<article>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#article10_01_28_0422202</id>
	<title>Does Personalized News Lead To Ignorance?</title>
	<author>samzenpus</author>
	<datestamp>1264683420000</datestamp>
	<htmltext>blackbearnh writes <i>"As newspapers struggle to survive and local broadcasts try to find a way to compete with cable news, more and more news outlets are banking on what people want to hear about, rather than what they need to hear.  Thoughtful analysis of problems is being pushed out of the way to make room for more celebrity gossip.  Electronic news guru Chris Lee thinks that as people get news increasingly tailored to their tastes, <a href="http://radar.oreilly.com/2010/01/when-it-comes-to-news-why-wont.html">the overall knowledge of important issues is plummeting</a>.  'I think one of the observations about how consumers are behaving in the past five years that has surprised me the most is, again, this lack of feeling responsible for knowing the news of their country and their local government of that day. I don't think it's just a technology question. I think if you asked people now versus the same age group 20 years ago, I think they'd be stunningly less informed now about boring news, and tremendously more knowledgeable about bits of news that really interest them.'"</i></htmltext>
<tokenext>blackbearnh writes " As newspapers struggle to survive and local broadcasts try to find a way to compete with cable news , more and more news outlets are banking on what people want to hear about , rather than what they need to hear .
Thoughtful analysis of problems is being pushed out of the way to make room for more celebrity gossip .
Electronic news guru Chris Lee thinks that as people get news increasingly tailored to their tastes , the overall knowledge of important issues is plummeting .
'I think one of the observations about how consumers are behaving in the past five years that has surprised me the most is , again , this lack of feeling responsible for knowing the news of their country and their local government of that day .
I do n't think it 's just a technology question .
I think if you asked people now versus the same age group 20 years ago , I think they 'd be stunningly less informed now about boring news , and tremendously more knowledgeable about bits of news that really interest them .
' "</tokentext>
<sentencetext>blackbearnh writes "As newspapers struggle to survive and local broadcasts try to find a way to compete with cable news, more and more news outlets are banking on what people want to hear about, rather than what they need to hear.
Thoughtful analysis of problems is being pushed out of the way to make room for more celebrity gossip.
Electronic news guru Chris Lee thinks that as people get news increasingly tailored to their tastes, the overall knowledge of important issues is plummeting.
'I think one of the observations about how consumers are behaving in the past five years that has surprised me the most is, again, this lack of feeling responsible for knowing the news of their country and their local government of that day.
I don't think it's just a technology question.
I think if you asked people now versus the same age group 20 years ago, I think they'd be stunningly less informed now about boring news, and tremendously more knowledgeable about bits of news that really interest them.
'"</sentencetext>
</article>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_0422202.30933592</id>
	<title>The other way around, apparently...</title>
	<author>mjpaci</author>
	<datestamp>1264695960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Personalized ignorance leads to news here on Slashdot.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Personalized ignorance leads to news here on Slashdot .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Personalized ignorance leads to news here on Slashdot.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_0422202.30941100</id>
	<title>people who don't want to know, won't,</title>
	<author>pudge\_confirmer</author>
	<datestamp>1264673040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>and people who don't want to know, will <a href="http://slashdot.org/~pudge/foes" title="slashdot.org" rel="nofollow">foe</a> [slashdot.org].</p><p>people who want to know, will personalize their news to avoid those who don't want to know, and favor those who do want to know</p><p>you know?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>and people who do n't want to know , will foe [ slashdot.org ] .people who want to know , will personalize their news to avoid those who do n't want to know , and favor those who do want to knowyou know ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>and people who don't want to know, will foe [slashdot.org].people who want to know, will personalize their news to avoid those who don't want to know, and favor those who do want to knowyou know?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_0422202.30932156</id>
	<title>it's worse than ignorance</title>
	<author>a2wflc</author>
	<datestamp>1264687920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>People discuss the controversial news on sites with other people who agree with them.  And they get depth of knowledge  about "their side" and get attacks, misrepresentations, and lies about "the other side".  Then they often "forget" which was news, facts, or opinions and treat most of what they read on a biased site as true.  It would often be better if they were ignorant on the subject.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>People discuss the controversial news on sites with other people who agree with them .
