokingGun, National Enquirer, etc.
etc.  But the print media's default position, after they're scooped, is to stay mum until they've been able to verify using their 1960s protocols.
Sorry, folks, just doesn't work that way.
And, if they don't adapt, they will die.
Google isn't the problem.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1350252.30324152</id>
	<title>Re:the real threat will be government intervention</title>
	<author>Raffaello</author>
	<datestamp>1259944440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>As you suggest, free markets can only self-regulate price, not policy. Otherwise you never would have been able to buy slaves in the free market.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>As you suggest , free markets can only self-regulate price , not policy .
Otherwise you never would have been able to buy slaves in the free market .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>As you suggest, free markets can only self-regulate price, not policy.
Otherwise you never would have been able to buy slaves in the free market.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1350252.30323640</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1350252.30344134</id>
	<title>Re:People want to participate</title>
	<author>Rexdude</author>
	<datestamp>1260124260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Now, we can respond within seconds of an article being published, vent anger or correct mistakes. Add insight and expand the story</p></div><p>Or, as per  Slashdot tradition, dive right into the comments without RTFA!</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Now , we can respond within seconds of an article being published , vent anger or correct mistakes .
Add insight and expand the storyOr , as per Slashdot tradition , dive right into the comments without RTFA !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Now, we can respond within seconds of an article being published, vent anger or correct mistakes.
Add insight and expand the storyOr, as per  Slashdot tradition, dive right into the comments without RTFA!
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1350252.30323424</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1350252.30323272</id>
	<title>It's a Changing World</title>
	<author>flyneye</author>
	<datestamp>1259939580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The wonders of the internet and the change they have brought about.(sigh)<br>When Ford mass produced the "A" and "T" a lot of buggy whip mfg., saddle mfg. and liveries went out of business. Hay production declined in favor of food crops.Horse breeders and trainers suffered. You might say a big industry went teats up. We simply didn't need their services or needed limited quantities. Before that Coach services were displaced by Rail services.<br>
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; When News, Music and Movie industries cannot adapt to serve the needs/desires of their benefactors , they die like dinosaurs in a glacier. Of course there will be a lot of whining about lost jobs and hyperbole about the affected economy, but all in all, it's for the best and I welcome it. These were industries that were not friendly or really helpful to the benefactors (us) so their passing for something better is to be welcomed with open arms, minds and hearts. As for the displaced...They too will have to adapt. In the words of the Judge Smales character in the Movie Caddyshack " Well, Danny, the world needs ditchdiggers too."</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The wonders of the internet and the change they have brought about .
( sigh ) When Ford mass produced the " A " and " T " a lot of buggy whip mfg. , saddle mfg .
and liveries went out of business .
Hay production declined in favor of food crops.Horse breeders and trainers suffered .
You might say a big industry went teats up .
We simply did n't need their services or needed limited quantities .
Before that Coach services were displaced by Rail services .
        When News , Music and Movie industries can not adapt to serve the needs/desires of their benefactors , they die like dinosaurs in a glacier .
Of course there will be a lot of whining about lost jobs and hyperbole about the affected economy , but all in all , it 's for the best and I welcome it .
These were industries that were not friendly or really helpful to the benefactors ( us ) so their passing for something better is to be welcomed with open arms , minds and hearts .
As for the displaced...They too will have to adapt .
In the words of the Judge Smales character in the Movie Caddyshack " Well , Danny , the world needs ditchdiggers too .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The wonders of the internet and the change they have brought about.
(sigh)When Ford mass produced the "A" and "T" a lot of buggy whip mfg., saddle mfg.
and liveries went out of business.
Hay production declined in favor of food crops.Horse breeders and trainers suffered.
You might say a big industry went teats up.
We simply didn't need their services or needed limited quantities.
Before that Coach services were displaced by Rail services.
        When News, Music and Movie industries cannot adapt to serve the needs/desires of their benefactors , they die like dinosaurs in a glacier.
Of course there will be a lot of whining about lost jobs and hyperbole about the affected economy, but all in all, it's for the best and I welcome it.
These were industries that were not friendly or really helpful to the benefactors (us) so their passing for something better is to be welcomed with open arms, minds and hearts.
As for the displaced...They too will have to adapt.
In the words of the Judge Smales character in the Movie Caddyshack " Well, Danny, the world needs ditchdiggers too.
"</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1350252.30326374</id>
	<title>Re:Hello, I am a professional journalist</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259953920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"The Internet collectively calls bullshit and the writer/editor/blog is discredited. The truth makes it out in the time it takes to type it in."</p><p>You must be joking.  The fact that this statement has been modded insightful instead of funny is outright sad.</p><p>The internet does not "rise up!" to fight injustice.  A lot of people pipe up and give their opinion, and in the end the loudest or largets group wins-- right or wrong.</p><p>The best part of your statement, is it's unverifiable.</p><p>Wikipedia was caught referencing a website which referenced wikipedia providing false information (can't remember what singer it was, but it was something about a dead songwriter being misattributed).</p><p>Yes, this one was caught.  But how many go unchecked?  Who can you trust?  Do you trust THE INTERNET?  Because clearly the mostly western, mostly uppermiddle class and mostly white users have no bias of their own.</p><p>There is NO factchecking, NO accountability, and therefore NO truth to be found on the internet.</p><p>The moment everyone is accountable for fixing mistakes, no one is.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" The Internet collectively calls bullshit and the writer/editor/blog is discredited .
The truth makes it out in the time it takes to type it in .
" You must be joking .
The fact that this statement has been modded insightful instead of funny is outright sad.The internet does not " rise up !
" to fight injustice .
A lot of people pipe up and give their opinion , and in the end the loudest or largets group wins-- right or wrong.The best part of your statement , is it 's unverifiable.Wikipedia was caught referencing a website which referenced wikipedia providing false information ( ca n't remember what singer it was , but it was something about a dead songwriter being misattributed ) .Yes , this one was caught .
But how many go unchecked ?
Who can you trust ?
Do you trust THE INTERNET ?
Because clearly the mostly western , mostly uppermiddle class and mostly white users have no bias of their own.There is NO factchecking , NO accountability , and therefore NO truth to be found on the internet.The moment everyone is accountable for fixing mistakes , no one is .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"The Internet collectively calls bullshit and the writer/editor/blog is discredited.
The truth makes it out in the time it takes to type it in.
"You must be joking.
The fact that this statement has been modded insightful instead of funny is outright sad.The internet does not "rise up!
" to fight injustice.
A lot of people pipe up and give their opinion, and in the end the loudest or largets group wins-- right or wrong.The best part of your statement, is it's unverifiable.Wikipedia was caught referencing a website which referenced wikipedia providing false information (can't remember what singer it was, but it was something about a dead songwriter being misattributed).Yes, this one was caught.
But how many go unchecked?
Who can you trust?
Do you trust THE INTERNET?
Because clearly the mostly western, mostly uppermiddle class and mostly white users have no bias of their own.There is NO factchecking, NO accountability, and therefore NO truth to be found on the internet.The moment everyone is accountable for fixing mistakes, no one is.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1350252.30323852</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1350252.30323852</id>
	<title>Re:Hello, I am a professional journalist</title>
	<author>photozz</author>
	<datestamp>1259942880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I'll address the Objectivity thing. Ok, here's two scenarios:</p><p>Print media - Writer and editor let a story slide through with factual errors (IE: most of FOX news). 20 years ago, how would anyone know? Unless we had direct knowledge of the facts, most people would not know the difference. Newspapers at the time were the equivalent of a deaf man on a soapbox yelling at people.  One way communication that the majority of people had to take as the truth, regardless of the actual facts.</p><p>Online media - Writer and editor let a story slide through with factual errors - The Internet collectively calls bullshit and the writer/editor/blog is discredited. The truth makes it out in the time it takes to type it in. We see it every-single-day. A piece of news becomes a discussion and the truth is generally revealed for all. News is reported, investigated, vetted, buried in peat moss and dug back up before being framed for all to see. This is the advantage of the on-line media and one of the reasons I think print media is scared as hell. They can and have been called out on hidden agendas and sloppy reporting.</p><p>Journalism is not dead, just your ability to be the lord high gods of information traffic. I don't mourn it.</p><p>Mot of your comments above boil down to "You can't trust bloggers, they might be sleestak, but you can trust us, cause we're not sleestaks."</p><p>If all print media disappears tomorrow, thousands of other sources will spring up in it's place. It's time to close up the buggy shop and learn to make cars.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'll address the Objectivity thing .
Ok , here 's two scenarios : Print media - Writer and editor let a story slide through with factual errors ( IE : most of FOX news ) .
20 years ago , how would anyone know ?
Unless we had direct knowledge of the facts , most people would not know the difference .
Newspapers at the time were the equivalent of a deaf man on a soapbox yelling at people .
One way communication that the majority of people had to take as the truth , regardless of the actual facts.Online media - Writer and editor let a story slide through with factual errors - The Internet collectively calls bullshit and the writer/editor/blog is discredited .
The truth makes it out in the time it takes to type it in .
We see it every-single-day .
A piece of news becomes a discussion and the truth is generally revealed for all .
News is reported , investigated , vetted , buried in peat moss and dug back up before being framed for all to see .
This is the advantage of the on-line media and one of the reasons I think print media is scared as hell .
They can and have been called out on hidden agendas and sloppy reporting.Journalism is not dead , just your ability to be the lord high gods of information traffic .
I do n't mourn it.Mot of your comments above boil down to " You ca n't trust bloggers , they might be sleestak , but you can trust us , cause we 're not sleestaks .
" If all print media disappears tomorrow , thousands of other sources will spring up in it 's place .
It 's time to close up the buggy shop and learn to make cars .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'll address the Objectivity thing.
Ok, here's two scenarios:Print media - Writer and editor let a story slide through with factual errors (IE: most of FOX news).
20 years ago, how would anyone know?
Unless we had direct knowledge of the facts, most people would not know the difference.
Newspapers at the time were the equivalent of a deaf man on a soapbox yelling at people.
One way communication that the majority of people had to take as the truth, regardless of the actual facts.Online media - Writer and editor let a story slide through with factual errors - The Internet collectively calls bullshit and the writer/editor/blog is discredited.
The truth makes it out in the time it takes to type it in.
We see it every-single-day.
A piece of news becomes a discussion and the truth is generally revealed for all.
News is reported, investigated, vetted, buried in peat moss and dug back up before being framed for all to see.
This is the advantage of the on-line media and one of the reasons I think print media is scared as hell.
They can and have been called out on hidden agendas and sloppy reporting.Journalism is not dead, just your ability to be the lord high gods of information traffic.
I don't mourn it.Mot of your comments above boil down to "You can't trust bloggers, they might be sleestak, but you can trust us, cause we're not sleestaks.
"If all print media disappears tomorrow, thousands of other sources will spring up in it's place.
It's time to close up the buggy shop and learn to make cars.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1350252.30323488</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1350252.30328540</id>
	<title>Re:Hello, I am a professional journalist</title>
	<author>RevWaldo</author>
	<datestamp>1259919600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Quite right - here's a prime example of a story handled two ways, first by a blog, then by a news organization.<br> <br>
(Admittedly it's a <i>stupid</i> story, but it's still a good example.)<br> <br>
This story got rolling by this blog post about a photo of a really big guy not fitting in an airline seat:<br> <br>
<a href="http://www.flightglobal.com/blogs/unusual-attitude/2009/11/passenger-creates-big-debate-a.html" title="flightglobal.com">http://www.flightglobal.com/blogs/unusual-attitude/2009/11/passenger-creates-big-debate-a.html</a> [flightglobal.com] <br> <br>
The blogger hedges his bets on all the "facts" he proffers, stating the story behind the photo was "sent to me with the absolute assurance" of it's authenticity. But even here he's light on the facts, and throws it open to the great unwashed - the commentators - to fill in the gaps. Which they do, many claiming to know what actually happened on the plane. Whether these claims are <i>true</i> are not is another matter. The individuals cannot be verified to see who they are, were they on the plane, and so on.<br> <br>
Now here's what you get when a newspaper handles the story.<br> <br>
(print view)<br>
<a href="http://www.nypost.com/f/print/news/national/should\_this\_man\_be\_able\_to\_fly\_on\_1NoQ5o620LmpkpXtA7tXSP" title="nypost.com">http://www.nypost.com/f/print/news/national/should\_this\_man\_be\_able\_to\_fly\_on\_1NoQ5o620LmpkpXtA7tXSP</a> [nypost.com]
<br>
(web view)<br>
<a href="http://www.nypost.com/p/news/national/should\_this\_man\_be\_able\_to\_fly\_on\_1NoQ5o620LmpkpXtA7tXSP" title="nypost.com">http://www.nypost.com/p/news/national/should\_this\_man\_be\_able\_to\_fly\_on\_1NoQ5o620LmpkpXtA7tXSP</a> [nypost.com]
<br> <br>
Now I make no claim that this is the pinnacle of writing. (The first two sentences - was that really necessary?) And this is the <i>New York Post</i> for fug's sake. But still it has <i>actual facts.</i> Three reporters worked on it. They talked to people. They verified information. They added background. They look things up (presumably not in Wikipedia.)<br> <br>
You can give the blogger some credit for getting this whole mess started, but the photo basically fell in his lap. It took actual journalists to take this thread and turn it into something resembling a rope.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Quite right - here 's a prime example of a story handled two ways , first by a blog , then by a news organization .
( Admittedly it 's a stupid story , but it 's still a good example .
) This story got rolling by this blog post about a photo of a really big guy not fitting in an airline seat : http : //www.flightglobal.com/blogs/unusual-attitude/2009/11/passenger-creates-big-debate-a.html [ flightglobal.com ] The blogger hedges his bets on all the " facts " he proffers , stating the story behind the photo was " sent to me with the absolute assurance " of it 's authenticity .
But even here he 's light on the facts , and throws it open to the great unwashed - the commentators - to fill in the gaps .
Which they do , many claiming to know what actually happened on the plane .
Whether these claims are true are not is another matter .
The individuals can not be verified to see who they are , were they on the plane , and so on .
Now here 's what you get when a newspaper handles the story .
( print view ) http : //www.nypost.com/f/print/news/national/should \ _this \ _man \ _be \ _able \ _to \ _fly \ _on \ _1NoQ5o620LmpkpXtA7tXSP [ nypost.com ] ( web view ) http : //www.nypost.com/p/news/national/should \ _this \ _man \ _be \ _able \ _to \ _fly \ _on \ _1NoQ5o620LmpkpXtA7tXSP [ nypost.com ] Now I make no claim that this is the pinnacle of writing .
( The first two sentences - was that really necessary ?
) And this is the New York Post for fug 's sake .
But still it has actual facts .
Three reporters worked on it .
They talked to people .
They verified information .
They added background .
They look things up ( presumably not in Wikipedia .
) You can give the blogger some credit for getting this whole mess started , but the photo basically fell in his lap .
It took actual journalists to take this thread and turn it into something resembling a rope .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Quite right - here's a prime example of a story handled two ways, first by a blog, then by a news organization.
(Admittedly it's a stupid story, but it's still a good example.
) 
This story got rolling by this blog post about a photo of a really big guy not fitting in an airline seat: 
http://www.flightglobal.com/blogs/unusual-attitude/2009/11/passenger-creates-big-debate-a.html [flightglobal.com]  
The blogger hedges his bets on all the "facts" he proffers, stating the story behind the photo was "sent to me with the absolute assurance" of it's authenticity.
But even here he's light on the facts, and throws it open to the great unwashed - the commentators - to fill in the gaps.
Which they do, many claiming to know what actually happened on the plane.
Whether these claims are true are not is another matter.
The individuals cannot be verified to see who they are, were they on the plane, and so on.
Now here's what you get when a newspaper handles the story.
(print view)
http://www.nypost.com/f/print/news/national/should\_this\_man\_be\_able\_to\_fly\_on\_1NoQ5o620LmpkpXtA7tXSP [nypost.com]

(web view)
http://www.nypost.com/p/news/national/should\_this\_man\_be\_able\_to\_fly\_on\_1NoQ5o620LmpkpXtA7tXSP [nypost.com]
 
Now I make no claim that this is the pinnacle of writing.
(The first two sentences - was that really necessary?
) And this is the New York Post for fug's sake.
But still it has actual facts.
Three reporters worked on it.
They talked to people.
They verified information.
They added background.
They look things up (presumably not in Wikipedia.
) 
You can give the blogger some credit for getting this whole mess started, but the photo basically fell in his lap.
It took actual journalists to take this thread and turn it into something resembling a rope.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1350252.30323488</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1350252.30330908</id>
	<title>Re:Hello, I am a professional journalist</title>
	<author>ByteEnable</author>
	<datestamp>1259931060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>You never start a sentence with "And".  Only the newer generation grammar schooled on the Internet can use conjunctions that way.  Do you not remember the "Conjunction Junction" videos from the past?