And they get depth of knowledge about " their side " and get attacks , misrepresentations , and lies about " the other side " .
Then they often " forget " which was news , facts , or opinions and treat most of what they read on a biased site as true .
It would often be better if they were ignorant on the subject .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>People discuss the controversial news on sites with other people who agree with them.
And they get depth of knowledge  about "their side" and get attacks, misrepresentations, and lies about "the other side".
Then they often "forget" which was news, facts, or opinions and treat most of what they read on a biased site as true.
It would often be better if they were ignorant on the subject.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_0422202.30932210</id>
	<title>Another explanation</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264688220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>More and more people are starting to view news as little more than propaganda.  They dont use that word of course, but people are sick of being constantly manipulated by subtly twisted information and they are starting to react to that by tuning out.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>More and more people are starting to view news as little more than propaganda .
They dont use that word of course , but people are sick of being constantly manipulated by subtly twisted information and they are starting to react to that by tuning out .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>More and more people are starting to view news as little more than propaganda.
They dont use that word of course, but people are sick of being constantly manipulated by subtly twisted information and they are starting to react to that by tuning out.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_0422202.30932796</id>
	<title>Re:New should not be tailored to consumers</title>
	<author>dkf</author>
	<datestamp>1264691880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>As odd as it sounds, I think that news should not ever be tailored to the "consumer".</p></div><p>I somewhat agree. Some of the content of the "news" is what I'd call genuine news; things that everyone ought to be told about. Examples are the earthquake in Haiti (though really only on the day it happened) or the conviction of a politician on charges of corruption. Everything else is interesting to some and dross to others, and so could be personalized.</p><p>The problem is the definition of news. There's an incentive for sleazy marketers to get their infomercials classified as news, and there's an incentive for sleazy bigwigs to get their shenanigans classified as non-news. Honest news is assaulted from both ends, by crap and by censorship. That's why it's important to support good newspapers (or other news media; the fact that it is on dead tree is the least important part) have good journalists: they keep the crap out while reporting the things that you <i>should</i> know for the good of everyone. It's a tough line to walk and we should laud those who are good at walking it...</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>As odd as it sounds , I think that news should not ever be tailored to the " consumer " .I somewhat agree .
Some of the content of the " news " is what I 'd call genuine news ; things that everyone ought to be told about .
Examples are the earthquake in Haiti ( though really only on the day it happened ) or the conviction of a politician on charges of corruption .
Everything else is interesting to some and dross to others , and so could be personalized.The problem is the definition of news .
There 's an incentive for sleazy marketers to get their infomercials classified as news , and there 's an incentive for sleazy bigwigs to get their shenanigans classified as non-news .
Honest news is assaulted from both ends , by crap and by censorship .
That 's why it 's important to support good newspapers ( or other news media ; the fact that it is on dead tree is the least important part ) have good journalists : they keep the crap out while reporting the things that you should know for the good of everyone .
It 's a tough line to walk and we should laud those who are good at walking it.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>As odd as it sounds, I think that news should not ever be tailored to the "consumer".I somewhat agree.
Some of the content of the "news" is what I'd call genuine news; things that everyone ought to be told about.
Examples are the earthquake in Haiti (though really only on the day it happened) or the conviction of a politician on charges of corruption.
Everything else is interesting to some and dross to others, and so could be personalized.The problem is the definition of news.
There's an incentive for sleazy marketers to get their infomercials classified as news, and there's an incentive for sleazy bigwigs to get their shenanigans classified as non-news.
Honest news is assaulted from both ends, by crap and by censorship.
That's why it's important to support good newspapers (or other news media; the fact that it is on dead tree is the least important part) have good journalists: they keep the crap out while reporting the things that you should know for the good of everyone.
It's a tough line to walk and we should laud those who are good at walking it...
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_0422202.30932086</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_0422202.30933494</id>
	<title>Whew!</title>
	<author>bytethese</author>
	<datestamp>1264695540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>If a friend hadn't linked me to this story, I would have missed it...</htmltext>
<tokenext>If a friend had n't linked me to this story , I would have missed it.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If a friend hadn't linked me to this story, I would have missed it...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_0422202.30932122</id>
	<title>Re:Well duh!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264687740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Newspapers are out because no-one has the time to read them. Real life TL;DR.</p><p>The sheer amount of news that you can get makes it hard to actually pay attention to it. Ten years ago I was glued to the evening news at eight-o-clock. That was about the only news you could watch on TV. Nowadays the news is on for 25 hours a day, iterating and re-re-re-iterating the same shallow 'reports'. Who watches that? No-one I know does.</p><p>To much of a thing becomes annoying.</p><p>Besides, it used to be that local news was covered much more then international news. What do I care about someone on the other side of the planet that just bumped his big toe? That isn't news to me!</p><p>And, lastly, watching TV in general is a pain because of the commercial breaks that are longer than the normal programming. It isn't watchable anymore.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Newspapers are out because no-one has the time to read them .
Real life TL ; DR.The sheer amount of news that you can get makes it hard to actually pay attention to it .
Ten years ago I was glued to the evening news at eight-o-clock .
That was about the only news you could watch on TV .
Nowadays the news is on for 25 hours a day , iterating and re-re-re-iterating the same shallow 'reports' .
Who watches that ?
No-one I know does.To much of a thing becomes annoying.Besides , it used to be that local news was covered much more then international news .
What do I care about someone on the other side of the planet that just bumped his big toe ?
That is n't news to me ! And , lastly , watching TV in general is a pain because of the commercial breaks that are longer than the normal programming .
It is n't watchable anymore .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Newspapers are out because no-one has the time to read them.
Real life TL;DR.The sheer amount of news that you can get makes it hard to actually pay attention to it.
Ten years ago I was glued to the evening news at eight-o-clock.
That was about the only news you could watch on TV.
Nowadays the news is on for 25 hours a day, iterating and re-re-re-iterating the same shallow 'reports'.
Who watches that?
No-one I know does.To much of a thing becomes annoying.Besides, it used to be that local news was covered much more then international news.
What do I care about someone on the other side of the planet that just bumped his big toe?
That isn't news to me!And, lastly, watching TV in general is a pain because of the commercial breaks that are longer than the normal programming.
It isn't watchable anymore.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_0422202.30932050</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_0422202.30932272</id>
	<title>Same old same old</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264688580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The boring stuff somebody else will take care off. You know its true because  Americas Got talent .</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The boring stuff somebody else will take care off .
You know its true because Americas Got talent .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The boring stuff somebody else will take care off.
You know its true because  Americas Got talent .</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_0422202.30933558</id>
	<title>What's the Difference?</title>
	<author>MGRockwell</author>
	<datestamp>1264695780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>What is the difference between not receiving the news on your personalized page and not reading it in a newspaper?  If you aren't interested, you aren't interested.  The same articles that I don't have on my Google page are the same articles I wouldn't read in the newspaper.

I get Slashdot, Google News Top Stories and Digital Photography School.  I realize I'm not very well informed on current events.  If I didn't have a Google page I'd be even less so.</htmltext>
<tokenext>What is the difference between not receiving the news on your personalized page and not reading it in a newspaper ?
If you are n't interested , you are n't interested .
The same articles that I do n't have on my Google page are the same articles I would n't read in the newspaper .
I get Slashdot , Google News Top Stories and Digital Photography School .
I realize I 'm not very well informed on current events .
If I did n't have a Google page I 'd be even less so .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What is the difference between not receiving the news on your personalized page and not reading it in a newspaper?
If you aren't interested, you aren't interested.
The same articles that I don't have on my Google page are the same articles I wouldn't read in the newspaper.
I get Slashdot, Google News Top Stories and Digital Photography School.
I realize I'm not very well informed on current events.
If I didn't have a Google page I'd be even less so.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_0422202.30936928</id>
	<title>Old old news.</title>
	<author>Kazoo the Clown</author>
	<datestamp>1264705320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>"What you need to hear," was a fad that died out by the 1960s once Edgar R. Murrow, H. L. Menken, and a few of their peers faded out.<br> <br>
Good night, and good luck.</htmltext>
<tokenext>" What you need to hear , " was a fad that died out by the 1960s once Edgar R. Murrow , H. L. Menken , and a few of their peers faded out .