<a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mkO87mkgcNo" title="youtube.com" rel="nofollow">http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mkO87mkgcNo</a> [youtube.com]</htmltext>
<tokenext>You never start a sentence with " And " .
Only the newer generation grammar schooled on the Internet can use conjunctions that way .
Do you not remember the " Conjunction Junction " videos from the past ?
http : //www.youtube.com/watch ? v = mkO87mkgcNo [ youtube.com ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You never start a sentence with "And".
Only the newer generation grammar schooled on the Internet can use conjunctions that way.
Do you not remember the "Conjunction Junction" videos from the past?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mkO87mkgcNo [youtube.com]</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1350252.30323488</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1350252.30328554</id>
	<title>Ballon Boy</title>
	<author>DarthVain</author>
	<datestamp>1259919660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If covering the Balloon Boy story counts as journalism, then good riddance.</p><p>I understand that news providers need to make a profit, and I also know that in order to do that people have to pay attention to them, however for the past 10 years or so they haven't been doing themselves many favors.</p><p>Sure the occasional story comes out that is well thought out, well researched, and legitimate journalism. The problem is that these few kernels of truth are usually buried under so much dross you have to be be a severely critical thinker to glean any tangible facts. I take every story I hear now with a HUGE helping of salt regardless of source now, because to compete they all do the same thing. The fear mongering, the shameless celebrity coverage, the over opinionated and never factual left or right (usually right), infotainment etc... all contributes to erode the credibility of the whole. Some try to sneak a grain of true honest reporting, some even seem apologetic about it, but it is all about ratings, and they will push the envelope in order to achieve that. In the end it is about trust, and I have to say, call me paranoid, but I don't trust any of them. The good ones might make a retraction and a apology after making a gaff, but the fact that they pander to the lowest common denominator at all in the first place is what the problem is. Also "Facts" and "Evidence" just seem to get in the way of a story most the time, and I don't think I go a day without hearing something that is plainly wrong, where the "journalist" is either too stupid, too lazy, or too preoccupied with anything but the truth, and often times it is something that doesn't even require all that much specialized knowlege. Anyway that is my rant. The reason they are loosing customers is a matter of trust, why the hell should I believe you who have lied so often before, I think I will check my own sources on the internet thanks. I will be my own journalist, as apparently your not up to the job.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If covering the Balloon Boy story counts as journalism , then good riddance.I understand that news providers need to make a profit , and I also know that in order to do that people have to pay attention to them , however for the past 10 years or so they have n't been doing themselves many favors.Sure the occasional story comes out that is well thought out , well researched , and legitimate journalism .
The problem is that these few kernels of truth are usually buried under so much dross you have to be be a severely critical thinker to glean any tangible facts .
I take every story I hear now with a HUGE helping of salt regardless of source now , because to compete they all do the same thing .
The fear mongering , the shameless celebrity coverage , the over opinionated and never factual left or right ( usually right ) , infotainment etc... all contributes to erode the credibility of the whole .
Some try to sneak a grain of true honest reporting , some even seem apologetic about it , but it is all about ratings , and they will push the envelope in order to achieve that .
In the end it is about trust , and I have to say , call me paranoid , but I do n't trust any of them .
The good ones might make a retraction and a apology after making a gaff , but the fact that they pander to the lowest common denominator at all in the first place is what the problem is .
Also " Facts " and " Evidence " just seem to get in the way of a story most the time , and I do n't think I go a day without hearing something that is plainly wrong , where the " journalist " is either too stupid , too lazy , or too preoccupied with anything but the truth , and often times it is something that does n't even require all that much specialized knowlege .
Anyway that is my rant .
The reason they are loosing customers is a matter of trust , why the hell should I believe you who have lied so often before , I think I will check my own sources on the internet thanks .
I will be my own journalist , as apparently your not up to the job .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If covering the Balloon Boy story counts as journalism, then good riddance.I understand that news providers need to make a profit, and I also know that in order to do that people have to pay attention to them, however for the past 10 years or so they haven't been doing themselves many favors.Sure the occasional story comes out that is well thought out, well researched, and legitimate journalism.
The problem is that these few kernels of truth are usually buried under so much dross you have to be be a severely critical thinker to glean any tangible facts.
I take every story I hear now with a HUGE helping of salt regardless of source now, because to compete they all do the same thing.
The fear mongering, the shameless celebrity coverage, the over opinionated and never factual left or right (usually right), infotainment etc... all contributes to erode the credibility of the whole.
Some try to sneak a grain of true honest reporting, some even seem apologetic about it, but it is all about ratings, and they will push the envelope in order to achieve that.
In the end it is about trust, and I have to say, call me paranoid, but I don't trust any of them.
The good ones might make a retraction and a apology after making a gaff, but the fact that they pander to the lowest common denominator at all in the first place is what the problem is.
Also "Facts" and "Evidence" just seem to get in the way of a story most the time, and I don't think I go a day without hearing something that is plainly wrong, where the "journalist" is either too stupid, too lazy, or too preoccupied with anything but the truth, and often times it is something that doesn't even require all that much specialized knowlege.
Anyway that is my rant.
The reason they are loosing customers is a matter of trust, why the hell should I believe you who have lied so often before, I think I will check my own sources on the internet thanks.
I will be my own journalist, as apparently your not up to the job.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1350252.30326154</id>
	<title>Poor Murdoch</title>
	<author>Latinhypercube</author>
	<datestamp>1259953020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>How ever will the evil cunt survive, we feel soo sorry for him.</htmltext>
<tokenext>How ever will the evil cunt survive , we feel soo sorry for him .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>How ever will the evil cunt survive, we feel soo sorry for him.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1350252.30324962</id>
	<title>Re:the real threat will be government intervention</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259947980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>&ldquo;History is a set of lies agreed upon.&rdquo; ~ Napoleon Bonaparte<br>&ldquo;History is written by the victors.&rdquo; ~ Winston Churchill</p><p>Integrity, honor, and the truth are irrelevant compared to perception.  Lies have been predicated as the truth ever since we had communication.  Even people who witness an event first hand still cannot grasp the truth due to their inherent biases.  People will report what they think is true and people will listen to the source they think is telling the truth.  No more, no less.</p><p>Don't worry, Obama is already trying to regulate the media, maybe in the next 4 years he'll figure out how to do it and you'll get your wish.... I just hope you know what you're wishing for.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>   History is a set of lies agreed upon.    ~ Napoleon Bonaparte    History is written by the victors.    ~ Winston ChurchillIntegrity , honor , and the truth are irrelevant compared to perception .
Lies have been predicated as the truth ever since we had communication .
Even people who witness an event first hand still can not grasp the truth due to their inherent biases .
People will report what they think is true and people will listen to the source they think is telling the truth .
No more , no less.Do n't worry , Obama is already trying to regulate the media , maybe in the next 4 years he 'll figure out how to do it and you 'll get your wish.... I just hope you know what you 're wishing for .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>“History is a set of lies agreed upon.” ~ Napoleon Bonaparte“History is written by the victors.” ~ Winston ChurchillIntegrity, honor, and the truth are irrelevant compared to perception.
Lies have been predicated as the truth ever since we had communication.
Even people who witness an event first hand still cannot grasp the truth due to their inherent biases.
People will report what they think is true and people will listen to the source they think is telling the truth.
No more, no less.Don't worry, Obama is already trying to regulate the media, maybe in the next 4 years he'll figure out how to do it and you'll get your wish.... I just hope you know what you're wishing for.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1350252.30323640</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1350252.30324190</id>
	<title>wee-woo!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259944560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>i, thought there, were too, many, commas. in this, p,o,s,t.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>i , thought there , were too , many , commas .
in this , p,o,s,t .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>i, thought there, were too, many, commas.
in this, p,o,s,t.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1350252.30326578</id>
	<title>Re:Rupert Murdock...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259954580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>What's died is interesting investigative journalism.  If watergate were happening today, we'd never know.  Journalism has eaten itself by striving to provide a constant source of crises in order to string it's increasingly neurotic audience from event to event to keep them glued to the snippets and sound bites released by the news agency in pieces across many installments of their releases.  It's like pulp fiction for the masses.  Today's idea of a 'hard-hitting' journalist is one that asks a senator outright of he has a mistress; it's no longer one that spends months tracking down the source of government corruption in order to expose it to the people.  Mourn the loss of the journalist, not the journalism.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>What 's died is interesting investigative journalism .
If watergate were happening today , we 'd never know .
Journalism has eaten itself by striving to provide a constant source of crises in order to string it 's increasingly neurotic audience from event to event to keep them glued to the snippets and sound bites released by the news agency in pieces across many installments of their releases .
It 's like pulp fiction for the masses .
Today 's idea of a 'hard-hitting ' journalist is one that asks a senator outright of he has a mistress ; it 's no longer one that spends months tracking down the source of government corruption in order to expose it to the people .
Mourn the loss of the journalist , not the journalism .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What's died is interesting investigative journalism.
If watergate were happening today, we'd never know.
Journalism has eaten itself by striving to provide a constant source of crises in order to string it's increasingly neurotic audience from event to event to keep them glued to the snippets and sound bites released by the news agency in pieces across many installments of their releases.
It's like pulp fiction for the masses.
Today's idea of a 'hard-hitting' journalist is one that asks a senator outright of he has a mistress; it's no longer one that spends months tracking down the source of government corruption in order to expose it to the people.
Mourn the loss of the journalist, not the journalism.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1350252.30323168</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1350252.30325118</id>
	<title>Hey, the world is flat.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259948580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I've been listening to Thomas Friedman and his ilk for the past 20 years on how technology and globalization is really my friend.   Well, it will be interesting to see how journalists handle it when any one can publish and be published.</p><p>As a programmer whose experience this, I would suggest that the journalists and publishers consider upgrading their skills so that they can compete with other forms of news on th einternet.   In the end, we'll all be winners.  We'll get great news and our news sources will be superior to what we have today.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 've been listening to Thomas Friedman and his ilk for the past 20 years on how technology and globalization is really my friend .
Well , it will be interesting to see how journalists handle it when any one can publish and be published.As a programmer whose experience this , I would suggest that the journalists and publishers consider upgrading their skills so that they can compete with other forms of news on th einternet .
In the end , we 'll all be winners .
We 'll get great news and our news sources will be superior to what we have today .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I've been listening to Thomas Friedman and his ilk for the past 20 years on how technology and globalization is really my friend.
Well, it will be interesting to see how journalists handle it when any one can publish and be published.As a programmer whose experience this, I would suggest that the journalists and publishers consider upgrading their skills so that they can compete with other forms of news on th einternet.
In the end, we'll all be winners.
We'll get great news and our news sources will be superior to what we have today.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1350252.30330408</id>
	<title>Re:Hello, I am a professional journalist</title>
	<author>Hatta</author>
	<datestamp>1259928000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>People like to heap scorn on traditional journalism, but there's a very good reason for fact-checking, and there's a very good reason for objectivity.</i></p><p>I think you entirely miss the point.  People cheer the death of traditional journalism because they do not perceive traditional journalists as objective or as doing much fact checking at all.   In most cases an article from a blog is going to be better supported with citations than a newspaper article.  In fact, I can't remember the last time I saw a citation in a newspaper article.  Show your work.  Put in notes that say "we checked, this is true(or not), here's the reference". THAT will make it worth my while to read a newspaper again.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>People like to heap scorn on traditional journalism , but there 's a very good reason for fact-checking , and there 's a very good reason for objectivity.I think you entirely miss the point .
People cheer the death of traditional journalism because they do not perceive traditional journalists as objective or as doing much fact checking at all .
In most cases an article from a blog is going to be better supported with citations than a newspaper article .
In fact , I ca n't remember the last time I saw a citation in a newspaper article .
Show your work .
Put in notes that say " we checked , this is true ( or not ) , here 's the reference " .
THAT will make it worth my while to read a newspaper again .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>People like to heap scorn on traditional journalism, but there's a very good reason for fact-checking, and there's a very good reason for objectivity.I think you entirely miss the point.
People cheer the death of traditional journalism because they do not perceive traditional journalists as objective or as doing much fact checking at all.
In most cases an article from a blog is going to be better supported with citations than a newspaper article.
In fact, I can't remember the last time I saw a citation in a newspaper article.
Show your work.
Put in notes that say "we checked, this is true(or not), here's the reference".
THAT will make it worth my while to read a newspaper again.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1350252.30323488</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1350252.30323736</id>
	<title>Re:Rupert Murdock...</title>
	<author>Will.Woodhull</author>
	<datestamp>1259942340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Well, he's trying to be another William Randolph Hearst, only not yet as big and bad as Hearst (who is credited for singlehandedly inventing yellow journalism, and, through his "Remember the Maine!" slogan, for starting the Spanish American War).

</p><p>Hearst had an easier time of it than Murdock, since when Hearst created his empire, he only had to contend with newspaper and telegraph technology: he bought control of the former outright, but found he could sufficiently disrupt opposition use of the telegraph network with small bribes to low level technicians, or flooding the system with junk messages at strategic times. Murdock has found to his chagrin that buying his way into control of the news is not as easy any more. And disrupting the Internet through bribery, spam floods, and DOS attacks isn't as effective as tying up telegraph connections between Washington DC and New York City with multipage transmissions from Websters Dictionary (all for the sake of assuring that the Hearst papers would be able to publish the breaking news hours before any other newspaper could get the story out).

</p><p>Murdock maybe should look for some other hero to emulate, maybe some superhero character of Ayn Rand.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Well , he 's trying to be another William Randolph Hearst , only not yet as big and bad as Hearst ( who is credited for singlehandedly inventing yellow journalism , and , through his " Remember the Maine !
" slogan , for starting the Spanish American War ) .
Hearst had an easier time of it than Murdock , since when Hearst created his empire , he only had to contend with newspaper and telegraph technology : he bought control of the former outright , but found he could sufficiently disrupt opposition use of the telegraph network with small bribes to low level technicians , or flooding the system with junk messages at strategic times .
Murdock has found to his chagrin that buying his way into control of the news is not as easy any more .
And disrupting the Internet through bribery , spam floods , and DOS attacks is n't as effective as tying up telegraph connections between Washington DC and New York City with multipage transmissions from Websters Dictionary ( all for the sake of assuring that the Hearst papers would be able to publish the breaking news hours before any other newspaper could get the story out ) .
Murdock maybe should look for some other hero to emulate , maybe some superhero character of Ayn Rand .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Well, he's trying to be another William Randolph Hearst, only not yet as big and bad as Hearst (who is credited for singlehandedly inventing yellow journalism, and, through his "Remember the Maine!
" slogan, for starting the Spanish American War).
Hearst had an easier time of it than Murdock, since when Hearst created his empire, he only had to contend with newspaper and telegraph technology: he bought control of the former outright, but found he could sufficiently disrupt opposition use of the telegraph network with small bribes to low level technicians, or flooding the system with junk messages at strategic times.
Murdock has found to his chagrin that buying his way into control of the news is not as easy any more.
And disrupting the Internet through bribery, spam floods, and DOS attacks isn't as effective as tying up telegraph connections between Washington DC and New York City with multipage transmissions from Websters Dictionary (all for the sake of assuring that the Hearst papers would be able to publish the breaking news hours before any other newspaper could get the story out).
Murdock maybe should look for some other hero to emulate, maybe some superhero character of Ayn Rand.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1350252.30323168</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1350252.30326130</id>
	<title>Prolonged Death of bad    Journalism ?</title>
	<author>formfeed</author>
	<datestamp>1259952900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Murdoch's business model is based on withholding information. Since his sources are accessible to others just as well, this won't work anymore. On the same note, I'd also welcome the death of the local TV news: "There's something in your drinking water. More after this short break." </p><p> That said, I agree with the warning about blogging: first person accounts can't  replace objective journalism. One of the attractions of bloggers is the seemingly "authentic" view of a person involved with the topic, versus the 3rd person account a journalist offers. And yes, the "true authentic" is often an illusion. Industry is already influencing bloggers, and not everyone discloses their "free samples" they got before writing a review. - Or just the fact, they are writing a review on a sample they got without comparing it to the competitor. Bad bloggers aren't an improvement over bad journalists. </p><p> However, there are many cases where the blogger is better than the traditional journalist: An IT-blogger usually provides better information about a new software release, than the tech column writer in the local paper, who got moved to the tech column last month, because he did such a good job with the obituaries. </p><p> So, why read the paper if I can get the same or more online? Why watch the news about a land slide in South America, if local bloggers have more information available? Yes, these are rhetorical questions. The answer of course is: Because a journalist offers more. Or to turn it around: Where journalism doesn't offer more, it will die. A journalist can connect the dots, analyze, ask questions: Land-slide - Population growth? Deforestation?   </p><p>Where journalists are doing that, journalism still adds value. But, you can't ask good questions about things that sound jibber jabber to you and you can't even achieve anything that resemble an objective presentation of different options, if you are too undereducated (or under-experienced) to realize that there might be more than one way to look at it, or that the opposite of main-stream isn't always "crazy". So, good journalism requires journalists that know things about the things they are reporting, not just how to present things that might interest people who are into these things. That again is bad news for Fox News, but also for people who think, that a CJ-BA will be all it takes to become the next investigative wonder, or that the semester of Japanese will let you write articles that are better than the political blog of a Japanese ex-pat with a PoliSci degree.  </p><p> I hope for the death of bad journalism. Whether this will help good journalism, I don't know. There are journalists I find worth reading. I lived in the US and Germany long enough to know both countries, but Marcia Pally still gives me things to think about. Her articles are also on-line, does that make her a blogger? While missing the boat on some topics, Scholl-Latour usually points out political crisis years before they become daily news. But he too isn't  in the daily-news business. He writes books and does documentaries.</p><p> What about newspapers? I don't know. A local paper can't feed an expert journalist and her family, but it's its access to local news, that keeps the paper alive. Germany has newspaper cooperatives, where international and national news  are done in a central office with the local papers then adding their local content before print. The only major American paper I know of, that does that, is The Onion.. </p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Murdoch 's business model is based on withholding information .
Since his sources are accessible to others just as well , this wo n't work anymore .
On the same note , I 'd also welcome the death of the local TV news : " There 's something in your drinking water .
More after this short break .
" That said , I agree with the warning about blogging : first person accounts ca n't replace objective journalism .
One of the attractions of bloggers is the seemingly " authentic " view of a person involved with the topic , versus the 3rd person account a journalist offers .
And yes , the " true authentic " is often an illusion .
Industry is already influencing bloggers , and not everyone discloses their " free samples " they got before writing a review .
- Or just the fact , they are writing a review on a sample they got without comparing it to the competitor .
Bad bloggers are n't an improvement over bad journalists .
However , there are many cases where the blogger is better than the traditional journalist : An IT-blogger usually provides better information about a new software release , than the tech column writer in the local paper , who got moved to the tech column last month , because he did such a good job with the obituaries .
So , why read the paper if I can get the same or more online ?
Why watch the news about a land slide in South America , if local bloggers have more information available ?
Yes , these are rhetorical questions .
The answer of course is : Because a journalist offers more .
Or to turn it around : Where journalism does n't offer more , it will die .
A journalist can connect the dots , analyze , ask questions : Land-slide - Population growth ?
Deforestation ? Where journalists are doing that , journalism still adds value .
But , you ca n't ask good questions about things that sound jibber jabber to you and you ca n't even achieve anything that resemble an objective presentation of different options , if you are too undereducated ( or under-experienced ) to realize that there might be more than one way to look at it , or that the opposite of main-stream is n't always " crazy " .
So , good journalism requires journalists that know things about the things they are reporting , not just how to present things that might interest people who are into these things .
That again is bad news for Fox News , but also for people who think , that a CJ-BA will be all it takes to become the next investigative wonder , or that the semester of Japanese will let you write articles that are better than the political blog of a Japanese ex-pat with a PoliSci degree .
I hope for the death of bad journalism .
Whether this will help good journalism , I do n't know .
There are journalists I find worth reading .
I lived in the US and Germany long enough to know both countries , but Marcia Pally still gives me things to think about .
Her articles are also on-line , does that make her a blogger ?
While missing the boat on some topics , Scholl-Latour usually points out political crisis years before they become daily news .
But he too is n't in the daily-news business .
He writes books and does documentaries .
What about newspapers ?
I do n't know .
A local paper ca n't feed an expert journalist and her family , but it 's its access to local news , that keeps the paper alive .
Germany has newspaper cooperatives , where international and national news are done in a central office with the local papers then adding their local content before print .
The only major American paper I know of , that does that , is The Onion. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Murdoch's business model is based on withholding information.
Since his sources are accessible to others just as well, this won't work anymore.
On the same note, I'd also welcome the death of the local TV news: "There's something in your drinking water.
More after this short break.
"  That said, I agree with the warning about blogging: first person accounts can't  replace objective journalism.
One of the attractions of bloggers is the seemingly "authentic" view of a person involved with the topic, versus the 3rd person account a journalist offers.
And yes, the "true authentic" is often an illusion.
Industry is already influencing bloggers, and not everyone discloses their "free samples" they got before writing a review.
- Or just the fact, they are writing a review on a sample they got without comparing it to the competitor.
Bad bloggers aren't an improvement over bad journalists.
However, there are many cases where the blogger is better than the traditional journalist: An IT-blogger usually provides better information about a new software release, than the tech column writer in the local paper, who got moved to the tech column last month, because he did such a good job with the obituaries.
So, why read the paper if I can get the same or more online?
Why watch the news about a land slide in South America, if local bloggers have more information available?
Yes, these are rhetorical questions.
The answer of course is: Because a journalist offers more.
Or to turn it around: Where journalism doesn't offer more, it will die.
A journalist can connect the dots, analyze, ask questions: Land-slide - Population growth?
Deforestation?   Where journalists are doing that, journalism still adds value.
But, you can't ask good questions about things that sound jibber jabber to you and you can't even achieve anything that resemble an objective presentation of different options, if you are too undereducated (or under-experienced) to realize that there might be more than one way to look at it, or that the opposite of main-stream isn't always "crazy".
So, good journalism requires journalists that know things about the things they are reporting, not just how to present things that might interest people who are into these things.
That again is bad news for Fox News, but also for people who think, that a CJ-BA will be all it takes to become the next investigative wonder, or that the semester of Japanese will let you write articles that are better than the political blog of a Japanese ex-pat with a PoliSci degree.
I hope for the death of bad journalism.
Whether this will help good journalism, I don't know.
There are journalists I find worth reading.
I lived in the US and Germany long enough to know both countries, but Marcia Pally still gives me things to think about.
Her articles are also on-line, does that make her a blogger?
While missing the boat on some topics, Scholl-Latour usually points out political crisis years before they become daily news.
But he too isn't  in the daily-news business.
He writes books and does documentaries.
What about newspapers?
I don't know.
A local paper can't feed an expert journalist and her family, but it's its access to local news, that keeps the paper alive.
Germany has newspaper cooperatives, where international and national news  are done in a central office with the local papers then adding their local content before print.
The only major American paper I know of, that does that, is The Onion.. </sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1350252.30323488</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1350252.30325806</id>
	<title>News corporations, not 'journalism'</title>
	<author>sherriw</author>
	<datestamp>1259951460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>News corporations and journalists are not the same thing. Where a news corporation's primary concern is to make money by selling information, a good journalist is most interested in discovering truth and making that truth available to the public. The more people the better.</p><p>The Internet has caused a major shakeup, and from the sounds of it a break down of the entities known as news corporations. Will these die at the hands of an open web? Maybe. Most likely if they continue to stubbornly refuse to change.</p><p>However the existence of the dedicated, skilled journalist will only be at risk if he or she insists on tying their fate to the new corps. Twittered and blogged amateur 'news' only goes so far. Ultimately the most reliable, accurate and compelling sources of news will bubble to the top of the public's attention. Will news reporting be as lucrative as it once was? Probably not... but maybe it will become something that the talented journalist does as a side job rather than a full time one. Maybe a new profit model will emerge- who can know what will be needed or wanted in the future. We may reach a point where companies, organizations or individuals will pay by contract for a respected journalist to investigate and report on a specific news item for them. Who knows?</p><p>The point is, I don't see the 'death of journalism' coming, but rather the death of the current news corporation model.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>News corporations and journalists are not the same thing .
Where a news corporation 's primary concern is to make money by selling information , a good journalist is most interested in discovering truth and making that truth available to the public .
The more people the better.The Internet has caused a major shakeup , and from the sounds of it a break down of the entities known as news corporations .
Will these die at the hands of an open web ?
Maybe. Most likely if they continue to stubbornly refuse to change.However the existence of the dedicated , skilled journalist will only be at risk if he or she insists on tying their fate to the new corps .
Twittered and blogged amateur 'news ' only goes so far .
Ultimately the most reliable , accurate and compelling sources of news will bubble to the top of the public 's attention .
Will news reporting be as lucrative as it once was ?
Probably not... but maybe it will become something that the talented journalist does as a side job rather than a full time one .
Maybe a new profit model will emerge- who can know what will be needed or wanted in the future .
We may reach a point where companies , organizations or individuals will pay by contract for a respected journalist to investigate and report on a specific news item for them .
Who knows ? The point is , I do n't see the 'death of journalism ' coming , but rather the death of the current news corporation model .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>News corporations and journalists are not the same thing.
Where a news corporation's primary concern is to make money by selling information, a good journalist is most interested in discovering truth and making that truth available to the public.
The more people the better.The Internet has caused a major shakeup, and from the sounds of it a break down of the entities known as news corporations.
Will these die at the hands of an open web?
Maybe. Most likely if they continue to stubbornly refuse to change.However the existence of the dedicated, skilled journalist will only be at risk if he or she insists on tying their fate to the new corps.
Twittered and blogged amateur 'news' only goes so far.
Ultimately the most reliable, accurate and compelling sources of news will bubble to the top of the public's attention.
Will news reporting be as lucrative as it once was?
Probably not... but maybe it will become something that the talented journalist does as a side job rather than a full time one.
Maybe a new profit model will emerge- who can know what will be needed or wanted in the future.
We may reach a point where companies, organizations or individuals will pay by contract for a respected journalist to investigate and report on a specific news item for them.
Who knows?The point is, I don't see the 'death of journalism' coming, but rather the death of the current news corporation model.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1350252.30324376</id>
	<title>Re:the real threat will be government intervention</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259945520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Yes, good thing all the other news networks are so fair.  I mean, it's not like CNN kisses up to blacks and latinos and MSNBC is the liberal version of FOX.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Yes , good thing all the other news networks are so fair .
I mean , it 's not like CNN kisses up to blacks and latinos and MSNBC is the liberal version of FOX .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yes, good thing all the other news networks are so fair.
I mean, it's not like CNN kisses up to blacks and latinos and MSNBC is the liberal version of FOX.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1350252.30323640</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1350252.30323318</id>
	<title>How about literal death of Journalism?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259939880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>While the Internet may cause 'prolonged death' of traditional journalism, in various countries of the world journalists are being actually killed.  In Russia alone, during the years of <a href="http://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/\%D0\%A1\%D0\%BF\%D0\%B8\%D1\%81\%D0\%BE\%D0\%BA\_\%D0\%B6\%D1\%83\%D1\%80\%D0\%BD\%D0\%B0\%D0\%BB\%D0\%B8\%D1\%81\%D1\%82\%D0\%BE\%D0\%B2,\_\%D1\%83\%D0\%B1\%D0\%B8\%D1\%82\%D1\%8B\%D1\%85\_\%D0\%B2\_\%D0\%A0\%D0\%BE\%D1\%81\%D1\%81\%D0\%B8\%D0\%B8" title="wikipedia.org">Putin/Medvedev about 300 journalists died under various violent circumstances.</a> [wikipedia.org]</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>While the Internet may cause 'prolonged death ' of traditional journalism , in various countries of the world journalists are being actually killed .
In Russia alone , during the years of Putin/Medvedev about 300 journalists died under various violent circumstances .
[ wikipedia.org ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>While the Internet may cause 'prolonged death' of traditional journalism, in various countries of the world journalists are being actually killed.
In Russia alone, during the years of Putin/Medvedev about 300 journalists died under various violent circumstances.
[wikipedia.org]</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1350252.30323762</id>
	<title>Re:Not the Death of Journalism ...</title>
	<author>Interoperable</author>
	<datestamp>1259942460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Journalists will still do reporting and writing for a monetary sum.</p></div><p>They sure will; and that's what's important to realize. I often don't like the way the news industry operates but there is a real need for talented, paid journalists to write informed articles. The model by which the revenue is generated and distributed to the journalists will need to change but the journalists themselves will remain the core of the news.</p><p>As wonderful as user-generated-content is, it isn't a replacement for years of training in journalism. Many bloggers are very talented writers, but generally lack the time and credentials to truly investigate stories. User-submitted stories are great, but only if they reference or can be verified by an independent source with some journalist credentials. The term "blogger" just isn't relevant. A "blogger" with proper journalist credentials who investigates stories is a journalist, a "blogger" who doesn't is an opinion columnist. The fact the the medium is the Internet changes nothing about the content</p><p>The other key element is the editors. I suspect that in a new news model it would be the editors who aggregate user input, assign journalists to investigate and keep the stories well-written and well-informed. To cite an example of where this is being done very effectively (from my own sphere of interest, of course) is Ars Technica. They do an excellent job of providing well-written, research and occasionally even balanced articles on issues within the scope of Tech News. I think many news sites could follow that model to provide, high quality news in niche areas (a niche may local news for a city or national politics, for example).</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Journalists will still do reporting and writing for a monetary sum.They sure will ; and that 's what 's important to realize .
I often do n't like the way the news industry operates but there is a real need for talented , paid journalists to write informed articles .
The model by which the revenue is generated and distributed to the journalists will need to change but the journalists themselves will remain the core of the news.As wonderful as user-generated-content is , it is n't a replacement for years of training in journalism .
Many bloggers are very talented writers , but generally lack the time and credentials to truly investigate stories .
User-submitted stories are great , but only if they reference or can be verified by an independent source with some journalist credentials .
The term " blogger " just is n't relevant .
A " blogger " with proper journalist credentials who investigates stories is a journalist , a " blogger " who does n't is an opinion columnist .
The fact the the medium is the Internet changes nothing about the contentThe other key element is the editors .
I suspect that in a new news model it would be the editors who aggregate user input , assign journalists to investigate and keep the stories well-written and well-informed .
To cite an example of where this is being done very effectively ( from my own sphere of interest , of course ) is Ars Technica .
They do an excellent job of providing well-written , research and occasionally even balanced articles on issues within the scope of Tech News .
I think many news sites could follow that model to provide , high quality news in niche areas ( a niche may local news for a city or national politics , for example ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Journalists will still do reporting and writing for a monetary sum.They sure will; and that's what's important to realize.
I often don't like the way the news industry operates but there is a real need for talented, paid journalists to write informed articles.
The model by which the revenue is generated and distributed to the journalists will need to change but the journalists themselves will remain the core of the news.As wonderful as user-generated-content is, it isn't a replacement for years of training in journalism.
Many bloggers are very talented writers, but generally lack the time and credentials to truly investigate stories.
User-submitted stories are great, but only if they reference or can be verified by an independent source with some journalist credentials.
The term "blogger" just isn't relevant.
A "blogger" with proper journalist credentials who investigates stories is a journalist, a "blogger" who doesn't is an opinion columnist.
The fact the the medium is the Internet changes nothing about the contentThe other key element is the editors.
I suspect that in a new news model it would be the editors who aggregate user input, assign journalists to investigate and keep the stories well-written and well-informed.
To cite an example of where this is being done very effectively (from my own sphere of interest, of course) is Ars Technica.
They do an excellent job of providing well-written, research and occasionally even balanced articles on issues within the scope of Tech News.
I think many news sites could follow that model to provide, high quality news in niche areas (a niche may local news for a city or national politics, for example).
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1350252.30323226</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1350252.30332262</id>
	<title>Let's get a few things straight...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259943540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The internet is killing the news *business*.</p><p>Political bias and dishonesty killed journalism a long time ago.</p><p>The Constitution can guarantee a free press, unfortunately it can't guarantee an honest press; the people must do that.</p><p>As an example, the broadcast news networks still aren't covering the global warming scandal:<br><a href="http://mrc.org/press/releases/2009/20091204124643.aspx" title="mrc.org" rel="nofollow">http://mrc.org/press/releases/2009/20091204124643.aspx</a> [mrc.org] [Media Research Center]</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The internet is killing the news * business * .Political bias and dishonesty killed journalism a long time ago.The Constitution can guarantee a free press , unfortunately it ca n't guarantee an honest press ; the people must do that.As an example , the broadcast news networks still are n't covering the global warming scandal : http : //mrc.org/press/releases/2009/20091204124643.aspx [ mrc.org ] [ Media Research Center ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The internet is killing the news *business*.Political bias and dishonesty killed journalism a long time ago.The Constitution can guarantee a free press, unfortunately it can't guarantee an honest press; the people must do that.As an example, the broadcast news networks still aren't covering the global warming scandal:http://mrc.org/press/releases/2009/20091204124643.aspx [mrc.org] [Media Research Center]</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1350252.30323494</id>
	<title>Re:the real threat will be government intervention</title>
	<author>flyneye</author>
	<datestamp>1259941020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Translation from minitruespeak.<br>
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; "  Democrat(Socialist) Henry Waxman says that our imperial federal government will be involved in shaping the future of journalism(retaining control by preserving disinformation institutions) in this country. He claims that it is "essential to U.S. democracy."(essential to rule of the many by a minority) John Leibowitz, the Chairman of the FTC says, "News is a public good<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... We should be willing to take action if necessary to preserve the news that is vital to democracy(We will use the people tax money against them to retain the power to rule them)"<br>Doubleunplussgood. Quack!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Translation from minitruespeak .
            " Democrat ( Socialist ) Henry Waxman says that our imperial federal government will be involved in shaping the future of journalism ( retaining control by preserving disinformation institutions ) in this country .
He claims that it is " essential to U.S .
democracy. " ( essential to rule of the many by a minority ) John Leibowitz , the Chairman of the FTC says , " News is a public good ... We should be willing to take action if necessary to preserve the news that is vital to democracy ( We will use the people tax money against them to retain the power to rule them ) " Doubleunplussgood .
Quack !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Translation from minitruespeak.
            "  Democrat(Socialist) Henry Waxman says that our imperial federal government will be involved in shaping the future of journalism(retaining control by preserving disinformation institutions) in this country.
He claims that it is "essential to U.S.
democracy."(essential to rule of the many by a minority) John Leibowitz, the Chairman of the FTC says, "News is a public good ... We should be willing to take action if necessary to preserve the news that is vital to democracy(We will use the people tax money against them to retain the power to rule them)"Doubleunplussgood.
Quack!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1350252.30323160</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1350252.30323628</id>
	<title>did they bail out horse and buggy makers too?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259941740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I think it is a bit silly that journalism executives think it is everyone else's responsibility for them to make money.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I think it is a bit silly that journalism executives think it is everyone else 's responsibility for them to make money .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I think it is a bit silly that journalism executives think it is everyone else's responsibility for them to make money.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1350252.30323320</id>
	<title>the newspapers screwed up their business model</title>
	<author>alen</author>
	<datestamp>1259939880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>for years the model was to sell the newspaper for the cost of print and let advertising cover everything else including the profits. in the late 1990's the newspapers should have bought up Ebay and Craigslist or at the very least started a competitor. instead the trust fund babies who run most of the newspapers allowed their content to be commoditized by Google, they lost the advertising market probably because they thought it was beneath them to go online. and now they are crying. the WSJ was an exception to this for a few years, but there are some good financial bloggers out there now that will give them a lot of competition.</p><p>I remember 10 years ago if you wanted to sell your apartment in NYC you had to advertise in the NY Times and pay their ridiculous rates. and the supposedly liberal pro-blue collar newspaper that the NY Times is supposed to be has the snobbiest RE section i've ever seen. on sundays you would see people walking around with a copy of the Real Estate section checking out buildings to buy in. these days the realtors still advertise in the NY Times but it's a generic add with the same properties that probably aren't on the market anymore and the goal is to get people to call the office. not to sell a specific property. all the properties for sale are listed on redfin, craiglist, MLS which is open to everyone now</p><p>and there have been so many new immigrants in the NYC area lately that it makes sense to advertise in their ethnic non-english newspapers as well.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>for years the model was to sell the newspaper for the cost of print and let advertising cover everything else including the profits .
in the late 1990 's the newspapers should have bought up Ebay and Craigslist or at the very least started a competitor .
instead the trust fund babies who run most of the newspapers allowed their content to be commoditized by Google , they lost the advertising market probably because they thought it was beneath them to go online .
and now they are crying .
the WSJ was an exception to this for a few years , but there are some good financial bloggers out there now that will give them a lot of competition.I remember 10 years ago if you wanted to sell your apartment in NYC you had to advertise in the NY Times and pay their ridiculous rates .
and the supposedly liberal pro-blue collar newspaper that the NY Times is supposed to be has the snobbiest RE section i 've ever seen .
on sundays you would see people walking around with a copy of the Real Estate section checking out buildings to buy in .
these days the realtors still advertise in the NY Times but it 's a generic add with the same properties that probably are n't on the market anymore and the goal is to get people to call the office .
not to sell a specific property .
all the properties for sale are listed on redfin , craiglist , MLS which is open to everyone nowand there have been so many new immigrants in the NYC area lately that it makes sense to advertise in their ethnic non-english newspapers as well .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>for years the model was to sell the newspaper for the cost of print and let advertising cover everything else including the profits.
in the late 1990's the newspapers should have bought up Ebay and Craigslist or at the very least started a competitor.
instead the trust fund babies who run most of the newspapers allowed their content to be commoditized by Google, they lost the advertising market probably because they thought it was beneath them to go online.
and now they are crying.
the WSJ was an exception to this for a few years, but there are some good financial bloggers out there now that will give them a lot of competition.I remember 10 years ago if you wanted to sell your apartment in NYC you had to advertise in the NY Times and pay their ridiculous rates.
and the supposedly liberal pro-blue collar newspaper that the NY Times is supposed to be has the snobbiest RE section i've ever seen.
on sundays you would see people walking around with a copy of the Real Estate section checking out buildings to buy in.
these days the realtors still advertise in the NY Times but it's a generic add with the same properties that probably aren't on the market anymore and the goal is to get people to call the office.
not to sell a specific property.
all the properties for sale are listed on redfin, craiglist, MLS which is open to everyone nowand there have been so many new immigrants in the NYC area lately that it makes sense to advertise in their ethnic non-english newspapers as well.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1350252.30323604</id>
	<title>Re:Hello, I am a professional journalist</title>
	<author>svtdragon</author>
	<datestamp>1259941620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I've one simple question for you:<br> <br>