Good night , and good luck .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"What you need to hear," was a fad that died out by the 1960s once Edgar R. Murrow, H. L. Menken, and a few of their peers faded out.
Good night, and good luck.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_0422202.30939094</id>
	<title>It's because we want it instantly</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264710480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The problem is that people expect to have news available instantly, with pictures and video and editorialization. Broadcasters have to fill the air/page with something, so it's all kittens in trees and reports on biases in other reports, etc. etc. Look at the damn iPad; months and motnhs of speculation, blogs reporting on other blogs, mocked up pictures, theories about components being produced by obscure hardware companies... OK, so that's the norm for the <a href="http://www.misterbg.org/AppleProductCycle/" title="misterbg.org" rel="nofollow">Apple product cycle</a> [misterbg.org], but this kind of stuff is taking over the evening news. When important news does come along, its ripped apart immediately and presented in the most minute detail because each publisher wants to offer something that the others don't have. This level of detail is difficult to read - when the NYT is tearing apart what X said to Y about Z, the casual reader is left wondering who X and Y are, why they're important, and what Z has to do with their life.</p><p>If we expected a more relaxed news cycle, news of important local/national/international events would be presented better, easier to digest and more relevant. As it is, there's too much information, too quickly, and so people run for shelter to personalized news about things they do understand, where they have a chance at grokking the details and understanding their relevance, or where they are at least entertained.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The problem is that people expect to have news available instantly , with pictures and video and editorialization .
Broadcasters have to fill the air/page with something , so it 's all kittens in trees and reports on biases in other reports , etc .
etc. Look at the damn iPad ; months and motnhs of speculation , blogs reporting on other blogs , mocked up pictures , theories about components being produced by obscure hardware companies... OK , so that 's the norm for the Apple product cycle [ misterbg.org ] , but this kind of stuff is taking over the evening news .
When important news does come along , its ripped apart immediately and presented in the most minute detail because each publisher wants to offer something that the others do n't have .
This level of detail is difficult to read - when the NYT is tearing apart what X said to Y about Z , the casual reader is left wondering who X and Y are , why they 're important , and what Z has to do with their life.If we expected a more relaxed news cycle , news of important local/national/international events would be presented better , easier to digest and more relevant .
As it is , there 's too much information , too quickly , and so people run for shelter to personalized news about things they do understand , where they have a chance at grokking the details and understanding their relevance , or where they are at least entertained .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The problem is that people expect to have news available instantly, with pictures and video and editorialization.
Broadcasters have to fill the air/page with something, so it's all kittens in trees and reports on biases in other reports, etc.
etc. Look at the damn iPad; months and motnhs of speculation, blogs reporting on other blogs, mocked up pictures, theories about components being produced by obscure hardware companies... OK, so that's the norm for the Apple product cycle [misterbg.org], but this kind of stuff is taking over the evening news.
When important news does come along, its ripped apart immediately and presented in the most minute detail because each publisher wants to offer something that the others don't have.
This level of detail is difficult to read - when the NYT is tearing apart what X said to Y about Z, the casual reader is left wondering who X and Y are, why they're important, and what Z has to do with their life.If we expected a more relaxed news cycle, news of important local/national/international events would be presented better, easier to digest and more relevant.
As it is, there's too much information, too quickly, and so people run for shelter to personalized news about things they do understand, where they have a chance at grokking the details and understanding their relevance, or where they are at least entertained.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_0422202.30933534</id>
	<title>Confusing Cause and Effect</title>
	<author>Conspicuous Coward</author>
	<datestamp>1264695720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The quality of "serious" journalism has always been terrible and is getting worse. People turn away from this because it is mostly an attempt to actually marginalise them from serious discussion. </p><p>Look at it this way, doing serious investigative work into systematic government lies, corporate malfeasance or issues of actual importance to people's lives inevitably pisses off a bunch of very rich and powerful people. <br>
Given the ownership structure of the media these people are quite likely to either directly control your newspaper through ownership, or indirectly through advertising. Pissing them off is very bad for your career. </p><p>Therefore serious investigative work and reporting is rarely done. Ninety-Nine percent of the time journalists do little more than echo the words of some "offical" govenment or PR source. And the news media that is supposedly meant to protect us from the powerfull actually ends up being just a mouthpice for them.
The thing is, people aren't (quite) as stupid as is commonly assumed, they know that what is presented to them as serious journalism is mostly bullshit. But they are lazy, so rather than work harder, read between the lines and try and find out what's really going on behind the headlines; they tune out the bullshit and end up ignoring the news entirely. </p><p>The introduction of entertainment into forms that were formerly reserved for "serious" journalism is an effect of this apathy rather than a primary cause. It's an attempt to win back the viewers that were previously lost. It also has the advantage of continuing to give the appearance of "doing" the news, without the inherent cost and risk associated with serious news gathering. </p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The quality of " serious " journalism has always been terrible and is getting worse .
People turn away from this because it is mostly an attempt to actually marginalise them from serious discussion .
Look at it this way , doing serious investigative work into systematic government lies , corporate malfeasance or issues of actual importance to people 's lives inevitably pisses off a bunch of very rich and powerful people .
Given the ownership structure of the media these people are quite likely to either directly control your newspaper through ownership , or indirectly through advertising .
Pissing them off is very bad for your career .
Therefore serious investigative work and reporting is rarely done .
Ninety-Nine percent of the time journalists do little more than echo the words of some " offical " govenment or PR source .
And the news media that is supposedly meant to protect us from the powerfull actually ends up being just a mouthpice for them .
The thing is , people are n't ( quite ) as stupid as is commonly assumed , they know that what is presented to them as serious journalism is mostly bullshit .
But they are lazy , so rather than work harder , read between the lines and try and find out what 's really going on behind the headlines ; they tune out the bullshit and end up ignoring the news entirely .
The introduction of entertainment into forms that were formerly reserved for " serious " journalism is an effect of this apathy rather than a primary cause .
It 's an attempt to win back the viewers that were previously lost .
It also has the advantage of continuing to give the appearance of " doing " the news , without the inherent cost and risk associated with serious news gathering .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The quality of "serious" journalism has always been terrible and is getting worse.
People turn away from this because it is mostly an attempt to actually marginalise them from serious discussion.
Look at it this way, doing serious investigative work into systematic government lies, corporate malfeasance or issues of actual importance to people's lives inevitably pisses off a bunch of very rich and powerful people.
Given the ownership structure of the media these people are quite likely to either directly control your newspaper through ownership, or indirectly through advertising.
Pissing them off is very bad for your career.
Therefore serious investigative work and reporting is rarely done.
Ninety-Nine percent of the time journalists do little more than echo the words of some "offical" govenment or PR source.
And the news media that is supposedly meant to protect us from the powerfull actually ends up being just a mouthpice for them.
The thing is, people aren't (quite) as stupid as is commonly assumed, they know that what is presented to them as serious journalism is mostly bullshit.
But they are lazy, so rather than work harder, read between the lines and try and find out what's really going on behind the headlines; they tune out the bullshit and end up ignoring the news entirely.
The introduction of entertainment into forms that were formerly reserved for "serious" journalism is an effect of this apathy rather than a primary cause.
It's an attempt to win back the viewers that were previously lost.
It also has the advantage of continuing to give the appearance of "doing" the news, without the inherent cost and risk associated with serious news gathering. </sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_0422202.30932762</id>
	<title>Anonymous Coward</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264691640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Quick answer? Yes.</p><p>See Fox News.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Quick answer ?
Yes.See Fox News .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Quick answer?
Yes.See Fox News.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_0422202.30932574</id>
	<title>I get all my news from The Onion</title>
	<author>L4t3r4lu5</author>
	<datestamp>1264690560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Once you strip out the sensationalism, you frequently find that there is a basis from a story which is not in mainstream media. Sources are scarce, of course, but once you have a basic grasp of the issue you can usually find some blogs or local news which covers the issues being discussed.<br> <br>IMHO, the biggest issue is people are too used to having opinions spoon-fed to them through the idiot box, and have forgotten where the good sources of reliable information are.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Once you strip out the sensationalism , you frequently find that there is a basis from a story which is not in mainstream media .