If any or all of that is true, what justification does any ethical journalist have for taking a job at, say, Fox News?</htmltext>
<tokenext>I 've one simple question for you : If any or all of that is true , what justification does any ethical journalist have for taking a job at , say , Fox News ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I've one simple question for you: 

If any or all of that is true, what justification does any ethical journalist have for taking a job at, say, Fox News?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1350252.30323488</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1350252.30323640</id>
	<title>Re:the real threat will be government intervention</title>
	<author>MikeBabcock</author>
	<datestamp>1259941800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>After Fox News won their argument in Florida establishing there was no need for them to report only the truth or facts, I see lots of room for regulation.</p><p>You feel free to believe that a free market can self-regulate, but don't put the media under that umbrella.  We all know what sells, what makes money, and its not good unbiased reporting with lots of research and fact checking.  Those things were only ever done on the basis of personal or imposed integrity, a sense of honour that seems to be mostly lost.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>After Fox News won their argument in Florida establishing there was no need for them to report only the truth or facts , I see lots of room for regulation.You feel free to believe that a free market can self-regulate , but do n't put the media under that umbrella .
We all know what sells , what makes money , and its not good unbiased reporting with lots of research and fact checking .
Those things were only ever done on the basis of personal or imposed integrity , a sense of honour that seems to be mostly lost .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>After Fox News won their argument in Florida establishing there was no need for them to report only the truth or facts, I see lots of room for regulation.You feel free to believe that a free market can self-regulate, but don't put the media under that umbrella.
We all know what sells, what makes money, and its not good unbiased reporting with lots of research and fact checking.
Those things were only ever done on the basis of personal or imposed integrity, a sense of honour that seems to be mostly lost.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1350252.30323160</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1350252.30323686</id>
	<title>Re:hard-working, honest, ethical print journalists</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259942040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Don't kid yourself that there was ever a time when ethical journalists were the norm. There's a reason the most highly coveted prize in journalism is named for a notorious muckraker and yellow journalist.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Do n't kid yourself that there was ever a time when ethical journalists were the norm .
There 's a reason the most highly coveted prize in journalism is named for a notorious muckraker and yellow journalist .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Don't kid yourself that there was ever a time when ethical journalists were the norm.
There's a reason the most highly coveted prize in journalism is named for a notorious muckraker and yellow journalist.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1350252.30323260</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1350252.30324262</id>
	<title>Overreaction... as usual.</title>
	<author>cuby</author>
	<datestamp>1259944920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>Journalism will never die... As the vinyl didn't died either. Why some activity far more important will? <br>
This is stuff printed by hysterical people. There will always exist some form of journalism. The more independent ones (thank good!) will undoubtedly have more success than the mass market ones because there will be less competent bloggers of that type. Mainstream news are more like entertainment, and are suffering just like big music editors or film distributors.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Journalism will never die... As the vinyl did n't died either .
Why some activity far more important will ?
This is stuff printed by hysterical people .
There will always exist some form of journalism .
The more independent ones ( thank good !
) will undoubtedly have more success than the mass market ones because there will be less competent bloggers of that type .
Mainstream news are more like entertainment , and are suffering just like big music editors or film distributors .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Journalism will never die... As the vinyl didn't died either.
Why some activity far more important will?
This is stuff printed by hysterical people.
There will always exist some form of journalism.
The more independent ones (thank good!
) will undoubtedly have more success than the mass market ones because there will be less competent bloggers of that type.
Mainstream news are more like entertainment, and are suffering just like big music editors or film distributors.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1350252.30323618</id>
	<title>Let's break it down, shall we?</title>
	<author>MikeRT</author>
	<datestamp>1259941680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I won't regurgitate most of what Radley Balko said, as his post is probably one of the most insightful I've ever read on this subject, but there are two functions that the papers do or are supposed to do, not one:</p><p>-Aggregate news<br>-Investigative journalism</p><p>Very few do investigative journalism anymore. Most of it is just aggregating and writing up some additional filter around press releases and such. The average crime story is no more nuanced and investigative than regurgitating what the police, prosecutor and defense attorney have to say. Most newspapers do so little investigative journalism that they are, quite frankly, as useless and vestigial to our society's continued liberties as tits on a bull.</p><p>What most newspapers are upset about is the fact that new media is more efficient at cheaply aggregating raw information and sprucing it up with some additional verbage. It's not like they're losing money because others are stealing the hard work of their investigators.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I wo n't regurgitate most of what Radley Balko said , as his post is probably one of the most insightful I 've ever read on this subject , but there are two functions that the papers do or are supposed to do , not one : -Aggregate news-Investigative journalismVery few do investigative journalism anymore .
Most of it is just aggregating and writing up some additional filter around press releases and such .
The average crime story is no more nuanced and investigative than regurgitating what the police , prosecutor and defense attorney have to say .
Most newspapers do so little investigative journalism that they are , quite frankly , as useless and vestigial to our society 's continued liberties as tits on a bull.What most newspapers are upset about is the fact that new media is more efficient at cheaply aggregating raw information and sprucing it up with some additional verbage .
It 's not like they 're losing money because others are stealing the hard work of their investigators .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I won't regurgitate most of what Radley Balko said, as his post is probably one of the most insightful I've ever read on this subject, but there are two functions that the papers do or are supposed to do, not one:-Aggregate news-Investigative journalismVery few do investigative journalism anymore.
Most of it is just aggregating and writing up some additional filter around press releases and such.
The average crime story is no more nuanced and investigative than regurgitating what the police, prosecutor and defense attorney have to say.
Most newspapers do so little investigative journalism that they are, quite frankly, as useless and vestigial to our society's continued liberties as tits on a bull.What most newspapers are upset about is the fact that new media is more efficient at cheaply aggregating raw information and sprucing it up with some additional verbage.
It's not like they're losing money because others are stealing the hard work of their investigators.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1350252.30323432</id>
	<title>Internet killed the Video star</title>
	<author>asv108</author>
	<datestamp>1259940600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Its funny that Schmidt mentions that "Video didn't kill the radio star." Videos were a good promotion outlet for music, but the Internet effectively killed music videos on television.
<p>
Google news is an aggregation of news from various media outlet's websites. Its not going to kill newspapers, but Google news and Internet news in general is conditioning people to expect to get news for free.
</p><p>
In the past, newspapers were subsidized by advertising and subscribers. Unfortunately, Internet advertising is not nearly has effective as print. Sure, ads can be targeted to specific audiences, but they can be blocked, and many savvy Internet users are conditioned to ignore advertisements. Newspaper advertisements are unavoidable, and the randomly placed.
</p><p>
So if people expect to get news for free and the advertising is ineffective, tell me how the Internet and e-readers lead to a promising future for newspapers?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Its funny that Schmidt mentions that " Video did n't kill the radio star .
" Videos were a good promotion outlet for music , but the Internet effectively killed music videos on television .
Google news is an aggregation of news from various media outlet 's websites .
Its not going to kill newspapers , but Google news and Internet news in general is conditioning people to expect to get news for free .
In the past , newspapers were subsidized by advertising and subscribers .
Unfortunately , Internet advertising is not nearly has effective as print .
Sure , ads can be targeted to specific audiences , but they can be blocked , and many savvy Internet users are conditioned to ignore advertisements .
Newspaper advertisements are unavoidable , and the randomly placed .
So if people expect to get news for free and the advertising is ineffective , tell me how the Internet and e-readers lead to a promising future for newspapers ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Its funny that Schmidt mentions that "Video didn't kill the radio star.
" Videos were a good promotion outlet for music, but the Internet effectively killed music videos on television.
Google news is an aggregation of news from various media outlet's websites.
Its not going to kill newspapers, but Google news and Internet news in general is conditioning people to expect to get news for free.
In the past, newspapers were subsidized by advertising and subscribers.
Unfortunately, Internet advertising is not nearly has effective as print.
Sure, ads can be targeted to specific audiences, but they can be blocked, and many savvy Internet users are conditioned to ignore advertisements.
Newspaper advertisements are unavoidable, and the randomly placed.
So if people expect to get news for free and the advertising is ineffective, tell me how the Internet and e-readers lead to a promising future for newspapers?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1350252.30323378</id>
	<title>good riddance</title>
	<author>pydev</author>
	<datestamp>1259940300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Newspapers like the NYT and WSJ deserve to go out of business as far as I'm concerned.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Newspapers like the NYT and WSJ deserve to go out of business as far as I 'm concerned .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Newspapers like the NYT and WSJ deserve to go out of business as far as I'm concerned.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1350252.30326306</id>
	<title>Re:hard-working, honest, ethical print journalists</title>
	<author>Cytotoxic</author>
	<datestamp>1259953560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Read the Radley Balko article linked in the summary and follow the links to his coverage of the medical examiner scandal in Louisiana and Mississippi.  His work is every bit the equal of Woodward et. al. and the scandal he covers is much more serious than Watergate, despite the Watergate scandal's ability to bring down a president.  He uncovers the blatant framing of innocent men for murder and rape (perhaps numbering in the thousands).  He then details the fight to change the system - which was unsuccessful for years, despite the obvious and easy to understand evidence and the simplicity of the solution. This scandal makes spying on your political enemies look like using the wrong salad fork at a formal dinner.  Every murder case in the state went through a single coroner known to be corrupt and incompetent - yet the system continues to defend its own and insist that all of the convictions obtained are correct.  Balko even obtained video of one of the coroner's incompetent consultants manufacturing evidence to frame a man as a child rapist and murderer in the death of a child.  He's a real hero journalist in my book, whether on line or in print.  His articles make for an outstanding read, even if you need to take your blood pressure medicine before reading.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Read the Radley Balko article linked in the summary and follow the links to his coverage of the medical examiner scandal in Louisiana and Mississippi .
His work is every bit the equal of Woodward et .
al. and the scandal he covers is much more serious than Watergate , despite the Watergate scandal 's ability to bring down a president .
He uncovers the blatant framing of innocent men for murder and rape ( perhaps numbering in the thousands ) .
He then details the fight to change the system - which was unsuccessful for years , despite the obvious and easy to understand evidence and the simplicity of the solution .
This scandal makes spying on your political enemies look like using the wrong salad fork at a formal dinner .
Every murder case in the state went through a single coroner known to be corrupt and incompetent - yet the system continues to defend its own and insist that all of the convictions obtained are correct .
Balko even obtained video of one of the coroner 's incompetent consultants manufacturing evidence to frame a man as a child rapist and murderer in the death of a child .
He 's a real hero journalist in my book , whether on line or in print .
His articles make for an outstanding read , even if you need to take your blood pressure medicine before reading .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Read the Radley Balko article linked in the summary and follow the links to his coverage of the medical examiner scandal in Louisiana and Mississippi.
His work is every bit the equal of Woodward et.
al. and the scandal he covers is much more serious than Watergate, despite the Watergate scandal's ability to bring down a president.
He uncovers the blatant framing of innocent men for murder and rape (perhaps numbering in the thousands).
He then details the fight to change the system - which was unsuccessful for years, despite the obvious and easy to understand evidence and the simplicity of the solution.
This scandal makes spying on your political enemies look like using the wrong salad fork at a formal dinner.
Every murder case in the state went through a single coroner known to be corrupt and incompetent - yet the system continues to defend its own and insist that all of the convictions obtained are correct.
Balko even obtained video of one of the coroner's incompetent consultants manufacturing evidence to frame a man as a child rapist and murderer in the death of a child.
He's a real hero journalist in my book, whether on line or in print.
His articles make for an outstanding read, even if you need to take your blood pressure medicine before reading.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1350252.30323260</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1350252.30324866</id>
	<title>I still stand by my point</title>
	<author>Shivetya</author>
	<datestamp>1259947560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>because too many people are still confusing columnist with journalist and their own petty ideology prevents them from distinguishing which is which.   Yet here you trumpet one case in Florida as proof we need more government intervention, yet fail to realize it was the government which approved the view because in the end the judge did the same twisting of law that legislators always do.</p><p>In other words, I am far more inclined to rely on the free market to regulate because there is always the government to bring exceptional cases too.  With the government entrenched then you merely will get the party line and who will you object too?  After all they are "regulated" and as such already are vouched as being truthful.</p><p>I am quite sure both of us can cite "exceptional cases" but it is a meaningless game of tit for tat.</p><p>The simply matter is, we have Congressmen who are more than willing to step in to make sure that information is delivered how they want it and they want to determine what facts are appropriate, let alone what constitutes a fact.  The amazing part is how willing many are to give it to them provided it shuts out viewpoints they object too.</p><p>One case does not make a good example of why we need government regulation, what it does show there is a system in place to highlight these issues.  The fact the courts cannot get it right is only more proof the government is not solution.  Worse, what have they done since then to correct the issue cited?</p><p>The government is already looking to extend the "Fairness Doctrine" into areas other than radio specifically under the guise that "printed press" is all that is truly protected.  They are more than willing to give money to the printed press now that they are adoring fans of the current administration and bills being passed through Congress.  The printed press is more than willing so sell out those who compete against it to maintain their position.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>because too many people are still confusing columnist with journalist and their own petty ideology prevents them from distinguishing which is which .
Yet here you trumpet one case in Florida as proof we need more government intervention , yet fail to realize it was the government which approved the view because in the end the judge did the same twisting of law that legislators always do.In other words , I am far more inclined to rely on the free market to regulate because there is always the government to bring exceptional cases too .
With the government entrenched then you merely will get the party line and who will you object too ?
After all they are " regulated " and as such already are vouched as being truthful.I am quite sure both of us can cite " exceptional cases " but it is a meaningless game of tit for tat.The simply matter is , we have Congressmen who are more than willing to step in to make sure that information is delivered how they want it and they want to determine what facts are appropriate , let alone what constitutes a fact .
The amazing part is how willing many are to give it to them provided it shuts out viewpoints they object too.One case does not make a good example of why we need government regulation , what it does show there is a system in place to highlight these issues .
The fact the courts can not get it right is only more proof the government is not solution .
Worse , what have they done since then to correct the issue cited ? The government is already looking to extend the " Fairness Doctrine " into areas other than radio specifically under the guise that " printed press " is all that is truly protected .
They are more than willing to give money to the printed press now that they are adoring fans of the current administration and bills being passed through Congress .
The printed press is more than willing so sell out those who compete against it to maintain their position .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>because too many people are still confusing columnist with journalist and their own petty ideology prevents them from distinguishing which is which.
Yet here you trumpet one case in Florida as proof we need more government intervention, yet fail to realize it was the government which approved the view because in the end the judge did the same twisting of law that legislators always do.In other words, I am far more inclined to rely on the free market to regulate because there is always the government to bring exceptional cases too.
With the government entrenched then you merely will get the party line and who will you object too?
After all they are "regulated" and as such already are vouched as being truthful.I am quite sure both of us can cite "exceptional cases" but it is a meaningless game of tit for tat.The simply matter is, we have Congressmen who are more than willing to step in to make sure that information is delivered how they want it and they want to determine what facts are appropriate, let alone what constitutes a fact.
The amazing part is how willing many are to give it to them provided it shuts out viewpoints they object too.One case does not make a good example of why we need government regulation, what it does show there is a system in place to highlight these issues.
The fact the courts cannot get it right is only more proof the government is not solution.
Worse, what have they done since then to correct the issue cited?The government is already looking to extend the "Fairness Doctrine" into areas other than radio specifically under the guise that "printed press" is all that is truly protected.
They are more than willing to give money to the printed press now that they are adoring fans of the current administration and bills being passed through Congress.
The printed press is more than willing so sell out those who compete against it to maintain their position.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1350252.30323640</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1350252.30323180</id>
	<title>Imploding markets</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259939100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Sometimes whole thriving markets disappear because of technological advances. Journalism might be such a disappearing market. As a software developer, I look forward to the day when copyrights are abolished and the software sales market disappears.</p><p>However, the lack of a working market doesn't mean the society doesn't want to do something. Thus, we have governments and private sponsors funding scientific research and culture. Some countries are already taxing citizens to fund journalism, TV and radio. A similar model should be eventually be applied to software development, popular music, movies and books as well.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Sometimes whole thriving markets disappear because of technological advances .
Journalism might be such a disappearing market .
As a software developer , I look forward to the day when copyrights are abolished and the software sales market disappears.However , the lack of a working market does n't mean the society does n't want to do something .
Thus , we have governments and private sponsors funding scientific research and culture .
Some countries are already taxing citizens to fund journalism , TV and radio .
A similar model should be eventually be applied to software development , popular music , movies and books as well .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Sometimes whole thriving markets disappear because of technological advances.
Journalism might be such a disappearing market.
As a software developer, I look forward to the day when copyrights are abolished and the software sales market disappears.However, the lack of a working market doesn't mean the society doesn't want to do something.
Thus, we have governments and private sponsors funding scientific research and culture.
Some countries are already taxing citizens to fund journalism, TV and radio.
A similar model should be eventually be applied to software development, popular music, movies and books as well.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1350252.30323406</id>
	<title>Paradigm shifts</title>
	<author>bbbaldie</author>
	<datestamp>1259940420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>Not the death of journalism, just the end of old-style journalism. Nearly every industry in the world has been forced to change with time, but journalism was pretty much TV, radio, and print for 50 years. Now the web is out there. Deal with it.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Not the death of journalism , just the end of old-style journalism .
Nearly every industry in the world has been forced to change with time , but journalism was pretty much TV , radio , and print for 50 years .
Now the web is out there .
Deal with it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Not the death of journalism, just the end of old-style journalism.
Nearly every industry in the world has been forced to change with time, but journalism was pretty much TV, radio, and print for 50 years.
Now the web is out there.
Deal with it.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1350252.30323882</id>
	<title>Re:hard-working, honest, ethical print journalists</title>
	<author>Interoperable</author>
	<datestamp>1259943060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You've mostly listed people who would be considered opinion columnists. What about people who actually just report on general current events by going to locations and interviewing the people who were witness to them. There is no such thing as balanced journalism, but the majority of journalists come very close; they honestly try to present a balanced viewpoint and usually do a good job. My frame of reference is Canadian news sources which, I think, tend to do a very good job in most situations. It may be a bit different in the U.S. (I do get American TV and, yeah, the news is brutally sensationalist but you can distill real information from it).</p><p>It's not the journalists that are the problem, it's that the distributors haven't adapted to the new media that are now available. If you think that user-content can be more fair and balanced than most journalists, I ask of you: <i>have you read slashdot?</i> </p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You 've mostly listed people who would be considered opinion columnists .
What about people who actually just report on general current events by going to locations and interviewing the people who were witness to them .
There is no such thing as balanced journalism , but the majority of journalists come very close ; they honestly try to present a balanced viewpoint and usually do a good job .
My frame of reference is Canadian news sources which , I think , tend to do a very good job in most situations .
It may be a bit different in the U.S. ( I do get American TV and , yeah , the news is brutally sensationalist but you can distill real information from it ) .It 's not the journalists that are the problem , it 's that the distributors have n't adapted to the new media that are now available .
If you think that user-content can be more fair and balanced than most journalists , I ask of you : have you read slashdot ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You've mostly listed people who would be considered opinion columnists.
What about people who actually just report on general current events by going to locations and interviewing the people who were witness to them.
There is no such thing as balanced journalism, but the majority of journalists come very close; they honestly try to present a balanced viewpoint and usually do a good job.
My frame of reference is Canadian news sources which, I think, tend to do a very good job in most situations.
It may be a bit different in the U.S. (I do get American TV and, yeah, the news is brutally sensationalist but you can distill real information from it).It's not the journalists that are the problem, it's that the distributors haven't adapted to the new media that are now available.
If you think that user-content can be more fair and balanced than most journalists, I ask of you: have you read slashdot? </sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1350252.30323260</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1350252.30323514</id>
	<title>Re:the real threat will be government intervention</title>
	<author>NoYob</author>
	<datestamp>1259941140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Sad is how many cheer it on who don't like AM talk radio without understanding that giving the government a foot in the door opens all to the affect.</p></div><p>Isn't that always the case?</p><p>When the Bush Admin was grabbing all this power for the Executive branch, those of us that found it disturbing, were called a few things and we didn't understand the necessity of it since we're in a time of war - or some such non-sense.</p><p>Now comes the <i>Democrats</i> and the Obama Administration. Do the Republicans get it now? Of course not. The Democrats don't get it either, of course, and if they get their way, the inevitable Republicans that <i>will</i> get back power in some future election, will be able to do that same thing. So, in your AM Radio example, if the folks who want that out of the way, well, we just may see our beloved NPR bite the dust. </p><p>Power always flips back and forth - which is a good thing because we'd have a really corrupt government,otherwise - see Venezuela or Iran - if it didn't and I for one welcome the flipping back and forth because in the long run it does limit one sides damage or the others. </p><p>But the trouble is, once Government gets power, it doesn't give it up: regardless of who's in power. Just look at how the Obama Administration kept all the executive power that the Bush Admin took.</p><p>Change indeed.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Sad is how many cheer it on who do n't like AM talk radio without understanding that giving the government a foot in the door opens all to the affect.Is n't that always the case ? When the Bush Admin was grabbing all this power for the Executive branch , those of us that found it disturbing , were called a few things and we did n't understand the necessity of it since we 're in a time of war - or some such non-sense.Now comes the Democrats and the Obama Administration .
Do the Republicans get it now ?
Of course not .
The Democrats do n't get it either , of course , and if they get their way , the inevitable Republicans that will get back power in some future election , will be able to do that same thing .
So , in your AM Radio example , if the folks who want that out of the way , well , we just may see our beloved NPR bite the dust .
Power always flips back and forth - which is a good thing because we 'd have a really corrupt government,otherwise - see Venezuela or Iran - if it did n't and I for one welcome the flipping back and forth because in the long run it does limit one sides damage or the others .
But the trouble is , once Government gets power , it does n't give it up : regardless of who 's in power .
Just look at how the Obama Administration kept all the executive power that the Bush Admin took.Change indeed .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Sad is how many cheer it on who don't like AM talk radio without understanding that giving the government a foot in the door opens all to the affect.Isn't that always the case?When the Bush Admin was grabbing all this power for the Executive branch, those of us that found it disturbing, were called a few things and we didn't understand the necessity of it since we're in a time of war - or some such non-sense.Now comes the Democrats and the Obama Administration.
Do the Republicans get it now?
Of course not.
The Democrats don't get it either, of course, and if they get their way, the inevitable Republicans that will get back power in some future election, will be able to do that same thing.
So, in your AM Radio example, if the folks who want that out of the way, well, we just may see our beloved NPR bite the dust.
Power always flips back and forth - which is a good thing because we'd have a really corrupt government,otherwise - see Venezuela or Iran - if it didn't and I for one welcome the flipping back and forth because in the long run it does limit one sides damage or the others.
But the trouble is, once Government gets power, it doesn't give it up: regardless of who's in power.
Just look at how the Obama Administration kept all the executive power that the Bush Admin took.Change indeed.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1350252.30323160</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1350252.30323488</id>
	<title>Hello, I am a professional journalist</title>
	<author>Tobor the Eighth Man</author>
	<datestamp>1259940960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Let me begin by saying that most comments on<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/. dealing with traditional journalism quickly turn into a bonfire, cheering the death of traditional journalism and heralding blogs as a bright new dawn with untold promises. I think this is wrongheaded, for reasons I'll get to quickly.</p><p>I work for a pretty niche tech magazine as a writer and editor. Much of what I cover is business tech., a lot of venture news and business tech products. It might amuse people how traditionally we do things from a journalistic point of view, since we're frequently writing about the technologies and sites that are changing journalism - editors comb leads and find stories, hand them off to writers who do interviews and then pass the copy back to the editors, who fact-check and rewrite. etc. We have an online component, but we're still very definitely a print publication first.</p><p>I think blogging and new journalism has a lot to offer. The distribution method and quick turnaround is great. They can get and exchange news much quicker than I can, although in my particular niche there's not much urgent news, so being a monthly pub. isn't really a problem. But I also think new journalism has a downside, and I think Gerson is right about many of the things he says (never thought I'd say that).</p><p>First off, objectivity is not dead. No, you can never be perfectly objective. And objectivity doesn't necessarily mean never expressing an opinion. But it does mean disclosing conflicts of interests (not that traditional journalism has always done a good job of this - it hasn't) and trying to be as honest as possible with your readers. My biggest problem with blogging in general, at least as far as replacing traditional journalism, is that so much of it is done by interested parties. Sure, you can get great info about goings on directly from CEOs and the people involved, but oftentimes it's like hearing about a break-up from only one half of the couple. Business being the way it is, once you're working in an industry, you've got some kind of relationship - however tenuous - with everyone else in it.</p><p>I'm not going to name names, but especially in venture and business journalism, many apparently disinterested blogging parties have a history in business themselves, and many are currently engaged in business ventures of their own. There's plenty of people who aren't going to let this cloud their judgment or color their writing, but how can you tell? People talk about new journalism like there's no gatekeepers, but companies and organizations and PR agencies are <b>always</b> going to have gatekeepers. And if it's someone in an industry writing about goings-on in that same industry (which many people see as a big plus for blogging - since, they say, a participant knows more about the situation than an uninvolved third-party journalist), they're going to have a vested interest in not causing too many waves. Sure, some people get big enough or well-read enough that it doesn't matter, and admittedly plenty of lowly traditional journalists have been forbidden from doing a hit piece because they don't have the clout (or their pub. doesn't), but that added conflict of interest certainly can't <b>help</b> matters.</p><p>People like to heap scorn on traditional journalism, but there's a very good reason for fact-checking, and there's a very good reason for objectivity. I'm all for new journalism and I read plenty of blogs. I do think that form of journalism is, more or less, the future. But let's not be quite so hasty to discard everything that made traditional journalism what it was (even if it's tarnished, in this day and age), and let's not be quite so quick to put all our faith in blogging. I'm confident that a more concrete code of ethics will develop in blogging, and bloggers who lie and distort will get weeded out just like traditional journalists who've committed the same transgressions tend to be (eventually), but I'm not quite ready to hang up my sad little hat with the press pass or my dreaded red editor's pen just yet.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Let me begin by saying that most comments on / .
dealing with traditional journalism quickly turn into a bonfire , cheering the death of traditional journalism and heralding blogs as a bright new dawn with untold promises .
I think this is wrongheaded , for reasons I 'll get to quickly.I work for a pretty niche tech magazine as a writer and editor .
Much of what I cover is business tech. , a lot of venture news and business tech products .
It might amuse people how traditionally we do things from a journalistic point of view , since we 're frequently writing about the technologies and sites that are changing journalism - editors comb leads and find stories , hand them off to writers who do interviews and then pass the copy back to the editors , who fact-check and rewrite .
etc. We have an online component , but we 're still very definitely a print publication first.I think blogging and new journalism has a lot to offer .
The distribution method and quick turnaround is great .
They can get and exchange news much quicker than I can , although in my particular niche there 's not much urgent news , so being a monthly pub .
is n't really a problem .
But I also think new journalism has a downside , and I think Gerson is right about many of the things he says ( never thought I 'd say that ) .First off , objectivity is not dead .
No , you can never be perfectly objective .
And objectivity does n't necessarily mean never expressing an opinion .
But it does mean disclosing conflicts of interests ( not that traditional journalism has always done a good job of this - it has n't ) and trying to be as honest as possible with your readers .
My biggest problem with blogging in general , at least as far as replacing traditional journalism , is that so much of it is done by interested parties .
Sure , you can get great info about goings on directly from CEOs and the people involved , but oftentimes it 's like hearing about a break-up from only one half of the couple .
Business being the way it is , once you 're working in an industry , you 've got some kind of relationship - however tenuous - with everyone else in it.I 'm not going to name names , but especially in venture and business journalism , many apparently disinterested blogging parties have a history in business themselves , and many are currently engaged in business ventures of their own .
There 's plenty of people who are n't going to let this cloud their judgment or color their writing , but how can you tell ?
People talk about new journalism like there 's no gatekeepers , but companies and organizations and PR agencies are always going to have gatekeepers .
And if it 's someone in an industry writing about goings-on in that same industry ( which many people see as a big plus for blogging - since , they say , a participant knows more about the situation than an uninvolved third-party journalist ) , they 're going to have a vested interest in not causing too many waves .
Sure , some people get big enough or well-read enough that it does n't matter , and admittedly plenty of lowly traditional journalists have been forbidden from doing a hit piece because they do n't have the clout ( or their pub .
does n't ) , but that added conflict of interest certainly ca n't help matters.People like to heap scorn on traditional journalism , but there 's a very good reason for fact-checking , and there 's a very good reason for objectivity .
I 'm all for new journalism and I read plenty of blogs .
I do think that form of journalism is , more or less , the future .
But let 's not be quite so hasty to discard everything that made traditional journalism what it was ( even if it 's tarnished , in this day and age ) , and let 's not be quite so quick to put all our faith in blogging .
I 'm confident that a more concrete code of ethics will develop in blogging , and bloggers who lie and distort will get weeded out just like traditional journalists who 've committed the same transgressions tend to be ( eventually ) , but I 'm not quite ready to hang up my sad little hat with the press pass or my dreaded red editor 's pen just yet .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Let me begin by saying that most comments on /.
dealing with traditional journalism quickly turn into a bonfire, cheering the death of traditional journalism and heralding blogs as a bright new dawn with untold promises.
I think this is wrongheaded, for reasons I'll get to quickly.I work for a pretty niche tech magazine as a writer and editor.
Much of what I cover is business tech., a lot of venture news and business tech products.
It might amuse people how traditionally we do things from a journalistic point of view, since we're frequently writing about the technologies and sites that are changing journalism - editors comb leads and find stories, hand them off to writers who do interviews and then pass the copy back to the editors, who fact-check and rewrite.
etc. We have an online component, but we're still very definitely a print publication first.I think blogging and new journalism has a lot to offer.
The distribution method and quick turnaround is great.
They can get and exchange news much quicker than I can, although in my particular niche there's not much urgent news, so being a monthly pub.
isn't really a problem.
But I also think new journalism has a downside, and I think Gerson is right about many of the things he says (never thought I'd say that).First off, objectivity is not dead.
No, you can never be perfectly objective.
And objectivity doesn't necessarily mean never expressing an opinion.
But it does mean disclosing conflicts of interests (not that traditional journalism has always done a good job of this - it hasn't) and trying to be as honest as possible with your readers.
My biggest problem with blogging in general, at least as far as replacing traditional journalism, is that so much of it is done by interested parties.
Sure, you can get great info about goings on directly from CEOs and the people involved, but oftentimes it's like hearing about a break-up from only one half of the couple.
Business being the way it is, once you're working in an industry, you've got some kind of relationship - however tenuous - with everyone else in it.I'm not going to name names, but especially in venture and business journalism, many apparently disinterested blogging parties have a history in business themselves, and many are currently engaged in business ventures of their own.
There's plenty of people who aren't going to let this cloud their judgment or color their writing, but how can you tell?
People talk about new journalism like there's no gatekeepers, but companies and organizations and PR agencies are always going to have gatekeepers.
And if it's someone in an industry writing about goings-on in that same industry (which many people see as a big plus for blogging - since, they say, a participant knows more about the situation than an uninvolved third-party journalist), they're going to have a vested interest in not causing too many waves.
Sure, some people get big enough or well-read enough that it doesn't matter, and admittedly plenty of lowly traditional journalists have been forbidden from doing a hit piece because they don't have the clout (or their pub.
doesn't), but that added conflict of interest certainly can't help matters.People like to heap scorn on traditional journalism, but there's a very good reason for fact-checking, and there's a very good reason for objectivity.
I'm all for new journalism and I read plenty of blogs.
I do think that form of journalism is, more or less, the future.
But let's not be quite so hasty to discard everything that made traditional journalism what it was (even if it's tarnished, in this day and age), and let's not be quite so quick to put all our faith in blogging.
I'm confident that a more concrete code of ethics will develop in blogging, and bloggers who lie and distort will get weeded out just like traditional journalists who've committed the same transgressions tend to be (eventually), but I'm not quite ready to hang up my sad little hat with the press pass or my dreaded red editor's pen just yet.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1350252.30323428</id>
	<title>Re:the real threat will be government intervention</title>
	<author>hitmark</author>
	<datestamp>1259940540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>i would fear any organization where not every member of it knows the others on a first name basis.</p><p>especially one where oneself have no say in who runs the show...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>i would fear any organization where not every member of it knows the others on a first name basis.especially one where oneself have no say in who runs the show.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>i would fear any organization where not every member of it knows the others on a first name basis.especially one where oneself have no say in who runs the show...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1350252.30323160</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1350252.30325018</id>
	<title>Re:Hello, I am a professional journalist</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259948220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>People like to heap scorn on traditional journalism, but there's a very good reason for fact-checking, and there's a very good reason for objectivity. I'm all for new journalism and I read plenty of blogs. I do think that form of journalism is, more or less, the future. But let's not be quite so hasty to discard everything that made traditional journalism what it was (even if it's tarnished, in this day and age), and let's not be quite so quick to put all our faith in blogging. I'm confident that a more concrete code of ethics will develop in blogging, and bloggers who lie and distort will get weeded out just like traditional journalists who've committed the same transgressions tend to be (eventually), but I'm not quite ready to hang up my sad little hat with the press pass or my dreaded red editor's pen just yet.</p></div><p>Events in recent memory when the "traditional" press has failed us:</p><ul><li>Presidential Election of 2001 (Bush was an idiot, but the press gave into threats that critical coverage would result in less access in the future).</li><li>Iraq (the press gave into the administration's spin and failing to report the intimidation that led to many editors shying away from critical reporting, particularly about the credibility of "evidence" of weapons of mass destruction, the cost the war, incompetence surrounding the post invasion period and far too many more to list here).</li><li>Domestic wiretapping</li><li>A general failure in critical reporting regarding the housing boom and lending practices that lead to the current economic failures</li><li>Presidential Election of 2008 (it was only after the campaign ended that it was revealed how truly incompetent both the McCain and Clinton camps were...The voters should have known about that as it was happening).</li><li>Continuing interviews with Palin and Cheney - why are these people given air time or column inches? They no longer hold positions of authority and people report their quotes without challenge. They get more air time than Al Gore (who is also largely irrelevant to the political process). Why?</li></ul><p>How many times can you expect to fuck up and still receive a pay check? The press played a role in the eight year clusterfuck of the Bush administration. Too bad if you're out of work, too. Payback's a bitch, aint it?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>People like to heap scorn on traditional journalism , but there 's a very good reason for fact-checking , and there 's a very good reason for objectivity .
I 'm all for new journalism and I read plenty of blogs .
I do think that form of journalism is , more or less , the future .
But let 's not be quite so hasty to discard everything that made traditional journalism what it was ( even if it 's tarnished , in this day and age ) , and let 's not be quite so quick to put all our faith in blogging .
I 'm confident that a more concrete code of ethics will develop in blogging , and bloggers who lie and distort will get weeded out just like traditional journalists who 've committed the same transgressions tend to be ( eventually ) , but I 'm not quite ready to hang up my sad little hat with the press pass or my dreaded red editor 's pen just yet.Events in recent memory when the " traditional " press has failed us : Presidential Election of 2001 ( Bush was an idiot , but the press gave into threats that critical coverage would result in less access in the future ) .Iraq ( the press gave into the administration 's spin and failing to report the intimidation that led to many editors shying away from critical reporting , particularly about the credibility of " evidence " of weapons of mass destruction , the cost the war , incompetence surrounding the post invasion period and far too many more to list here ) .Domestic wiretappingA general failure in critical reporting regarding the housing boom and lending practices that lead to the current economic failuresPresidential Election of 2008 ( it was only after the campaign ended that it was revealed how truly incompetent both the McCain and Clinton camps were...The voters should have known about that as it was happening ) .Continuing interviews with Palin and Cheney - why are these people given air time or column inches ?
They no longer hold positions of authority and people report their quotes without challenge .
They get more air time than Al Gore ( who is also largely irrelevant to the political process ) .
Why ? How many times can you expect to fuck up and still receive a pay check ?
The press played a role in the eight year clusterfuck of the Bush administration .
Too bad if you 're out of work , too .
Payback 's a bitch , aint it ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>People like to heap scorn on traditional journalism, but there's a very good reason for fact-checking, and there's a very good reason for objectivity.
I'm all for new journalism and I read plenty of blogs.
I do think that form of journalism is, more or less, the future.
But let's not be quite so hasty to discard everything that made traditional journalism what it was (even if it's tarnished, in this day and age), and let's not be quite so quick to put all our faith in blogging.
I'm confident that a more concrete code of ethics will develop in blogging, and bloggers who lie and distort will get weeded out just like traditional journalists who've committed the same transgressions tend to be (eventually), but I'm not quite ready to hang up my sad little hat with the press pass or my dreaded red editor's pen just yet.Events in recent memory when the "traditional" press has failed us:Presidential Election of 2001 (Bush was an idiot, but the press gave into threats that critical coverage would result in less access in the future).Iraq (the press gave into the administration's spin and failing to report the intimidation that led to many editors shying away from critical reporting, particularly about the credibility of "evidence" of weapons of mass destruction, the cost the war, incompetence surrounding the post invasion period and far too many more to list here).Domestic wiretappingA general failure in critical reporting regarding the housing boom and lending practices that lead to the current economic failuresPresidential Election of 2008 (it was only after the campaign ended that it was revealed how truly incompetent both the McCain and Clinton camps were...The voters should have known about that as it was happening).Continuing interviews with Palin and Cheney - why are these people given air time or column inches?
They no longer hold positions of authority and people report their quotes without challenge.
They get more air time than Al Gore (who is also largely irrelevant to the political process).
Why?How many times can you expect to fuck up and still receive a pay check?
The press played a role in the eight year clusterfuck of the Bush administration.
Too bad if you're out of work, too.
Payback's a bitch, aint it?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1350252.30323488</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1350252.30323124</id>
	<title>first post</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259938740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>omgrolf lol lol lol lol first post</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>omgrolf lol lol lol lol first post</tokentext>
<sentencetext>omgrolf lol lol lol lol first post</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1350252.30328246</id>
	<title>A newspaper destroyed my wife's frangipani</title>
	<author>MichaelSmith</author>