Sources are scarce , of course , but once you have a basic grasp of the issue you can usually find some blogs or local news which covers the issues being discussed .
IMHO , the biggest issue is people are too used to having opinions spoon-fed to them through the idiot box , and have forgotten where the good sources of reliable information are .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Once you strip out the sensationalism, you frequently find that there is a basis from a story which is not in mainstream media.
Sources are scarce, of course, but once you have a basic grasp of the issue you can usually find some blogs or local news which covers the issues being discussed.
IMHO, the biggest issue is people are too used to having opinions spoon-fed to them through the idiot box, and have forgotten where the good sources of reliable information are.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_0422202.30936358</id>
	<title>Re:I Disagree, That's the Only Model That Works</title>
	<author>Aceticon</author>
	<datestamp>1264703640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><b>"</b>Jaywalking is a dangerous crime, were the lives of the innocents close to the criminal - mothers, fathers, children - are at risk from the reckless actions of the criminal: there are many examples of people killed when cars swerved out of control to avoid people jaywalking.</p><p>Such reckless risking of other people's life can only be the product of derranged, even evil individuals and a speedy, painfull and highly visible punishment that removes them from society for good is the only way to ensure the safetty of all of us<b>"</b></p><p>This kind of spin work for drugs, and it certainly is being tried for Copyright Infrigement, so I'm sure it would work for jaywalking (although maybe not if the sentence is impalement). As long as a not too big proportion of the population is affected (for example, I believe 12\% of people in the US heve been convicted at one point or other of drug related charges???) a proper level of demonisation will be enough to keep the unthinking masses from rebeling.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" Jaywalking is a dangerous crime , were the lives of the innocents close to the criminal - mothers , fathers , children - are at risk from the reckless actions of the criminal : there are many examples of people killed when cars swerved out of control to avoid people jaywalking.Such reckless risking of other people 's life can only be the product of derranged , even evil individuals and a speedy , painfull and highly visible punishment that removes them from society for good is the only way to ensure the safetty of all of us " This kind of spin work for drugs , and it certainly is being tried for Copyright Infrigement , so I 'm sure it would work for jaywalking ( although maybe not if the sentence is impalement ) .
As long as a not too big proportion of the population is affected ( for example , I believe 12 \ % of people in the US heve been convicted at one point or other of drug related charges ? ? ?
) a proper level of demonisation will be enough to keep the unthinking masses from rebeling .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"Jaywalking is a dangerous crime, were the lives of the innocents close to the criminal - mothers, fathers, children - are at risk from the reckless actions of the criminal: there are many examples of people killed when cars swerved out of control to avoid people jaywalking.Such reckless risking of other people's life can only be the product of derranged, even evil individuals and a speedy, painfull and highly visible punishment that removes them from society for good is the only way to ensure the safetty of all of us"This kind of spin work for drugs, and it certainly is being tried for Copyright Infrigement, so I'm sure it would work for jaywalking (although maybe not if the sentence is impalement).
As long as a not too big proportion of the population is affected (for example, I believe 12\% of people in the US heve been convicted at one point or other of drug related charges???
) a proper level of demonisation will be enough to keep the unthinking masses from rebeling.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_0422202.30932248</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_0422202.30932206</id>
	<title>I suspect that 20 years ago it was the same</title>
	<author>foniksonik</author>
	<datestamp>1264688220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>People who choose to be ignorant are the same as they've alwas been. The big difference today is that more claim to be informed because the gossip is now labeled news.</p><p>It is easier than ever to find out about world events and local happenings. Add that there is fast access to historical information on any topic and there is no excuse not to be an informed person. A bigger problem is filtering out the relevant from the banal which is what the pros are supposed to be paid to do yet they seem to be failing and probably for the same reason as the rest of us.</p><p>
&nbsp;</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>People who choose to be ignorant are the same as they 've alwas been .
The big difference today is that more claim to be informed because the gossip is now labeled news.It is easier than ever to find out about world events and local happenings .
Add that there is fast access to historical information on any topic and there is no excuse not to be an informed person .