	<datestamp>1259918580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Thats a plant. Its in the front yard in a pot. One saturday <a href="http://www.theage.com.au/" title="theage.com.au">The Age</a> [theage.com.au], which weighs several kilos on Saturday came flying through the air and broke off a branch.</p><p>Our subscription to The Age came from a neighbour who has moved to another country. I prefer to read that news source on line. Not because it is free, but because it is convenient. The online version is pretty crap and I would pay for the paper version on line, if it meant the frangipani didn't have to have wads of paper chucked at it in the early hours of the morning.</p><p>So today the paper has gone missing. It sometimes winds up in our next door neighbours front yard. Its not there but I notice that the newspaper chuckers are still out in cars bravely keeping journalistic tradition alive. So maybe my bundle of Yesterdays News is still on the way.</p><p>Die already.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Thats a plant .
Its in the front yard in a pot .
One saturday The Age [ theage.com.au ] , which weighs several kilos on Saturday came flying through the air and broke off a branch.Our subscription to The Age came from a neighbour who has moved to another country .
I prefer to read that news source on line .
Not because it is free , but because it is convenient .
The online version is pretty crap and I would pay for the paper version on line , if it meant the frangipani did n't have to have wads of paper chucked at it in the early hours of the morning.So today the paper has gone missing .
It sometimes winds up in our next door neighbours front yard .
Its not there but I notice that the newspaper chuckers are still out in cars bravely keeping journalistic tradition alive .
So maybe my bundle of Yesterdays News is still on the way.Die already .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Thats a plant.
Its in the front yard in a pot.
One saturday The Age [theage.com.au], which weighs several kilos on Saturday came flying through the air and broke off a branch.Our subscription to The Age came from a neighbour who has moved to another country.
I prefer to read that news source on line.
Not because it is free, but because it is convenient.
The online version is pretty crap and I would pay for the paper version on line, if it meant the frangipani didn't have to have wads of paper chucked at it in the early hours of the morning.So today the paper has gone missing.
It sometimes winds up in our next door neighbours front yard.
Its not there but I notice that the newspaper chuckers are still out in cars bravely keeping journalistic tradition alive.
So maybe my bundle of Yesterdays News is still on the way.Die already.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1350252.30325334</id>
	<title>Re:Original blogger reporting</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259949360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>WorldNetDaily.com is composed of insane religious nuts with a strong agenda.  The readership is likewise.</p><p>Otherwise, insightful post.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>WorldNetDaily.com is composed of insane religious nuts with a strong agenda .
The readership is likewise.Otherwise , insightful post .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>WorldNetDaily.com is composed of insane religious nuts with a strong agenda.
The readership is likewise.Otherwise, insightful post.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1350252.30323476</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1350252.30324260</id>
	<title>Re:Hello, I am a professional journalist</title>
	<author>dkleinsc</author>
	<datestamp>1259944920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>As one of those who put up some gripes with modern-day journalism, the biggest problem I was alluding to was not the censorship by the news organizations, which blog-based journalism could remedy, but 5 much more critical problems:<br>1. The mixing of editorializing and reporting. The telltale sign for that is only 1 major source for a story rather than 2 or 3 sources (some of whom disagree with each other).<br>2. The mix of advertising and reporting. This is the big one for the business press. For instance, a story with a headline of "CEO John Doe of Initech announces launch of FlimFlam" combined with an advertising link to buy shares of Initech.<br>3. The dependency of journalists on their sources. This causes all sorts of problems, the most common of which is that the source can threaten to cut off the reporter if the reporter doesn't print something favorable to the source. This is a huge problem in political reporting, because reporter's careers tend to depend on getting and keeping insider sources.<br>4. If 2-3 sources say the same thing, and it's not dug into more deeply, reporters will not infrequently incorrectly assume that the 2-3 sources aren't organized. A classic case of this is the Pentagon paying retired generals to stick to a party line, while reporters were using the retired generals as independent analysts (kudos to the reporters who did look more deeply and figure that one out).<br>5. A perception by a lot of news organizations that speed beats accuracy.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>As one of those who put up some gripes with modern-day journalism , the biggest problem I was alluding to was not the censorship by the news organizations , which blog-based journalism could remedy , but 5 much more critical problems : 1 .
The mixing of editorializing and reporting .
The telltale sign for that is only 1 major source for a story rather than 2 or 3 sources ( some of whom disagree with each other ) .2 .
The mix of advertising and reporting .
This is the big one for the business press .
For instance , a story with a headline of " CEO John Doe of Initech announces launch of FlimFlam " combined with an advertising link to buy shares of Initech.3 .
The dependency of journalists on their sources .
This causes all sorts of problems , the most common of which is that the source can threaten to cut off the reporter if the reporter does n't print something favorable to the source .
This is a huge problem in political reporting , because reporter 's careers tend to depend on getting and keeping insider sources.4 .
If 2-3 sources say the same thing , and it 's not dug into more deeply , reporters will not infrequently incorrectly assume that the 2-3 sources are n't organized .
A classic case of this is the Pentagon paying retired generals to stick to a party line , while reporters were using the retired generals as independent analysts ( kudos to the reporters who did look more deeply and figure that one out ) .5 .
A perception by a lot of news organizations that speed beats accuracy .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>As one of those who put up some gripes with modern-day journalism, the biggest problem I was alluding to was not the censorship by the news organizations, which blog-based journalism could remedy, but 5 much more critical problems:1.
The mixing of editorializing and reporting.
The telltale sign for that is only 1 major source for a story rather than 2 or 3 sources (some of whom disagree with each other).2.
The mix of advertising and reporting.
This is the big one for the business press.
For instance, a story with a headline of "CEO John Doe of Initech announces launch of FlimFlam" combined with an advertising link to buy shares of Initech.3.
The dependency of journalists on their sources.
This causes all sorts of problems, the most common of which is that the source can threaten to cut off the reporter if the reporter doesn't print something favorable to the source.
This is a huge problem in political reporting, because reporter's careers tend to depend on getting and keeping insider sources.4.
If 2-3 sources say the same thing, and it's not dug into more deeply, reporters will not infrequently incorrectly assume that the 2-3 sources aren't organized.
A classic case of this is the Pentagon paying retired generals to stick to a party line, while reporters were using the retired generals as independent analysts (kudos to the reporters who did look more deeply and figure that one out).5.
A perception by a lot of news organizations that speed beats accuracy.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1350252.30323488</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1350252.30323616</id>
	<title>Does the Public Care?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259941680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Or is this debate a ruse to drive traffic to blogs?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Or is this debate a ruse to drive traffic to blogs ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Or is this debate a ruse to drive traffic to blogs?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1350252.30323220</id>
	<title>EXTRA: towncriers out of work due to printingpress</title>
	<author>emptybody</author>
	<datestamp>1259939340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The internet does not replace the journalists aka reporters.</p><p>it is merely changing the distribution.</p><p>The town crier was replaced by the paper boy but journalism, gathering the facts, reporting on events, has lived on.</p><p>it is not the printing press that makes a journalist.</p><p>My big wish is that factual reporting would regain its place ABOVE the opinionated offerings seen on places such as FOXnews.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The internet does not replace the journalists aka reporters.it is merely changing the distribution.The town crier was replaced by the paper boy but journalism , gathering the facts , reporting on events , has lived on.it is not the printing press that makes a journalist.My big wish is that factual reporting would regain its place ABOVE the opinionated offerings seen on places such as FOXnews .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The internet does not replace the journalists aka reporters.it is merely changing the distribution.The town crier was replaced by the paper boy but journalism, gathering the facts, reporting on events, has lived on.it is not the printing press that makes a journalist.My big wish is that factual reporting would regain its place ABOVE the opinionated offerings seen on places such as FOXnews.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1350252.30324922</id>
	<title>Re:Internet killed the Video star</title>
	<author>paiute</author>
	<datestamp>1259947800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Videos were a good promotion outlet for music, but the Internet effectively killed music videos on television.</p></div><p>As I recall, MTV killed the music video by transitioning its programming over to game shows and reality shows until eventually you could not turn on the channel and see a music video for hours. This change was made way before the Internet got big enough tubes to flow a music video to your house.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Videos were a good promotion outlet for music , but the Internet effectively killed music videos on television.As I recall , MTV killed the music video by transitioning its programming over to game shows and reality shows until eventually you could not turn on the channel and see a music video for hours .
This change was made way before the Internet got big enough tubes to flow a music video to your house .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Videos were a good promotion outlet for music, but the Internet effectively killed music videos on television.As I recall, MTV killed the music video by transitioning its programming over to game shows and reality shows until eventually you could not turn on the channel and see a music video for hours.
This change was made way before the Internet got big enough tubes to flow a music video to your house.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1350252.30323432</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1350252.30327404</id>
	<title>Re:the real threat will be government intervention</title>
	<author>MikeBabcock</author>
	<datestamp>1259958000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I love your rose coloured glasses where those younger stations with better business models don't get bought up by the older money of the established stations and turned into member stations like everyone else.</p><p>It happened with print, it happened in TV and it will happen over and over again.  No amount of deregulation is going to help, if anything, it would encourage it.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I love your rose coloured glasses where those younger stations with better business models do n't get bought up by the older money of the established stations and turned into member stations like everyone else.It happened with print , it happened in TV and it will happen over and over again .
No amount of deregulation is going to help , if anything , it would encourage it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I love your rose coloured glasses where those younger stations with better business models don't get bought up by the older money of the established stations and turned into member stations like everyone else.It happened with print, it happened in TV and it will happen over and over again.
No amount of deregulation is going to help, if anything, it would encourage it.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1350252.30324638</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1350252.30323210</id>
	<title>It's not the death of journalism</title>
	<author>davidwr</author>
	<datestamp>1259939280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It's just the death of journalism as we know it.</p><p>Print, TV, and radio news outlets are going to have to decide if they are in the print/tv/radio news or if they are in the business of news.</p><p>If it's the former, they will die.  If its the latter, they can survive if they pay attention.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's just the death of journalism as we know it.Print , TV , and radio news outlets are going to have to decide if they are in the print/tv/radio news or if they are in the business of news.If it 's the former , they will die .
If its the latter , they can survive if they pay attention .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's just the death of journalism as we know it.Print, TV, and radio news outlets are going to have to decide if they are in the print/tv/radio news or if they are in the business of news.If it's the former, they will die.
If its the latter, they can survive if they pay attention.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1350252.30334714</id>
	<title>Re:hard-working, honest, ethical print journalists</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260027060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>News today isn't what it used to be, or at the very least the populace now is far more intelligent than our previous generations.  We are all more aware.  The only solution I have found to combating mass media hysteria is not watching the televised news, and not reading newspapers.  Go online, read articles from around the world, get everyone else&rsquo;s outside opinion, and use your own brain to come to a conclusion.  Don't take what anyone else says as gospel.  Just start to think.</htmltext>
<tokenext>News today is n't what it used to be , or at the very least the populace now is far more intelligent than our previous generations .
We are all more aware .
The only solution I have found to combating mass media hysteria is not watching the televised news , and not reading newspapers .
Go online , read articles from around the world , get everyone else    s outside opinion , and use your own brain to come to a conclusion .
Do n't take what anyone else says as gospel .
Just start to think .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>News today isn't what it used to be, or at the very least the populace now is far more intelligent than our previous generations.
We are all more aware.
The only solution I have found to combating mass media hysteria is not watching the televised news, and not reading newspapers.
Go online, read articles from around the world, get everyone else’s outside opinion, and use your own brain to come to a conclusion.
Don't take what anyone else says as gospel.
Just start to think.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1350252.30323686</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1350252.30323782</id>
	<title>Re:Hello, I am a professional journalist</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259942520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Don't Worry. For every angry Slashdot commenter who thinks that journalism means being able to set up a WordPress blog, there are 10 people who appreciate and recognise the difference between that and an institution with time, contacts and trained writers to produce informative, well researched and readable pieces.</p><p>Geeks, like any group spearheading some new wave, think that <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZMVql9RLP34" title="youtube.com" rel="nofollow">tomorrow belongs to them</a> [youtube.com]. They judge traditional methods by the worst excesses, whether that is bashing Fox News or whining about how centralisation inevitably means corporate interests are pandered to. This is as wrong as judging the good bloggers by the 99\% of personal/PR blogs with no journalistic worth whatsoever.</p><p>Journalistic skill remains not about the medium used to impart information, but about the quality of the information itself. A close relation recently retired as director of the journalism department in a major London University, and he was not worried about the death of journalism as a discipline. Yes, a significant number in the past have chosen to follow The Sun, or The Daily Mail, or Fox News... and these will be the same people who migrate to the entertaining, shallow rants you find in most blogs online. Meanwhile, those who enjoy a newspaper which requires intellectual effort to read will be attracted to similar articles online, and will (and do) choose to pay for electronic subscriptions -- though usually not in preference to the print edition, while it still exists. Again, the geeks underestimate the usability of sheets of paper.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Do n't Worry .
For every angry Slashdot commenter who thinks that journalism means being able to set up a WordPress blog , there are 10 people who appreciate and recognise the difference between that and an institution with time , contacts and trained writers to produce informative , well researched and readable pieces.Geeks , like any group spearheading some new wave , think that tomorrow belongs to them [ youtube.com ] .
They judge traditional methods by the worst excesses , whether that is bashing Fox News or whining about how centralisation inevitably means corporate interests are pandered to .
This is as wrong as judging the good bloggers by the 99 \ % of personal/PR blogs with no journalistic worth whatsoever.Journalistic skill remains not about the medium used to impart information , but about the quality of the information itself .
A close relation recently retired as director of the journalism department in a major London University , and he was not worried about the death of journalism as a discipline .
Yes , a significant number in the past have chosen to follow The Sun , or The Daily Mail , or Fox News... and these will be the same people who migrate to the entertaining , shallow rants you find in most blogs online .
Meanwhile , those who enjoy a newspaper which requires intellectual effort to read will be attracted to similar articles online , and will ( and do ) choose to pay for electronic subscriptions -- though usually not in preference to the print edition , while it still exists .
Again , the geeks underestimate the usability of sheets of paper .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Don't Worry.
For every angry Slashdot commenter who thinks that journalism means being able to set up a WordPress blog, there are 10 people who appreciate and recognise the difference between that and an institution with time, contacts and trained writers to produce informative, well researched and readable pieces.Geeks, like any group spearheading some new wave, think that tomorrow belongs to them [youtube.com].
They judge traditional methods by the worst excesses, whether that is bashing Fox News or whining about how centralisation inevitably means corporate interests are pandered to.
This is as wrong as judging the good bloggers by the 99\% of personal/PR blogs with no journalistic worth whatsoever.Journalistic skill remains not about the medium used to impart information, but about the quality of the information itself.
A close relation recently retired as director of the journalism department in a major London University, and he was not worried about the death of journalism as a discipline.
Yes, a significant number in the past have chosen to follow The Sun, or The Daily Mail, or Fox News... and these will be the same people who migrate to the entertaining, shallow rants you find in most blogs online.
Meanwhile, those who enjoy a newspaper which requires intellectual effort to read will be attracted to similar articles online, and will (and do) choose to pay for electronic subscriptions -- though usually not in preference to the print edition, while it still exists.
Again, the geeks underestimate the usability of sheets of paper.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1350252.30323488</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1350252.30323536</id>
	<title>Already tired of these stories</title>
	<author>smchris</author>
	<datestamp>1259941260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It's like the newspapers were the last to notice that they were dying.  Which \_so\_ highlights the underlying problem.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's like the newspapers were the last to notice that they were dying .
Which \ _so \ _ highlights the underlying problem .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's like the newspapers were the last to notice that they were dying.
Which \_so\_ highlights the underlying problem.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1350252.30324148</id>
	<title>JOURNALISM DIES EVERYTIME</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259944380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Flamebait</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The libtard tools in the MSM decide to stop being journalists and not allow their bias to permeate all and this occurs daily.</p><p>Whether its Global Warming and the current scandal<br>The election of President Tool sitting in the Oval Office now<br>The Wars of recent years and the reasoning<br>9/11<br>The Economy<br>Religion<br>The Environment<br>Health Care<br>Capitalism</p><p>All just tips of very large and allegedly melting icebergs</p><p>Fuck Journalism and Journalists, they are already dead to me</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The libtard tools in the MSM decide to stop being journalists and not allow their bias to permeate all and this occurs daily.Whether its Global Warming and the current scandalThe election of President Tool sitting in the Oval Office nowThe Wars of recent years and the reasoning9/11The EconomyReligionThe EnvironmentHealth CareCapitalismAll just tips of very large and allegedly melting icebergsFuck Journalism and Journalists , they are already dead to me</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The libtard tools in the MSM decide to stop being journalists and not allow their bias to permeate all and this occurs daily.Whether its Global Warming and the current scandalThe election of President Tool sitting in the Oval Office nowThe Wars of recent years and the reasoning9/11The EconomyReligionThe EnvironmentHealth CareCapitalismAll just tips of very large and allegedly melting icebergsFuck Journalism and Journalists, they are already dead to me</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1350252.30324808</id>
	<title>Re:Internet killed the Video star</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259947320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Videos were a good promotion outlet for music, but the Internet effectively killed music videos on television.</p></div><p>I thought MTV did that when they started showing all sorts of stupid non-music video bullshit on MTV and put the videos on MTV2 which not everyone's cable companies carried.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Videos were a good promotion outlet for music , but the Internet effectively killed music videos on television.I thought MTV did that when they started showing all sorts of stupid non-music video bullshit on MTV and put the videos on MTV2 which not everyone 's cable companies carried .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Videos were a good promotion outlet for music, but the Internet effectively killed music videos on television.I thought MTV did that when they started showing all sorts of stupid non-music video bullshit on MTV and put the videos on MTV2 which not everyone's cable companies carried.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1350252.30323432</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1350252.30323558</id>
	<title>Fanboy Purge of 2010</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259941380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Fanboy Purge of 2010 can't come quickly enough for me.</p><p>Are we going to put them all on some sort of ark vessel and shoot them into space, or are we going to have public hangings?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Fanboy Purge of 2010 ca n't come quickly enough for me.Are we going to put them all on some sort of ark vessel and shoot them into space , or are we going to have public hangings ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Fanboy Purge of 2010 can't come quickly enough for me.Are we going to put them all on some sort of ark vessel and shoot them into space, or are we going to have public hangings?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1350252.30333472</id>
	<title>Then again -</title>
	<author>Geminii</author>
	<datestamp>1260004860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If the internet kills international and national papers, leaving only local publications filled mainly with local stories, that could mean that stories become much more likely to be reported on, edited, and published by people who live locally to those same stories.
</p><p>
If they get something wrong, or present a biased political view, they're more likely to see circulation affected and people turning up at their offices in person. I wonder what it would do for journalistic integrity to actually be under scrutiny by the very people they write about - especially when they're trying to then sell the paper to those very same people, their friends and relatives etc.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If the internet kills international and national papers , leaving only local publications filled mainly with local stories , that could mean that stories become much more likely to be reported on , edited , and published by people who live locally to those same stories .
If they get something wrong , or present a biased political view , they 're more likely to see circulation affected and people turning up at their offices in person .
I wonder what it would do for journalistic integrity to actually be under scrutiny by the very people they write about - especially when they 're trying to then sell the paper to those very same people , their friends and relatives etc .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If the internet kills international and national papers, leaving only local publications filled mainly with local stories, that could mean that stories become much more likely to be reported on, edited, and published by people who live locally to those same stories.
If they get something wrong, or present a biased political view, they're more likely to see circulation affected and people turning up at their offices in person.
I wonder what it would do for journalistic integrity to actually be under scrutiny by the very people they write about - especially when they're trying to then sell the paper to those very same people, their friends and relatives etc.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1350252.30328792</id>
	<title>Hey journalists ! Hear this !</title>
	<author>unity100</author>
	<datestamp>1259920800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Internet is come. 21st century is come.</p><p>either adapt, or perish. we, 'the people', wont support or tolerate anything against the values of digital, free 21st century world.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Internet is come .
21st century is come.either adapt , or perish .
we , 'the people ' , wont support or tolerate anything against the values of digital , free 21st century world .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Internet is come.
21st century is come.either adapt, or perish.
we, 'the people', wont support or tolerate anything against the values of digital, free 21st century world.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1350252.30323594</id>
	<title>Re:hard-working, honest, ethical print journalists</title>
	<author>alen</author>
	<datestamp>1259941560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>perfect example is the congressman from california a few years ago who was thought to have had an intern killed that he was supposed to have an affair with. the media "alleged" he was guilty before he was even arrested</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>perfect example is the congressman from california a few years ago who was thought to have had an intern killed that he was supposed to have an affair with .
the media " alleged " he was guilty before he was even arrested</tokentext>
<sentencetext>perfect example is the congressman from california a few years ago who was thought to have had an intern killed that he was supposed to have an affair with.
the media "alleged" he was guilty before he was even arrested</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1350252.30323260</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1350252.30323340</id>
	<title>Welcome to the real world</title>
	<author>AmiMoJo</author>
	<datestamp>1259940060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The idea that if I read about something in a paper I should not be allowed to blog it is absurd. It always has been, only now journalists are having to compete with this new thing called the internet and the value of their service is being driven down.</p><p>We see this happening over and over again. You have to adapt, that's all there is to say about it.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The idea that if I read about something in a paper I should not be allowed to blog it is absurd .
It always has been , only now journalists are having to compete with this new thing called the internet and the value of their service is being driven down.We see this happening over and over again .
You have to adapt , that 's all there is to say about it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The idea that if I read about something in a paper I should not be allowed to blog it is absurd.
It always has been, only now journalists are having to compete with this new thing called the internet and the value of their service is being driven down.We see this happening over and over again.
You have to adapt, that's all there is to say about it.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1350252.30323570</id>
	<title>Re:It's not the death of journalism</title>
	<author>Chris Mattern</author>
	<datestamp>1259941380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>It's just the death of journalism as we know it.</p></div></blockquote><p>And I feel fine!</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's just the death of journalism as we know it.And I feel fine !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's just the death of journalism as we know it.And I feel fine!
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1350252.30323210</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1350252.30323476</id>
	<title>Original blogger reporting</title>
	<author>michaelmalak</author>
	<datestamp>1259940900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><ol> <li>WorldNetDaily.com does its own investigative reporting and is always trying to get press credentials to events.  Sometimes they get them, and sometimes they don't since they are not "traditional media".</li><li>We Are Change is an entire nationwide network of aggressive news gatherers.</li><li>One of Alex Jones' early exploits was to crash the Bohemian Grove and report on it.</li><li>Many of the armchair bloggers such as myself (when I ran underreported.com from 2002-2004) simply read government websites and scientific literature and report on it.  Journalism seems to have this code of ethics that says you have to get a quote from a human being before you can report on it.  That's nonsense -- all this stuff is out there on thomas.loc.gov and everywhere else and the traditional media ignores it -- and when they do report on it they don't even bother to link to it.</li><li>So much action gets recorded on cell phone videos now.  Important stuff gets bid out to the traditional media because they're willing to pay more.  After they die, the popular bloggers will take it, or it'll just end up on YouTube and bloggers will link to it there.</li></ol></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>WorldNetDaily.com does its own investigative reporting and is always trying to get press credentials to events .
Sometimes they get them , and sometimes they do n't since they are not " traditional media " .We Are Change is an entire nationwide network of aggressive news gatherers.One of Alex Jones ' early exploits was to crash the Bohemian Grove and report on it.Many of the armchair bloggers such as myself ( when I ran underreported.com from 2002-2004 ) simply read government websites and scientific literature and report on it .
Journalism seems to have this code of ethics that says you have to get a quote from a human being before you can report on it .
That 's nonsense -- all this stuff is out there on thomas.loc.gov and everywhere else and the traditional media ignores it -- and when they do report on it they do n't even bother to link to it.So much action gets recorded on cell phone videos now .
Important stuff gets bid out to the traditional media because they 're willing to pay more .
After they die , the popular bloggers will take it , or it 'll just end up on YouTube and bloggers will link to it there .</tokentext>
<sentencetext> WorldNetDaily.com does its own investigative reporting and is always trying to get press credentials to events.
Sometimes they get them, and sometimes they don't since they are not "traditional media".We Are Change is an entire nationwide network of aggressive news gatherers.One of Alex Jones' early exploits was to crash the Bohemian Grove and report on it.Many of the armchair bloggers such as myself (when I ran underreported.com from 2002-2004) simply read government websites and scientific literature and report on it.
Journalism seems to have this code of ethics that says you have to get a quote from a human being before you can report on it.
That's nonsense -- all this stuff is out there on thomas.loc.gov and everywhere else and the traditional media ignores it -- and when they do report on it they don't even bother to link to it.So much action gets recorded on cell phone videos now.
Important stuff gets bid out to the traditional media because they're willing to pay more.
After they die, the popular bloggers will take it, or it'll just end up on YouTube and bloggers will link to it there.
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1350252.30323370</id>
	<title>Switching from horses to cars...</title>
	<author>vvaduva</author>
	<datestamp>1259940180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I am sure the "horse manure picker-uppers union workers (HMPUW)" biatched a lot when Henry Ford came up with an efficient and effective way of transportation.</p><p>Progress is a bitch; embracing it is the only way to survive....</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I am sure the " horse manure picker-uppers union workers ( HMPUW ) " biatched a lot when Henry Ford came up with an efficient and effective way of transportation.Progress is a bitch ; embracing it is the only way to survive... .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I am sure the "horse manure picker-uppers union workers (HMPUW)" biatched a lot when Henry Ford came up with an efficient and effective way of transportation.Progress is a bitch; embracing it is the only way to survive....</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1350252.30323206</id>
	<title>They ignored "The Third Wave" to their peril.</title>
	<author>MtViewGuy</author>
	<datestamp>1259939220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I think in retrospect, the mainstream media should have heeded the warning of one Alvin Toffler, who wrote in <b>The Third Wave</b> in 1980 that as communication technologies improves, the days of the the mass media controlling media distribution will come to an end.</p><p>With cable TV, small-dish satellite TV and the public Internet, Toffler's warning has become 2009 reality. The only survivors will be those who can quickly embrace taking full advantage of today's communication technologies, and Time, Inc.'s  recent "fantasy demo" of an electronic edition of <i>Sports Illustrated</i> designed to take full advantage to future tablet computers (such as the much-rumored Apple tablet) is proof there are some in the mainstream media who understand they must change with the times (pun not intended<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:-) ).</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I think in retrospect , the mainstream media should have heeded the warning of one Alvin Toffler , who wrote in The Third Wave in 1980 that as communication technologies improves , the days of the the mass media controlling media distribution will come to an end.With cable TV , small-dish satellite TV and the public Internet , Toffler 's warning has become 2009 reality .
The only survivors will be those who can quickly embrace taking full advantage of today 's communication technologies , and Time , Inc. 's recent " fantasy demo " of an electronic edition of Sports Illustrated designed to take full advantage to future tablet computers ( such as the much-rumored Apple tablet ) is proof there are some in the mainstream media who understand they must change with the times ( pun not intended : - ) ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I think in retrospect, the mainstream media should have heeded the warning of one Alvin Toffler, who wrote in The Third Wave in 1980 that as communication technologies improves, the days of the the mass media controlling media distribution will come to an end.With cable TV, small-dish satellite TV and the public Internet, Toffler's warning has become 2009 reality.
The only survivors will be those who can quickly embrace taking full advantage of today's communication technologies, and Time, Inc.'s  recent "fantasy demo" of an electronic edition of Sports Illustrated designed to take full advantage to future tablet computers (such as the much-rumored Apple tablet) is proof there are some in the mainstream media who understand they must change with the times (pun not intended :-) ).</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1350252.30331416</id>
	<title>Re:Internet killed the Video star</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259934720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Its funny that Schmidt mentions that "Video didn't kill the radio star." Videos were a good promotion outlet for music, but the Internet effectively killed music videos on television.</p></div><p>MTV did just fine killing music videos on their channel long before YouTube started getting every music video ever reposted on their site once a week.</p><p>MTV Cribs anyone? Or those awful "dating" shows/other bad reality TV? Or showing about half of a music video every 30 minutes, sandwiched between commercial breaks?</p><p>Other stations, like BET, still enjoy a lot of success playing music videos on TV (for example, 106 &amp; Park). There's value in having a TV program pick out the new, good videos to show to you, rather than spending a lot of time keeping up with who released what, and watching everything new (if that's even possible!) to see what's enjoyable.</p><p>MTV's issues were caused solely by MTV.</p><p><div class="quote"><p>Newspaper advertisements are unavoidable, and the randomly placed.</p></div><p>Says who? I never pay more attention to Newspaper advertisements than I do to online ads. Maybe you shouldn't read that Ad section they stick in the middle there if you don't want to see a lot of Ads.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Its funny that Schmidt mentions that " Video did n't kill the radio star .
" Videos were a good promotion outlet for music , but the Internet effectively killed music videos on television.MTV did just fine killing music videos on their channel long before YouTube started getting every music video ever reposted on their site once a week.MTV Cribs anyone ?
Or those awful " dating " shows/other bad reality TV ?
Or showing about half of a music video every 30 minutes , sandwiched between commercial breaks ? Other stations , like BET , still enjoy a lot of success playing music videos on TV ( for example , 106 &amp; Park ) .
There 's value in having a TV program pick out the new , good videos to show to you , rather than spending a lot of time keeping up with who released what , and watching everything new ( if that 's even possible !
) to see what 's enjoyable.MTV 's issues were caused solely by MTV.Newspaper advertisements are unavoidable , and the randomly placed.Says who ?
I never pay more attention to Newspaper advertisements than I do to online ads .
Maybe you should n't read that Ad section they stick in the middle there if you do n't want to see a lot of Ads .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Its funny that Schmidt mentions that "Video didn't kill the radio star.
" Videos were a good promotion outlet for music, but the Internet effectively killed music videos on television.MTV did just fine killing music videos on their channel long before YouTube started getting every music video ever reposted on their site once a week.MTV Cribs anyone?
Or those awful "dating" shows/other bad reality TV?
Or showing about half of a music video every 30 minutes, sandwiched between commercial breaks?Other stations, like BET, still enjoy a lot of success playing music videos on TV (for example, 106 &amp; Park).
There's value in having a TV program pick out the new, good videos to show to you, rather than spending a lot of time keeping up with who released what, and watching everything new (if that's even possible!
) to see what's enjoyable.MTV's issues were caused solely by MTV.Newspaper advertisements are unavoidable, and the randomly placed.Says who?
I never pay more attention to Newspaper advertisements than I do to online ads.
Maybe you shouldn't read that Ad section they stick in the middle there if you don't want to see a lot of Ads.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1350252.30323432</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1350252.30381346</id>
	<title>Re:the real threat will be government intervention</title>
	<author>joeljkp</author>
	<datestamp>1259577540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>After Fox News won their argument in Florida...</p></div><p>If you're referring to the case I think you are, that wasn't Fox News. It was a local Fox affiliate's new show, which is completely different. Owned by a private company, affiliated with the Fox Network, which is a sister company to Fox News (but not the same).</p><p>A little bit ironic, in a post about facts and integrity.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>After Fox News won their argument in Florida...If you 're referring to the case I think you are , that was n't Fox News .
It was a local Fox affiliate 's new show , which is completely different .
Owned by a private company , affiliated with the Fox Network , which is a sister company to Fox News ( but not the same ) .A little bit ironic , in a post about facts and integrity .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>After Fox News won their argument in Florida...If you're referring to the case I think you are, that wasn't Fox News.
It was a local Fox affiliate's new show, which is completely different.
Owned by a private company, affiliated with the Fox Network, which is a sister company to Fox News (but not the same).A little bit ironic, in a post about facts and integrity.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1350252.30323640</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1350252.30323196</id>
	<title>Kara who?  Boomwhat?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259939220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>Well, I guess whoring your own clumsily written anti-aggregator OpEd to an aggregator site is one way to get traffic and survive in the Google age.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Well , I guess whoring your own clumsily written anti-aggregator OpEd to an aggregator site is one way to get traffic and survive in the Google age .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Well, I guess whoring your own clumsily written anti-aggregator OpEd to an aggregator site is one way to get traffic and survive in the Google age.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1350252.30325598</id>
	<title>Re:Internet killed the Video star</title>
	<author>mcgrew</author>
	<datestamp>1259950500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>Videos were a good promotion outlet for music, but the Internet effectively killed music videos on television. </i></p><p>[citation needed]. It looks more to me like empty-v killed music videos because thay cost more than the asinine "reality" shows and they expected the internet to kill videos.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Videos were a good promotion outlet for music , but the Internet effectively killed music videos on television .
[ citation needed ] .
It looks more to me like empty-v killed music videos because thay cost more than the asinine " reality " shows and they expected the internet to kill videos .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Videos were a good promotion outlet for music, but the Internet effectively killed music videos on television.
[citation needed].
It looks more to me like empty-v killed music videos because thay cost more than the asinine "reality" shows and they expected the internet to kill videos.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1350252.30323432</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1350252.30325458</id>
	<title>Re:Rupert Murdock...</title>
	<author>sarhjinian</author>
	<datestamp>1259949960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I'm not a fan of the man's work or his politics, but he's not really to blame for this.  The idea that journalism is objective is false, and it's a recent self-delusion at that.  Prior to WW2, newspapers were unabashedly subjective and only adopted pretenses of objectivity recently because pretenses of objectivity sell: people like to think that their opinion is the right one, and advertisers like the credibility it gives.</p><p>The problem with false objectivity is that it results in homogeneity of reporting.  Everyone reports the same material, with the same bias.  Everyone feels the need to give two points of view on every story, no matter how baseless and divorced from facts one is. Murdoch, if nothing else, bought the mainstream media a little more breathing room by introducing blatant subjectivity back into the equation, stirring up interest and creating markets, though his continued claims of objectivity subsequently weakened that.</p><p>But he's still a dick.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm not a fan of the man 's work or his politics , but he 's not really to blame for this .
The idea that journalism is objective is false , and it 's a recent self-delusion at that .
Prior to WW2 , newspapers were unabashedly subjective and only adopted pretenses of objectivity recently because pretenses of objectivity sell : people like to think that their opinion is the right one , and advertisers like the credibility it gives.The problem with false objectivity is that it results in homogeneity of reporting .
Everyone reports the same material , with the same bias .
Everyone feels the need to give two points of view on every story , no matter how baseless and divorced from facts one is .
Murdoch , if nothing else , bought the mainstream media a little more breathing room by introducing blatant subjectivity back into the equation , stirring up interest and creating markets , though his continued claims of objectivity subsequently weakened that.But he 's still a dick .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm not a fan of the man's work or his politics, but he's not really to blame for this.
The idea that journalism is objective is false, and it's a recent self-delusion at that.
Prior to WW2, newspapers were unabashedly subjective and only adopted pretenses of objectivity recently because pretenses of objectivity sell: people like to think that their opinion is the right one, and advertisers like the credibility it gives.The problem with false objectivity is that it results in homogeneity of reporting.
Everyone reports the same material, with the same bias.
Everyone feels the need to give two points of view on every story, no matter how baseless and divorced from facts one is.
Murdoch, if nothing else, bought the mainstream media a little more breathing room by introducing blatant subjectivity back into the equation, stirring up interest and creating markets, though his continued claims of objectivity subsequently weakened that.But he's still a dick.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1350252.30323168</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1350252.30324456</id>
	<title>Re:Original blogger reporting</title>
	<author>rwv</author>
	<datestamp>1259945820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Journalism seems to have this code of ethics that says you have to get a quote from a human being before you can report on it. That's nonsense -- all this stuff is out there on thomas.loc.gov and everywhere else and the traditional media ignores it -- and when they do report on it they don't even bother to link to it.</p></div><p>Amen.  Sources are sources whether they are people who are experts or published at some reference.  And just because something is given as a quote doesn't make it true because people frequently have uninformed opinions.  The news job is to give people INFORMED OPINIONS so interviewing some sensationalist and just him spout his malformed ideas does NOT add any journalistic value to the world.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Journalism seems to have this code of ethics that says you have to get a quote from a human being before you can report on it .
That 's nonsense -- all this stuff is out there on thomas.loc.gov and everywhere else and the traditional media ignores it -- and when they do report on it they do n't even bother to link to it.Amen .
Sources are sources whether they are people who are experts or published at some reference .
And just because something is given as a quote does n't make it true because people frequently have uninformed opinions .
The news job is to give people INFORMED OPINIONS so interviewing some sensationalist and just him spout his malformed ideas does NOT add any journalistic value to the world .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Journalism seems to have this code of ethics that says you have to get a quote from a human being before you can report on it.
That's nonsense -- all this stuff is out there on thomas.loc.gov and everywhere else and the traditional media ignores it -- and when they do report on it they don't even bother to link to it.Amen.
Sources are sources whether they are people who are experts or published at some reference.
And just because something is given as a quote doesn't make it true because people frequently have uninformed opinions.
The news job is to give people INFORMED OPINIONS so interviewing some sensationalist and just him spout his malformed ideas does NOT add any journalistic value to the world.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1350252.30323476</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1350252.30323744</id>
	<title>bloggers help journalists</title>
	<author>rubycodez</author>
	<datestamp>1259942400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>most of what bloggers do is "editorial comment".  when I write opinion I link to the original source.  if a popular blogging site does that, it helps the news organization.  One way "the press" is kept in line and alternate viewpoints presented (most news places have a "slant" or agenda to the way political or religious news is presented.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>most of what bloggers do is " editorial comment " .
when I write opinion I link to the original source .
if a popular blogging site does that , it helps the news organization .
One way " the press " is kept in line and alternate viewpoints presented ( most news places have a " slant " or agenda to the way political or religious news is presented .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>most of what bloggers do is "editorial comment".
when I write opinion I link to the original source.
if a popular blogging site does that, it helps the news organization.
One way "the press" is kept in line and alternate viewpoints presented (most news places have a "slant" or agenda to the way political or religious news is presented.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1350252.30324638</id>
	<title>Re:the real threat will be government intervention</title>
	<author>tmosley</author>
	<datestamp>1259946600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Get rid of the FCC, and see how long Fox can last against a wave of local television stations that report a wider variety of news, and do so more accurately and more cheaply.<br> <br>