A bigger problem is filtering out the relevant from the banal which is what the pros are supposed to be paid to do yet they seem to be failing and probably for the same reason as the rest of us .
 </tokentext>
<sentencetext>People who choose to be ignorant are the same as they've alwas been.
The big difference today is that more claim to be informed because the gossip is now labeled news.It is easier than ever to find out about world events and local happenings.
Add that there is fast access to historical information on any topic and there is no excuse not to be an informed person.
A bigger problem is filtering out the relevant from the banal which is what the pros are supposed to be paid to do yet they seem to be failing and probably for the same reason as the rest of us.
 </sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_0422202.30935260</id>
	<title>Re:More pervasive than just news</title>
	<author>operagost</author>
	<datestamp>1264700640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p> <tt>In the US at least, knowing a lot about ANYTHING makes you a nerd, a social outcast, the non-cool guy. Ask a coworker how their boiler works, or how to change their oil. Ask them how to chainsaw a tree. Ask them how to wire a switch, or pull a shot of espresso. Most will look at you like you showed them dirty pictures - "What? Me? Do actual labor?</tt></p></div> </blockquote><p>Maybe you should stop hanging out with lazy people.  I wouldn't call someone who's handy a "nerd".  Even if that was nerdy, what's it to ya?  I'm saving a lot of money doing it myself.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>In the US at least , knowing a lot about ANYTHING makes you a nerd , a social outcast , the non-cool guy .
Ask a coworker how their boiler works , or how to change their oil .
Ask them how to chainsaw a tree .
Ask them how to wire a switch , or pull a shot of espresso .
Most will look at you like you showed them dirty pictures - " What ?
Me ? Do actual labor ?
Maybe you should stop hanging out with lazy people .
I would n't call someone who 's handy a " nerd " .
Even if that was nerdy , what 's it to ya ?
I 'm saving a lot of money doing it myself .</tokentext>
<sentencetext> In the US at least, knowing a lot about ANYTHING makes you a nerd, a social outcast, the non-cool guy.
Ask a coworker how their boiler works, or how to change their oil.
Ask them how to chainsaw a tree.
Ask them how to wire a switch, or pull a shot of espresso.
Most will look at you like you showed them dirty pictures - "What?
Me? Do actual labor?
Maybe you should stop hanging out with lazy people.
I wouldn't call someone who's handy a "nerd".
Even if that was nerdy, what's it to ya?
I'm saving a lot of money doing it myself.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_0422202.30932204</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_0422202.30932150</id>
	<title>I Particularly Enjoyed</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264687920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>I particularly enjoyed how they ripped apart so many aspects of 'news' over the past years and coming years.  From "Do bikinis cause cancer? More at 11" to <a href="http://news.slashdot.org/story/09/12/30/1559214/The-Rise-of-Machine-Written-Journalism" title="slashdot.org">automated journalism</a> [slashdot.org].  But then somehow claim that the newsreader is ignorant for seeking news that is personalized to him or her.  Maybe, just maybe, if a wide reaching non-specific news source treated their readers with respect, produced quality and engaged in more investigative journalism than "look at this picture" or "Ten worst/best" lists then we would all be reading it.  <br> <br>Until then, I guarantee you that people will prefer to seek specialized news sources because the editors and writers for that source are often experts and their biases are often exactly what we want.  Just look at the blogs of Michael Geist and Bruce Schneier, <i>way</i> more preferable than any big name news site's 'computer security' division.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I particularly enjoyed how they ripped apart so many aspects of 'news ' over the past years and coming years .
From " Do bikinis cause cancer ?
More at 11 " to automated journalism [ slashdot.org ] .
But then somehow claim that the newsreader is ignorant for seeking news that is personalized to him or her .
Maybe , just maybe , if a wide reaching non-specific news source treated their readers with respect , produced quality and engaged in more investigative journalism than " look at this picture " or " Ten worst/best " lists then we would all be reading it .
Until then , I guarantee you that people will prefer to seek specialized news sources because the editors and writers for that source are often experts and their biases are often exactly what we want .