Remember, it's the FCC that has set up the oligopoly (or is it a duopoly now?) of media stations.  Large corporations wouldn't exist in a free market without being EXTREMELY good at what they do.  In this country, we allow corporations to use regulations as a club to keep themselves from being torn down and devoured by younger stations with better business models.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Get rid of the FCC , and see how long Fox can last against a wave of local television stations that report a wider variety of news , and do so more accurately and more cheaply .
Remember , it 's the FCC that has set up the oligopoly ( or is it a duopoly now ?
) of media stations .
Large corporations would n't exist in a free market without being EXTREMELY good at what they do .
In this country , we allow corporations to use regulations as a club to keep themselves from being torn down and devoured by younger stations with better business models .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Get rid of the FCC, and see how long Fox can last against a wave of local television stations that report a wider variety of news, and do so more accurately and more cheaply.
Remember, it's the FCC that has set up the oligopoly (or is it a duopoly now?
) of media stations.
Large corporations wouldn't exist in a free market without being EXTREMELY good at what they do.
In this country, we allow corporations to use regulations as a club to keep themselves from being torn down and devoured by younger stations with better business models.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1350252.30323640</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1350252.30323168</id>
	<title>Rupert Murdock...</title>
	<author>MickyTheIdiot</author>
	<datestamp>1259939040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>...has been more deadly to the art of journalism than all of the technical innovations in the last 200 years put together.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>...has been more deadly to the art of journalism than all of the technical innovations in the last 200 years put together .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>...has been more deadly to the art of journalism than all of the technical innovations in the last 200 years put together.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1350252.30324006</id>
	<title>Re:Internet killed the Video star</title>
	<author>pedestrian crossing</author>
	<datestamp>1259943720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>One model I've seen is for a newspaper to provide free access to a pdf of its full print edition.  Just like reading the old-fashioned newspaper, print ads and all.

Nice thing for the newspaper, the reader can't block the ads so they can charge regular print advertising rates and the distribution costs are lower.  Nice thing for the reader, it doesn't cost anything and is just there on the computer whenever they want it in a form that they are used to.</htmltext>
<tokenext>One model I 've seen is for a newspaper to provide free access to a pdf of its full print edition .
Just like reading the old-fashioned newspaper , print ads and all .
Nice thing for the newspaper , the reader ca n't block the ads so they can charge regular print advertising rates and the distribution costs are lower .
Nice thing for the reader , it does n't cost anything and is just there on the computer whenever they want it in a form that they are used to .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>One model I've seen is for a newspaper to provide free access to a pdf of its full print edition.
Just like reading the old-fashioned newspaper, print ads and all.
Nice thing for the newspaper, the reader can't block the ads so they can charge regular print advertising rates and the distribution costs are lower.
Nice thing for the reader, it doesn't cost anything and is just there on the computer whenever they want it in a form that they are used to.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1350252.30323432</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1350252.30323424</id>
	<title>People want to participate</title>
	<author>xzvf</author>
	<datestamp>1259940480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>We used to yell at the TV, complain at the breakfast table to our spouse, hit the steering wheel.  If we were really engaged, we'd write a letter to the editor or call the radio station.  There was no option for TV, except being in the right place at the right time (the tornado hit my trailer).  Now, we can respond within seconds of an article being published, vent anger or correct mistakes.  Add insight and expand the story.  I find the comments more interesting than the story a surprising amount of the time.</htmltext>
<tokenext>We used to yell at the TV , complain at the breakfast table to our spouse , hit the steering wheel .
If we were really engaged , we 'd write a letter to the editor or call the radio station .
There was no option for TV , except being in the right place at the right time ( the tornado hit my trailer ) .
Now , we can respond within seconds of an article being published , vent anger or correct mistakes .
Add insight and expand the story .
I find the comments more interesting than the story a surprising amount of the time .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>We used to yell at the TV, complain at the breakfast table to our spouse, hit the steering wheel.
If we were really engaged, we'd write a letter to the editor or call the radio station.
There was no option for TV, except being in the right place at the right time (the tornado hit my trailer).
Now, we can respond within seconds of an article being published, vent anger or correct mistakes.
Add insight and expand the story.
I find the comments more interesting than the story a surprising amount of the time.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1350252.30323210</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1350252.30324114</id>
	<title>Obligatory...</title>
	<author>jonaskoelker</author>
	<datestamp>1259944200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>I find the comments more interesting than the story a surprising amount of the time.</p></div><p>If you still find that surprising, I'm guessing you're new here<nobr> <wbr></nobr>;-)</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I find the comments more interesting than the story a surprising amount of the time.If you still find that surprising , I 'm guessing you 're new here ; - )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I find the comments more interesting than the story a surprising amount of the time.If you still find that surprising, I'm guessing you're new here ;-)
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1350252.30323424</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1350252.30326144</id>
	<title>Bloggers are to Journalism...</title>
	<author>stewbacca</author>
	<datestamp>1259952960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>as Microsoft Publisher is to desktop publishing. Just because you can type stuff on your blog doesn't mean you are a journalist.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>as Microsoft Publisher is to desktop publishing .
Just because you can type stuff on your blog does n't mean you are a journalist .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>as Microsoft Publisher is to desktop publishing.
Just because you can type stuff on your blog doesn't mean you are a journalist.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1350252.30326732</id>
	<title>Wait a minute...</title>
	<author>Locke2005</author>
	<datestamp>1259955060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>So I'm to believe the death of journalism is caused by the internet linking to news, and not by the trend towards "infotainment" instead of hard journalism, or by the news outlets seemingly becoming the public relations arms of the big political parties? It couldn't have anything to do with the conglomeration of independent news providers into megalithic companies like Murdoch's, with a very clear agenda -- which apparently has nothing to do with providing concise, unbiased reporting.</htmltext>
<tokenext>So I 'm to believe the death of journalism is caused by the internet linking to news , and not by the trend towards " infotainment " instead of hard journalism , or by the news outlets seemingly becoming the public relations arms of the big political parties ?
It could n't have anything to do with the conglomeration of independent news providers into megalithic companies like Murdoch 's , with a very clear agenda -- which apparently has nothing to do with providing concise , unbiased reporting .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So I'm to believe the death of journalism is caused by the internet linking to news, and not by the trend towards "infotainment" instead of hard journalism, or by the news outlets seemingly becoming the public relations arms of the big political parties?
It couldn't have anything to do with the conglomeration of independent news providers into megalithic companies like Murdoch's, with a very clear agenda -- which apparently has nothing to do with providing concise, unbiased reporting.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1350252.30325462</id>
	<title>Re:hard-working, honest, ethical print journalists</title>
	<author>sorak</author>
	<datestamp>1259949960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Who exactly are they referring to?</p><p>- Political journalists, who help their sources insult people and ruin careers anonymously? Or do what Stephen Colbert pointed out was "the White House tells you what to write, you write it down, and print it."<br>- Sports journalists, who basically are professional sports fans, desperately clinging to rumor, conjecture, and hearsay?<br>- Business journalists, who often act as cheerleaders for a company's stock more than anything else?<br>- Slashdot editors? (enough said)</p><p>These are not the days of Bernstein, Woodward, Hersch, etc.</p></div><p>Of course the journalists you mention are the only ones surviving in todays market. The Bernsteins, Woodwards, and Herchs of today cannot make money, unless they're yelling at the camera, getting tazered for the benefit of thoese of us who don't know what it does, or sucking up to important figures in hopes of getting the big interview.</p><p>I am trying to wrap my brain around the idea of how a small, local newspaper can make money off the internet in the days of low CPM banner ads and customers who demand free content, but as I read this forum, I see so many comments lamenting why they can't be the bastions of democracy that they used to be, while at the same time lambasting them for failing to adapt to the economic realities. It seems contradictory.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Who exactly are they referring to ? - Political journalists , who help their sources insult people and ruin careers anonymously ?
Or do what Stephen Colbert pointed out was " the White House tells you what to write , you write it down , and print it .
" - Sports journalists , who basically are professional sports fans , desperately clinging to rumor , conjecture , and hearsay ? - Business journalists , who often act as cheerleaders for a company 's stock more than anything else ? - Slashdot editors ?
( enough said ) These are not the days of Bernstein , Woodward , Hersch , etc.Of course the journalists you mention are the only ones surviving in todays market .
The Bernsteins , Woodwards , and Herchs of today can not make money , unless they 're yelling at the camera , getting tazered for the benefit of thoese of us who do n't know what it does , or sucking up to important figures in hopes of getting the big interview.I am trying to wrap my brain around the idea of how a small , local newspaper can make money off the internet in the days of low CPM banner ads and customers who demand free content , but as I read this forum , I see so many comments lamenting why they ca n't be the bastions of democracy that they used to be , while at the same time lambasting them for failing to adapt to the economic realities .
It seems contradictory .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Who exactly are they referring to?- Political journalists, who help their sources insult people and ruin careers anonymously?
Or do what Stephen Colbert pointed out was "the White House tells you what to write, you write it down, and print it.
"- Sports journalists, who basically are professional sports fans, desperately clinging to rumor, conjecture, and hearsay?- Business journalists, who often act as cheerleaders for a company's stock more than anything else?- Slashdot editors?
(enough said)These are not the days of Bernstein, Woodward, Hersch, etc.Of course the journalists you mention are the only ones surviving in todays market.
The Bernsteins, Woodwards, and Herchs of today cannot make money, unless they're yelling at the camera, getting tazered for the benefit of thoese of us who don't know what it does, or sucking up to important figures in hopes of getting the big interview.I am trying to wrap my brain around the idea of how a small, local newspaper can make money off the internet in the days of low CPM banner ads and customers who demand free content, but as I read this forum, I see so many comments lamenting why they can't be the bastions of democracy that they used to be, while at the same time lambasting them for failing to adapt to the economic realities.
It seems contradictory.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1350252.30323260</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1350252.30325930</id>
	<title>Re:hard-working, honest, ethical print journalists</title>
	<author>R2.0</author>
	<datestamp>1259951940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"These are not the days of Bernstein, Woodward, Hersch, etc."</p><p>To the contrary - these are EXACTLY the "days of Bernstein, Woodward, Hersch, etc."  They are the ones that issued in the modern area of "investigative" journalism (inadvertently or not).  The modern journalist's daydreams consist of being the one to take down a presidency and having to decide if Hoffman or Redford will play him in the movie.  Given that, what else do we expect from them?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" These are not the days of Bernstein , Woodward , Hersch , etc .
" To the contrary - these are EXACTLY the " days of Bernstein , Woodward , Hersch , etc .
" They are the ones that issued in the modern area of " investigative " journalism ( inadvertently or not ) .
The modern journalist 's daydreams consist of being the one to take down a presidency and having to decide if Hoffman or Redford will play him in the movie .
Given that , what else do we expect from them ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"These are not the days of Bernstein, Woodward, Hersch, etc.
"To the contrary - these are EXACTLY the "days of Bernstein, Woodward, Hersch, etc.
"  They are the ones that issued in the modern area of "investigative" journalism (inadvertently or not).
The modern journalist's daydreams consist of being the one to take down a presidency and having to decide if Hoffman or Redford will play him in the movie.
Given that, what else do we expect from them?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1350252.30323260</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1350252.30324744</id>
	<title>When Rupert Murdoch open his yap...</title>
	<author>rnturn</author>
	<datestamp>1259947080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>... all that seems to come out is something like: "<i>Damn that Internet. Now what are we supposed to do with all these buggy whips?</i>"

</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>... all that seems to come out is something like : " Damn that Internet .
Now what are we supposed to do with all these buggy whips ?
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>... all that seems to come out is something like: "Damn that Internet.
Now what are we supposed to do with all these buggy whips?
"

</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1350252.30323694</id>
	<title>Respect for pulitzer's yellow journalism eulagized</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259942100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Respect for Pulitzer's form of yellow journalism was a eulogy in action for journalism 100 years ago.  The fact that journalism still exists is only a testament for the public's continued desire for era-appropriate mild fiction and sensationalism.  The fact that we huzzah at the awarding of a prize named after the man considered the inventor of what non-news non-journalist pundits like Bill O, and Sean H thrive on is enough evidence to show that real journalism hasn't been a public concern for a very, very long time.</p><p>So don't shed a tear for journalism now.  It has already been dead for very nearly a century.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Respect for Pulitzer 's form of yellow journalism was a eulogy in action for journalism 100 years ago .
The fact that journalism still exists is only a testament for the public 's continued desire for era-appropriate mild fiction and sensationalism .
The fact that we huzzah at the awarding of a prize named after the man considered the inventor of what non-news non-journalist pundits like Bill O , and Sean H thrive on is enough evidence to show that real journalism has n't been a public concern for a very , very long time.So do n't shed a tear for journalism now .
It has already been dead for very nearly a century .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Respect for Pulitzer's form of yellow journalism was a eulogy in action for journalism 100 years ago.
The fact that journalism still exists is only a testament for the public's continued desire for era-appropriate mild fiction and sensationalism.
The fact that we huzzah at the awarding of a prize named after the man considered the inventor of what non-news non-journalist pundits like Bill O, and Sean H thrive on is enough evidence to show that real journalism hasn't been a public concern for a very, very long time.So don't shed a tear for journalism now.
It has already been dead for very nearly a century.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1350252.30323372</id>
	<title>No Free Lunch</title>
	<author>Weeksauce</author>
	<datestamp>1259940240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Nice to see an internet executive like this recognize that there is "no free lunch." As much as you hear people bemoan a pay for content system, the fact is journalists require salaries, expenses, etc. The pay per story idea of<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.01 per story that gets auto deducted or has greater advertising capabilities is great. Yeah, free stuff is great, but what news can you get for free if the journalists aren't around any longer...</htmltext>
<tokenext>Nice to see an internet executive like this recognize that there is " no free lunch .
" As much as you hear people bemoan a pay for content system , the fact is journalists require salaries , expenses , etc .
The pay per story idea of .01 per story that gets auto deducted or has greater advertising capabilities is great .
Yeah , free stuff is great , but what news can you get for free if the journalists are n't around any longer.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Nice to see an internet executive like this recognize that there is "no free lunch.
" As much as you hear people bemoan a pay for content system, the fact is journalists require salaries, expenses, etc.
The pay per story idea of .01 per story that gets auto deducted or has greater advertising capabilities is great.
Yeah, free stuff is great, but what news can you get for free if the journalists aren't around any longer...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1350252.30323752</id>
	<title>Printed journalism sucks, bad.</title>
	<author>miffo.swe</author>
	<datestamp>1259942400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>In sweden where i live printed news journalism consists of gossip, Reuters and TT articles. The problem isnt the internet but that the content has become mostly useless entertainment, not news. I cant stand reading a newspaper anymore because its crap. It has absolutely nothing to do with the advent of the internet.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>In sweden where i live printed news journalism consists of gossip , Reuters and TT articles .
The problem isnt the internet but that the content has become mostly useless entertainment , not news .
I cant stand reading a newspaper anymore because its crap .
It has absolutely nothing to do with the advent of the internet .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>In sweden where i live printed news journalism consists of gossip, Reuters and TT articles.
The problem isnt the internet but that the content has become mostly useless entertainment, not news.
I cant stand reading a newspaper anymore because its crap.
It has absolutely nothing to do with the advent of the internet.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1350252.30326300</id>
	<title>Advertising is counter-productive.</title>
	<author>crovira</author>
	<datestamp>1259953560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I set up websites for businesses, wikis for schools, blogs for people and I'm doing podcasting and radio production for others.<p>

My clients are looking at the shrinking media landscape, not for somewhere left to advertise, but for <i>traffic</i>.</p><p>

They have their own web-sites where they feature their products, engage in conversations with customers and potential customers, take orders, track shipments, they're on Twitter and handle complaints that way.</p><p>

They look at advertising on you site as a secondary, ancillary activity that's a lot tougher than it looks...</p><p>

People who promise you <i>viral video</i> success on YouTube, or any other platform, hope you're a big enough idiot to believe them, at least until the cheque clears, but not so big an idiot that you couldn't possibly have any money. </p><p>

Banner ads have such a low click-through rate that they're usually aren't worth the CPM dollars.</p><p>

While you want <i>earned</i> buzz, (as opposed to <i>paid-for</i> ads, which get you at best ignored, at worst called a liar, and usually not believed,) you usually settle for SEO.</p><p>

A company selling plumbing supplies or semi-trucks, or guitars, will never get featured on <b> <i>Oprah</i> </b>.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I set up websites for businesses , wikis for schools , blogs for people and I 'm doing podcasting and radio production for others .
My clients are looking at the shrinking media landscape , not for somewhere left to advertise , but for traffic .
They have their own web-sites where they feature their products , engage in conversations with customers and potential customers , take orders , track shipments , they 're on Twitter and handle complaints that way .
They look at advertising on you site as a secondary , ancillary activity that 's a lot tougher than it looks.. . People who promise you viral video success on YouTube , or any other platform , hope you 're a big enough idiot to believe them , at least until the cheque clears , but not so big an idiot that you could n't possibly have any money .
Banner ads have such a low click-through rate that they 're usually are n't worth the CPM dollars .
While you want earned buzz , ( as opposed to paid-for ads , which get you at best ignored , at worst called a liar , and usually not believed , ) you usually settle for SEO .
A company selling plumbing supplies or semi-trucks , or guitars , will never get featured on Oprah .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I set up websites for businesses, wikis for schools, blogs for people and I'm doing podcasting and radio production for others.
My clients are looking at the shrinking media landscape, not for somewhere left to advertise, but for traffic.
They have their own web-sites where they feature their products, engage in conversations with customers and potential customers, take orders, track shipments, they're on Twitter and handle complaints that way.
They look at advertising on you site as a secondary, ancillary activity that's a lot tougher than it looks...

People who promise you viral video success on YouTube, or any other platform, hope you're a big enough idiot to believe them, at least until the cheque clears, but not so big an idiot that you couldn't possibly have any money.
Banner ads have such a low click-through rate that they're usually aren't worth the CPM dollars.
While you want earned buzz, (as opposed to paid-for ads, which get you at best ignored, at worst called a liar, and usually not believed,) you usually settle for SEO.
A company selling plumbing supplies or semi-trucks, or guitars, will never get featured on  Oprah .</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1350252.30323412</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1350252.30335700</id>
	<title>Hey professional journalist</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260034680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>People like to heap scorn on traditional journalism, but there's a very good reason for fact-checking, and there's a very good reason for objectivity</p></div><p>No people heap scorn on the <i>NEW</i> traditional journalism. Real traditional journalism is dead and has been for a lot of years.  The problem is there is very little fact finding or objectivity in what you call journalism today.  What I see read and hear from News outlets wether it be TV papers or radio is slanted bias bull shit.  Even in most tech magazine the articles are bias and slanted which way it is slanted is determined by the payola.  If <i>professional journalist</i> want me to pay to read their writings quit writing fiction.  When I read you writings I want the unbiased truth not your opinion.  Let me form my own opinion.</p><p>For a lot of years I bought the local news paper and yes read it too.  Now days I won't pick one up for free from a park bench to read a article.  Why?  If it is in the paper I know it is slanted and biased so why waste my time reading a lie.  The problem the Internet has caused for fictional journalist writers is in a quick search on the topic and a few clicks you get caught in your lie.  People do their own fact-checking these days.  People catch the news media lying and then quit buying and/or reading their product and the News Corps cry "Oh the Internet is making us go broke."  No your lying slanted bull shit is what is making you go broke.  If you told the truth I would still BUY your media.</p><p>Why are blogs so popular?  Most blogs contain citations and links to other sources to back up their writings and show the truth of their words.  Professional journalist can be bought like a two dollar whore these days.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>People like to heap scorn on traditional journalism , but there 's a very good reason for fact-checking , and there 's a very good reason for objectivityNo people heap scorn on the NEW traditional journalism .
Real traditional journalism is dead and has been for a lot of years .
The problem is there is very little fact finding or objectivity in what you call journalism today .
What I see read and hear from News outlets wether it be TV papers or radio is slanted bias bull shit .
Even in most tech magazine the articles are bias and slanted which way it is slanted is determined by the payola .
If professional journalist want me to pay to read their writings quit writing fiction .
When I read you writings I want the unbiased truth not your opinion .
Let me form my own opinion.For a lot of years I bought the local news paper and yes read it too .
Now days I wo n't pick one up for free from a park bench to read a article .
Why ? If it is in the paper I know it is slanted and biased so why waste my time reading a lie .
The problem the Internet has caused for fictional journalist writers is in a quick search on the topic and a few clicks you get caught in your lie .
People do their own fact-checking these days .
People catch the news media lying and then quit buying and/or reading their product and the News Corps cry " Oh the Internet is making us go broke .
" No your lying slanted bull shit is what is making you go broke .
If you told the truth I would still BUY your media.Why are blogs so popular ?
Most blogs contain citations and links to other sources to back up their writings and show the truth of their words .
Professional journalist can be bought like a two dollar whore these days .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>People like to heap scorn on traditional journalism, but there's a very good reason for fact-checking, and there's a very good reason for objectivityNo people heap scorn on the NEW traditional journalism.
Real traditional journalism is dead and has been for a lot of years.
The problem is there is very little fact finding or objectivity in what you call journalism today.
What I see read and hear from News outlets wether it be TV papers or radio is slanted bias bull shit.
Even in most tech magazine the articles are bias and slanted which way it is slanted is determined by the payola.
If professional journalist want me to pay to read their writings quit writing fiction.
When I read you writings I want the unbiased truth not your opinion.
Let me form my own opinion.For a lot of years I bought the local news paper and yes read it too.
Now days I won't pick one up for free from a park bench to read a article.
Why?  If it is in the paper I know it is slanted and biased so why waste my time reading a lie.
The problem the Internet has caused for fictional journalist writers is in a quick search on the topic and a few clicks you get caught in your lie.
People do their own fact-checking these days.
People catch the news media lying and then quit buying and/or reading their product and the News Corps cry "Oh the Internet is making us go broke.
"  No your lying slanted bull shit is what is making you go broke.
If you told the truth I would still BUY your media.Why are blogs so popular?
Most blogs contain citations and links to other sources to back up their writings and show the truth of their words.
Professional journalist can be bought like a two dollar whore these days.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1350252.30323488</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1350252.30323260</id>
	<title>hard-working, honest, ethical print journalists</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259939520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Who exactly are they referring to?</p><p>- Political journalists, who help their sources insult people and ruin careers anonymously? Or do what Stephen Colbert pointed out was "the White House tells you what to write, you write it down, and print it."<br>- Sports journalists, who basically are professional sports fans, desperately clinging to rumor, conjecture, and hearsay?<br>- Business journalists, who often act as cheerleaders for a company's stock more than anything else?<br>- Slashdot editors? (enough said)</p><p>These are not the days of Bernstein, Woodward, Hersch, etc.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Who exactly are they referring to ? - Political journalists , who help their sources insult people and ruin careers anonymously ?
Or do what Stephen Colbert pointed out was " the White House tells you what to write , you write it down , and print it .
" - Sports journalists , who basically are professional sports fans , desperately clinging to rumor , conjecture , and hearsay ? - Business journalists , who often act as cheerleaders for a company 's stock more than anything else ? - Slashdot editors ?
( enough said ) These are not the days of Bernstein , Woodward , Hersch , etc .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Who exactly are they referring to?- Political journalists, who help their sources insult people and ruin careers anonymously?
Or do what Stephen Colbert pointed out was "the White House tells you what to write, you write it down, and print it.
"- Sports journalists, who basically are professional sports fans, desperately clinging to rumor, conjecture, and hearsay?- Business journalists, who often act as cheerleaders for a company's stock more than anything else?- Slashdot editors?
(enough said)These are not the days of Bernstein, Woodward, Hersch, etc.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1350252.30328826</id>
	<title>Re:the real threat will be government intervention</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259920980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If a news outlet repeatedly get their facts wrong, I would think that people would stop viewing their content. People are looking for honest reporting.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If a news outlet repeatedly get their facts wrong , I would think that people would stop viewing their content .
People are looking for honest reporting .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If a news outlet repeatedly get their facts wrong, I would think that people would stop viewing their content.
People are looking for honest reporting.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1350252.30323640</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1350252.30323668</id>
	<title>Synergy: The Sports Analogy</title>
	<author>davide marney</author>
	<datestamp>1259941920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I have yet to see any major newspaper actively recruit and develop the legions of amateur reporters out there armed with a computer.  Major league sports has a farm system for developing and identifying talent, and bringing it into play.  Newspapers need to embrace what's happening, not compete and complain.  They're the experts.  They should be <i>leading</i> the exploitation of the Internet for the delivery of news and information.</p><p>Truth be told, tiny C-SPAN is far and away the best in the news business at getting this right.  Their use of all the means of modern communication -- radio, TV, Internet -- is outstanding.  They run contests to develop young reporters.  They have blog aggregation pages.  They run dedicated news dashboards during special events such as elections.  They have call-in shows.  They are scrupulously even-handed in their coverage, which is not only the best way to be objective, it makes for a lively and interesting show.  Watch and learn, guys.  It's not rocket science.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I have yet to see any major newspaper actively recruit and develop the legions of amateur reporters out there armed with a computer .
Major league sports has a farm system for developing and identifying talent , and bringing it into play .
Newspapers need to embrace what 's happening , not compete and complain .
They 're the experts .
They should be leading the exploitation of the Internet for the delivery of news and information.Truth be told , tiny C-SPAN is far and away the best in the news business at getting this right .
Their use of all the means of modern communication -- radio , TV , Internet -- is outstanding .
They run contests to develop young reporters .
They have blog aggregation pages .
They run dedicated news dashboards during special events such as elections .
They have call-in shows .
They are scrupulously even-handed in their coverage , which is not only the best way to be objective , it makes for a lively and interesting show .
Watch and learn , guys .
It 's not rocket science .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I have yet to see any major newspaper actively recruit and develop the legions of amateur reporters out there armed with a computer.
Major league sports has a farm system for developing and identifying talent, and bringing it into play.
Newspapers need to embrace what's happening, not compete and complain.
They're the experts.
They should be leading the exploitation of the Internet for the delivery of news and information.Truth be told, tiny C-SPAN is far and away the best in the news business at getting this right.
Their use of all the means of modern communication -- radio, TV, Internet -- is outstanding.
They run contests to develop young reporters.
They have blog aggregation pages.
They run dedicated news dashboards during special events such as elections.
They have call-in shows.
They are scrupulously even-handed in their coverage, which is not only the best way to be objective, it makes for a lively and interesting show.
Watch and learn, guys.
It's not rocket science.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1350252.30326002</id>
	<title>Re:the real threat will be government intervention</title>
	<author>moeinvt</author>
	<datestamp>1259952360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Very true.  However, I can't help but think that if public education were not such a dismal failure, there might actually be a profitable market for objective journalism.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Very true .
However , I ca n't help but think that if public education were not such a dismal failure , there might actually be a profitable market for objective journalism .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Very true.
However, I can't help but think that if public education were not such a dismal failure, there might actually be a profitable market for objective journalism.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1350252.30323640</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1350252.30324234</id>
	<title>Horseless cariage, oh noes</title>
	<author>Airdorn</author>
	<datestamp>1259944740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>In related news, the last surviving member of the Blacksmither's Union, now 104-years-old, is still bemoaning the horseless carriage and wondering what the hell happened to the industry.</htmltext>
<tokenext>In related news , the last surviving member of the Blacksmither 's Union , now 104-years-old , is still bemoaning the horseless carriage and wondering what the hell happened to the industry .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>In related news, the last surviving member of the Blacksmither's Union, now 104-years-old, is still bemoaning the horseless carriage and wondering what the hell happened to the industry.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1350252.30323142</id>
	<title>Good riddance.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259938920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Flamebait</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This is the radiant dawn. Not without clouds, however.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This is the radiant dawn .
Not without clouds , however .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This is the radiant dawn.
Not without clouds, however.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1350252.30323620</id>
	<title>Re:Rupert Murdock...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259941680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Bad writing has don its damage as well. TFA was BORING. I read maybe the first four paragraphs and almost fell asleep. The guy writes as if he's being paid by the word.</p><p>When a blog is informative and readable, and the newspaper article reads like the writer didn't really want to write it but slogged though it for the money, why would I read the paper?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Bad writing has don its damage as well .
TFA was BORING .
I read maybe the first four paragraphs and almost fell asleep .
The guy writes as if he 's being paid by the word.When a blog is informative and readable , and the newspaper article reads like the writer did n't really want to write it but slogged though it for the money , why would I read the paper ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Bad writing has don its damage as well.
TFA was BORING.
I read maybe the first four paragraphs and almost fell asleep.
The guy writes as if he's being paid by the word.When a blog is informative and readable, and the newspaper article reads like the writer didn't really want to write it but slogged though it for the money, why would I read the paper?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1350252.30323168</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1350252.30324134</id>
	<title>Re:EXTRA: towncriers out of work due to printingpr</title>
	<author>MobyDisk</author>
	<datestamp>1259944320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Factual reporting will still exist.  It will remain in paid journals, newspapers, etc.  Even today, people who pay attention to such reporting are actually in the minority.  To most people it is really nerdy to read the Wall Street Journal or something like that.</p><p>Most Americans aren't interested in that: they want to hear someone loudly spew oversimplifications and accusations that they can rally behind.  "The [other party] is a bunch of [insult]!  Next up: Best and worst dressed celebrities!"</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Factual reporting will still exist .
It will remain in paid journals , newspapers , etc .
Even today , people who pay attention to such reporting are actually in the minority .
To most people it is really nerdy to read the Wall Street Journal or something like that.Most Americans are n't interested in that : they want to hear someone loudly spew oversimplifications and accusations that they can rally behind .
" The [ other party ] is a bunch of [ insult ] !
Next up : Best and worst dressed celebrities !
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Factual reporting will still exist.
It will remain in paid journals, newspapers, etc.
Even today, people who pay attention to such reporting are actually in the minority.
To most people it is really nerdy to read the Wall Street Journal or something like that.Most Americans aren't interested in that: they want to hear someone loudly spew oversimplifications and accusations that they can rally behind.
"The [other party] is a bunch of [insult]!
Next up: Best and worst dressed celebrities!
"</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1350252.30323220</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1350252.30323226</id>
	<title>Not the Death of Journalism ...</title>
	<author>eldavojohn</author>
	<datestamp>1259939400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>The Noisy and Prolonged Death of Journalism</p></div><p>In Schmidt's piece, he used the word 'journalism' once:</p><p><div class="quote"><p>I believe it also requires a change of tone in the debate, a recognition that we all have to work together to fulfill the promise of journalism in the digital age.</p></div><p>Don't ever kid yourself that journalism will die.  It's certainly changing but the thing that might die is the old model of power structures and funding around journalism.  Journalists will still do reporting and writing for a monetary sum.  The channels where that money comes from are rapidly changing ('rapidly' is relative to how historically slow change has been in this world).  This friction is creating the death throes of (most) companies involved as money makers in the traditional channels.  <br> <br>

It's change, it's probably for the better (as Schmidt notes) but one thing's for sure: it's unavoidable.  Adapt or die.  <br> <br>

One more thing:</p><p><div class="quote"><p>Eric Schmidt has an op-ed in Rupert Murdoch's WSJ (ironic, that)</p></div><p>Never forget that Murdoch still sells eyeballs--at all costs.  If it meant betraying a political party or betraying his core values or even displaying another side of the debate, he's here for one thing: money.  What we see in the op-ed piece is actually one of the few positive effects of Murdoch's greed.  I offer him my rare applause if he had anything to do with this being printed in the WSJ although I'm certain the WSJ printed it to generate revenue and he merely approved of it.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>The Noisy and Prolonged Death of JournalismIn Schmidt 's piece , he used the word 'journalism ' once : I believe it also requires a change of tone in the debate , a recognition that we all have to work together to fulfill the promise of journalism in the digital age.Do n't ever kid yourself that journalism will die .
It 's certainly changing but the thing that might die is the old model of power structures and funding around journalism .
Journalists will still do reporting and writing for a monetary sum .
The channels where that money comes from are rapidly changing ( 'rapidly ' is relative to how historically slow change has been in this world ) .
This friction is creating the death throes of ( most ) companies involved as money makers in the traditional channels .
It 's change , it 's probably for the better ( as Schmidt notes ) but one thing 's for sure : it 's unavoidable .
Adapt or die .
One more thing : Eric Schmidt has an op-ed in Rupert Murdoch 's WSJ ( ironic , that ) Never forget that Murdoch still sells eyeballs--at all costs .
If it meant betraying a political party or betraying his core values or even displaying another side of the debate , he 's here for one thing : money .
What we see in the op-ed piece is actually one of the few positive effects of Murdoch 's greed .
I offer him my rare applause if he had anything to do with this being printed in the WSJ although I 'm certain the WSJ printed it to generate revenue and he merely approved of it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The Noisy and Prolonged Death of JournalismIn Schmidt's piece, he used the word 'journalism' once:I believe it also requires a change of tone in the debate, a recognition that we all have to work together to fulfill the promise of journalism in the digital age.Don't ever kid yourself that journalism will die.
It's certainly changing but the thing that might die is the old model of power structures and funding around journalism.
Journalists will still do reporting and writing for a monetary sum.
The channels where that money comes from are rapidly changing ('rapidly' is relative to how historically slow change has been in this world).
This friction is creating the death throes of (most) companies involved as money makers in the traditional channels.
It's change, it's probably for the better (as Schmidt notes) but one thing's for sure: it's unavoidable.
Adapt or die.
One more thing:Eric Schmidt has an op-ed in Rupert Murdoch's WSJ (ironic, that)Never forget that Murdoch still sells eyeballs--at all costs.
If it meant betraying a political party or betraying his core values or even displaying another side of the debate, he's here for one thing: money.
What we see in the op-ed piece is actually one of the few positive effects of Murdoch's greed.
I offer him my rare applause if he had anything to do with this being printed in the WSJ although I'm certain the WSJ printed it to generate revenue and he merely approved of it.
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1350252.30323412</id>
	<title>Re:It's not the death of journalism</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259940420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It's the same mistake railway companies did. They thought AND insisted that they were in the business of trains and railroads instead of a CARRIER, or cargo transport. Now Fedex, UPS, airlines, cars, et al, have taken over the business of "transportation," something that was once a monopoly for the rail systems in the industrial era.</p><p>Disclaimer: I have worked in the newsroom for a mid-size newspaper.</p><p>Likewise, journalism is the business of gathering and disseminating news (supported by ad revenue). Old schoolers are still tied-up to the medium which they see as an investment, and who can blame them since they poured  millions for new printing presses in the 80s'; full computer infrastructure changeover in the 90s', all of which should be done paying for itself off by now. And only now this is when they can sit back and relax, and let the machines and its people work itself to make profit for the owner, similar to a landlord. But nope, the internet is here and they need to change everything again. They can either whine and cry to congress, or get on with the times.</p><p>Another astoundingly stupid move by the newspapers is undercharging ad rates for online editions. They thought because internet is so "new" with so few readers, and afraid the advertisers wouldn't buy this "virtual" space which doesn't use ink (but does use electricity and CPU cycles, however....), they could "experiment" with charging $50 for 100x100px space for a month, whereas a business card size ads on newsprint would cost $150 for two weeks. Newspapers have really shot themselves in the foot with this introductory rate which has lasted for several years, whereas the smart organizations know their true online operational costs, and these late old-timers will have an uphill battle convincing advertisers that their online space rate is worth the same or greater than their print spaces.</p><p>I, for one will not miss newspapers. I will miss journalism.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's the same mistake railway companies did .
They thought AND insisted that they were in the business of trains and railroads instead of a CARRIER , or cargo transport .
Now Fedex , UPS , airlines , cars , et al , have taken over the business of " transportation , " something that was once a monopoly for the rail systems in the industrial era.Disclaimer : I have worked in the newsroom for a mid-size newspaper.Likewise , journalism is the business of gathering and disseminating news ( supported by ad revenue ) .
Old schoolers are still tied-up to the medium which they see as an investment , and who can blame them since they poured millions for new printing presses in the 80s ' ; full computer infrastructure changeover in the 90s ' , all of which should be done paying for itself off by now .
And only now this is when they can sit back and relax , and let the machines and its people work itself to make profit for the owner , similar to a landlord .
But nope , the internet is here and they need to change everything again .
They can either whine and cry to congress , or get on with the times.Another astoundingly stupid move by the newspapers is undercharging ad rates for online editions .
They thought because internet is so " new " with so few readers , and afraid the advertisers would n't buy this " virtual " space which does n't use ink ( but does use electricity and CPU cycles , however.... ) , they could " experiment " with charging $ 50 for 100x100px space for a month , whereas a business card size ads on newsprint would cost $ 150 for two weeks .
Newspapers have really shot themselves in the foot with this introductory rate which has lasted for several years , whereas the smart organizations know their true online operational costs , and these late old-timers will have an uphill battle convincing advertisers that their online space rate is worth the same or greater than their print spaces.I , for one will not miss newspapers .
I will miss journalism .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's the same mistake railway companies did.
They thought AND insisted that they were in the business of trains and railroads instead of a CARRIER, or cargo transport.
Now Fedex, UPS, airlines, cars, et al, have taken over the business of "transportation," something that was once a monopoly for the rail systems in the industrial era.Disclaimer: I have worked in the newsroom for a mid-size newspaper.Likewise, journalism is the business of gathering and disseminating news (supported by ad revenue).
Old schoolers are still tied-up to the medium which they see as an investment, and who can blame them since they poured  millions for new printing presses in the 80s'; full computer infrastructure changeover in the 90s', all of which should be done paying for itself off by now.
And only now this is when they can sit back and relax, and let the machines and its people work itself to make profit for the owner, similar to a landlord.
But nope, the internet is here and they need to change everything again.
They can either whine and cry to congress, or get on with the times.Another astoundingly stupid move by the newspapers is undercharging ad rates for online editions.
They thought because internet is so "new" with so few readers, and afraid the advertisers wouldn't buy this "virtual" space which doesn't use ink (but does use electricity and CPU cycles, however....), they could "experiment" with charging $50 for 100x100px space for a month, whereas a business card size ads on newsprint would cost $150 for two weeks.
Newspapers have really shot themselves in the foot with this introductory rate which has lasted for several years, whereas the smart organizations know their true online operational costs, and these late old-timers will have an uphill battle convincing advertisers that their online space rate is worth the same or greater than their print spaces.I, for one will not miss newspapers.
I will miss journalism.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1350252.30323210</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1350252.30324328</id>
	<title>Not a perfect comparison</title>
	<author>wonkavader</author>
	<datestamp>1259945280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Journalism isn't an industry, or a manufacturer.</p><p>We want journalism.  We want people to inform the public and monitor the state.  We need to make sure they have a business model which works a little, so they can continue to thrive.</p><p>That said, Murdock and the rest of the large holding media homogenizing companies ARE an industry and a manufacturer and the more they resemble buggy makers the better, certainly.</p><p>We need to find a solution to allow journalism to go on -- and especially journalism with a bank account and a legal staff, because little people journalism is way too easy for the state (and even corporations) to stifle.  We should NOT (as you rightly say) be bailing out the corporations which want journalism to work exactly one way.</p><p>We just need to make sure we don't lose the journalism baby down the drain with the crap that's (thankfully) pouring out it's last profitable days.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Journalism is n't an industry , or a manufacturer.We want journalism .
We want people to inform the public and monitor the state .
We need to make sure they have a business model which works a little , so they can continue to thrive.That said , Murdock and the rest of the large holding media homogenizing companies ARE an industry and a manufacturer and the more they resemble buggy makers the better , certainly.We need to find a solution to allow journalism to go on -- and especially journalism with a bank account and a legal staff , because little people journalism is way too easy for the state ( and even corporations ) to stifle .
We should NOT ( as you rightly say ) be bailing out the corporations which want journalism to work exactly one way.We just need to make sure we do n't lose the journalism baby down the drain with the crap that 's ( thankfully ) pouring out it 's last profitable days .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Journalism isn't an industry, or a manufacturer.We want journalism.
We want people to inform the public and monitor the state.
We need to make sure they have a business model which works a little, so they can continue to thrive.That said, Murdock and the rest of the large holding media homogenizing companies ARE an industry and a manufacturer and the more they resemble buggy makers the better, certainly.We need to find a solution to allow journalism to go on -- and especially journalism with a bank account and a legal staff, because little people journalism is way too easy for the state (and even corporations) to stifle.
We should NOT (as you rightly say) be bailing out the corporations which want journalism to work exactly one way.We just need to make sure we don't lose the journalism baby down the drain with the crap that's (thankfully) pouring out it's last profitable days.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1350252.30323628</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1350252.30326178</id>
	<title>Re:It's not the death of journalism</title>
	<author>bill\_mcgonigle</author>
	<datestamp>1259953140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>It's just the death of journalism as we know it.<br>Print, TV, and radio news outlets are going to have to decide if they are in the print/tv/radio news or if they are in the business of news.</i></p><p>It's important to realize that journalism and distribution have been tightly coupled, but the Internet makes that model obsolete.</p><p>Rather than having a Cincinnati 'science writer', we're going to have writers who are very good at certain fields of expertise within science, and their work can be widely distributed.</p><p>A <a href="http://mcgonigle.us/bill/blog/articles/2009/05/22/a-model-for-better-more-competitive-newspapers" title="mcgonigle.us">blog post</a> [mcgonigle.us] I made on this in May in the context of GPS technology:</p><blockquote><div><p>Whenever I've been interviewed for a newspaper, words and facts have been twisted and/or just gotten wrong. Whenever I read a popular press article in an area where I have in-depth knowledge, it's wrong, at least in the details.</p><p>So, I just assume that's true all the time and go to specialists for real news reporting. I haven't checked, but I'd assume a place like Jane's would have a good article on this GPS thing.</p><p>How about this business model: be a journalist who's a bona-fide expert on GPS. Write completely accurate, insightful, and helpful news articles on GPS happenings. Charge alot for them.</p><p>The last part is the trick of course. But how many GPS journalists does the world need? No more than a handful. With the Internet it should be possible to greatly reduce the number of generalist journalists and start making 'newspapers' much better with experts. There's probably too much inertia at established papers but a disruptive model seems possible.</p><p>It's not 'mere blog aggregation' because most bloggers aren't writing in the form or quality required, but some scheme with writers, aggregators, and integrators could get it done. I don't see the value in local newspapers doing anything but inserting their local stories into layout and selling ads these days - find an integrator that matches your editorial values and outsource it.</p></div></blockquote></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's just the death of journalism as we know it.Print , TV , and radio news outlets are going to have to decide if they are in the print/tv/radio news or if they are in the business of news.It 's important to realize that journalism and distribution have been tightly coupled , but the Internet makes that model obsolete.Rather than having a Cincinnati 'science writer ' , we 're going to have writers who are very good at certain fields of expertise within science , and their work can be widely distributed.A blog post [ mcgonigle.us ] I made on this in May in the context of GPS technology : Whenever I 've been interviewed for a newspaper , words and facts have been twisted and/or just gotten wrong .
Whenever I read a popular press article in an area where I have in-depth knowledge , it 's wrong , at least in the details.So , I just assume that 's true all the time and go to specialists for real news reporting .
I have n't checked , but I 'd assume a place like Jane 's would have a good article on this GPS thing.How about this business model : be a journalist who 's a bona-fide expert on GPS .
Write completely accurate , insightful , and helpful news articles on GPS happenings .
Charge alot for them.The last part is the trick of course .
But how many GPS journalists does the world need ?
No more than a handful .
With the Internet it should be possible to greatly reduce the number of generalist journalists and start making 'newspapers ' much better with experts .
There 's probably too much inertia at established papers but a disruptive model seems possible.It 's not 'mere blog aggregation ' because most bloggers are n't writing in the form or quality required , but some scheme with writers , aggregators , and integrators could get it done .
I do n't see the value in local newspapers doing anything but inserting their local stories into layout and selling ads these days - find an integrator that matches your editorial values and outsource it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's just the death of journalism as we know it.Print, TV, and radio news outlets are going to have to decide if they are in the print/tv/radio news or if they are in the business of news.It's important to realize that journalism and distribution have been tightly coupled, but the Internet makes that model obsolete.Rather than having a Cincinnati 'science writer', we're going to have writers who are very good at certain fields of expertise within science, and their work can be widely distributed.A blog post [mcgonigle.us] I made on this in May in the context of GPS technology:Whenever I've been interviewed for a newspaper, words and facts have been twisted and/or just gotten wrong.
Whenever I read a popular press article in an area where I have in-depth knowledge, it's wrong, at least in the details.So, I just assume that's true all the time and go to specialists for real news reporting.
I haven't checked, but I'd assume a place like Jane's would have a good article on this GPS thing.How about this business model: be a journalist who's a bona-fide expert on GPS.
Write completely accurate, insightful, and helpful news articles on GPS happenings.
Charge alot for them.The last part is the trick of course.
But how many GPS journalists does the world need?
No more than a handful.
With the Internet it should be possible to greatly reduce the number of generalist journalists and start making 'newspapers' much better with experts.
There's probably too much inertia at established papers but a disruptive model seems possible.It's not 'mere blog aggregation' because most bloggers aren't writing in the form or quality required, but some scheme with writers, aggregators, and integrators could get it done.
I don't see the value in local newspapers doing anything but inserting their local stories into layout and selling ads these days - find an integrator that matches your editorial values and outsource it.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1350252.30323210</parent>
</comment>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_04_1350252_5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1350252.30323260
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1350252.30325930
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_04_1350252_39</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1350252.30323160
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1350252.30323640
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1350252.30381346
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_04_1350252_12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1350252.30323160
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1350252.30323640
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1350252.30324376
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_04_1350252_46</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1350252.30323432
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1350252.30325598
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_04_1350252_29</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1350252.30323210
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1350252.30323424
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1350252.30344134
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_04_1350252_40</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1350252.30323476
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1350252.30324456
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_04_1350252_36</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1350252.30323160
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1350252.30323514
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_04_1350252_30</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1350252.30323488
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1350252.30326130
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_04_1350252_13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1350252.30323160
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1350252.30323640
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1350252.30324962
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_04_1350252_4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1350252.30323260
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1350252.30326306
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_04_1350252_10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1350252.30323220
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1350252.30324134
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_04_1350252_28</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1350252.30323488
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1350252.30323604
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_04_1350252_31</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1350252.30323488
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1350252.30330908
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_04_1350252_33</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1350252.30323226
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1350252.30323762
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_04_1350252_19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1350252.30323488
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1350252.30325018
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_04_1350252_23</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1350252.30323488
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1350252.30323852
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1350252.30326374
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_04_1350252_9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1350252.30323260
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1350252.30323594
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_04_1350252_16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1350252.30323432
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1350252.30324808
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_04_1350252_44</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1350252.30323168
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1350252.30326578
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_04_1350252_43</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1350252.30323210
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1350252.30323570
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_04_1350252_22</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1350252.30323160
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1350252.30323494
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_04_1350252_17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1350252.30323160
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1350252.30323640
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1350252.30326002
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_04_1350252_45</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1350252.30323488
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1350252.30335700
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_04_1350252_21</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1350252.30323432
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1350252.30331416
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_04_1350252_8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1350252.30323168
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1350252.30324162
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_04_1350252_14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1350252.30323432
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1350252.30324922
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_04_1350252_3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1350252.30323260
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1350252.30325030
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_04_1350252_37</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1350252.30323160
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1350252.30323640
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1350252.30328826
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_04_1350252_42</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1350252.30323210
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1350252.30323424
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1350252.30324114
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_04_1350252_27</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1350252.30323168
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1350252.30323620
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_04_1350252_32</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1350252.30323160
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1350252.30323640
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1350252.30324866
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_04_1350252_34</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1350252.30323488
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1350252.30328540
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_04_1350252_11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1350252.30323160
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1350252.30323640
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1350252.30324152
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_04_1350252_2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1350252.30323160
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1350252.30323428
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_04_1350252_1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1350252.30323488
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1350252.30323782
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_04_1350252_35</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1350252.30323476
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1350252.30325334
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_04_1350252_26</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1350252.30323210
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1350252.30326178
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_04_1350252_25</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1350252.30323210
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1350252.30323412
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1350252.30326300
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_04_1350252_18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1350252.30323488
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1350252.30330408
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_04_1350252_7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1350252.30323260
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1350252.30323686
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1350252.30334714
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_04_1350252_0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1350252.30323432
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1350252.30324006
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_04_1350252_48</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1350252.30323168
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1350252.30325458
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_04_1350252_24</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1350252.30323488
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1350252.30324260
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_04_1350252_47</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1350252.30323260
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1350252.30325462
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_04_1350252_38</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1350252.30323628
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1350252.30324328
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_04_1350252_41</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1350252.30323260
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1350252.30323882
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_04_1350252_15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1350252.30323180
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1350252.30323518
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_04_1350252_20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1350252.30323168
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1350252.30323736
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_04_1350252_6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1350252.30323160
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1350252.30323640
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1350252.30324638
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1350252.30327404
</commentlist>
</thread>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_04_1350252.8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1350252.30323180
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1350252.30323518
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_04_1350252.13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1350252.30323160
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1350252.30323640
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1350252.30326002
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1350252.30324152
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1350252.30381346
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1350252.30328826
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1350252.30324376
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1350252.30324638
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1350252.30327404
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1350252.30324866
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1350252.30324962
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1350252.30323494
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1350252.30323428
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1350252.30323514
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_04_1350252.11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1350252.30323488
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1350252.30328540
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1350252.30323852
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1350252.30326374
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1350252.30330408
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1350252.30323782
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1350252.30326130
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1350252.30323604
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1350252.30330908
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1350252.30335700
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1350252.30325018
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1350252.30324260
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_04_1350252.9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1350252.30323210
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1350252.30326178
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1350252.30323570
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1350252.30323412
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1350252.30326300
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1350252.30323424
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1350252.30324114
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1350252.30344134
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_04_1350252.2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1350252.30323318
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_04_1350252.14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1350252.30323964
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_04_1350252.17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1350252.30323618
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_04_1350252.0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1350252.30323124
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_04_1350252.12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1350252.30323558
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_04_1350252.15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1350252.30323370
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_04_1350252.3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1350252.30323628
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1350252.30324328
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_04_1350252.6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1350252.30323432
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1350252.30324006
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1350252.30331416
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1350252.30324922
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1350252.30325598
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1350252.30324808
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_04_1350252.18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1350252.30324744
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_04_1350252.1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1350252.30323476
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1350252.30324456
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1350252.30325334
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_04_1350252.4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1350252.30323260
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1350252.30326306
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1350252.30325030
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1350252.30323686
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1350252.30334714
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1350252.30323594
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1350252.30325930
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1350252.30323882
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1350252.30325462
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_04_1350252.16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1350252.30323142
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_04_1350252.7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1350252.30323226
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1350252.30323762
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_04_1350252.5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1350252.30323206
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_04_1350252.10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1350252.30323694
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_04_1350252.20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1350252.30323220
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1350252.30324134
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_04_1350252.21</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1350252.30323196
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_04_1350252.19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1350252.30323168
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1350252.30325458
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1350252.30323736
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1350252.30326578
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1350252.30323620
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1350252.30324162
</commentlist>
</conversation>