Just look at the blogs of Michael Geist and Bruce Schneier , way more preferable than any big name news site 's 'computer security ' division .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I particularly enjoyed how they ripped apart so many aspects of 'news' over the past years and coming years.
From "Do bikinis cause cancer?
More at 11" to automated journalism [slashdot.org].
But then somehow claim that the newsreader is ignorant for seeking news that is personalized to him or her.
Maybe, just maybe, if a wide reaching non-specific news source treated their readers with respect, produced quality and engaged in more investigative journalism than "look at this picture" or "Ten worst/best" lists then we would all be reading it.
Until then, I guarantee you that people will prefer to seek specialized news sources because the editors and writers for that source are often experts and their biases are often exactly what we want.
Just look at the blogs of Michael Geist and Bruce Schneier, way more preferable than any big name news site's 'computer security' division.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_0422202.30933488</id>
	<title>People read news not to learn, but to confirm</title>
	<author>cinnamon colbert</author>
	<datestamp>1264695480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I believe that in most cases, most people don't "read" news (mostly TV in the US) to learn new things, but to confirm their already  held prejudices.<br>Their is a substantial body of psychology that says we discount things opposiste to our beliefs and pay attention to things that confirm our beliefs.</p><p>Here is a test: when was the last time facts in the "news' changed a core belief of yours; ie, to pick a controversial topic, how many<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/dotters have changed their veiws on abortion, or on the desirability of invading Iraq, or if Socialized medicine is a good idea ?</p><p>sure, we take in info on things that are peripheral, but on important stuff we don't read the news to learn<br>www.vercaro.blogspot.com</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I believe that in most cases , most people do n't " read " news ( mostly TV in the US ) to learn new things , but to confirm their already held prejudices.Their is a substantial body of psychology that says we discount things opposiste to our beliefs and pay attention to things that confirm our beliefs.Here is a test : when was the last time facts in the " news ' changed a core belief of yours ; ie , to pick a controversial topic , how many /dotters have changed their veiws on abortion , or on the desirability of invading Iraq , or if Socialized medicine is a good idea ? sure , we take in info on things that are peripheral , but on important stuff we do n't read the news to learnwww.vercaro.blogspot.com</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I believe that in most cases, most people don't "read" news (mostly TV in the US) to learn new things, but to confirm their already  held prejudices.Their is a substantial body of psychology that says we discount things opposiste to our beliefs and pay attention to things that confirm our beliefs.Here is a test: when was the last time facts in the "news' changed a core belief of yours; ie, to pick a controversial topic, how many /dotters have changed their veiws on abortion, or on the desirability of invading Iraq, or if Socialized medicine is a good idea ?sure, we take in info on things that are peripheral, but on important stuff we don't read the news to learnwww.vercaro.blogspot.com</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_0422202.30932948</id>
	<title>Local News == FUD</title>
	<author>andrewd18</author>
	<datestamp>1264692960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I can't watch local news anymore. I'm tired of hearing about the next plaything that might kill my baby or the poison I've been drinking out of my tap for the past 20 years. Every story is designed to get me worried about something new, and I've already got plenty to worry about as it is.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I ca n't watch local news anymore .
I 'm tired of hearing about the next plaything that might kill my baby or the poison I 've been drinking out of my tap for the past 20 years .
Every story is designed to get me worried about something new , and I 've already got plenty to worry about as it is .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I can't watch local news anymore.
I'm tired of hearing about the next plaything that might kill my baby or the poison I've been drinking out of my tap for the past 20 years.
Every story is designed to get me worried about something new, and I've already got plenty to worry about as it is.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_0422202.30939224</id>
	<title>Re:What they need to hear?</title>
	<author>chickenarise</author>
	<datestamp>1264710840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>From the article you linked:<p><div class="quote"><p>
Like most incidents that get people shot, these are easily avoided by police in most cases. All they have to do is ask themselves a few questions:
</p><ul>
    <li>Does this person have a history of violence?</li><li>Is this person accused of a violent crime?</li><li>What time of day are we doing the raid?</li><li>Are we absolutely sure we can trust the information we have?</li></ul><p>

If the answer to any of these question is "no" or "probably not," then chances are you are about to walk into an avoidable, violent confrontation with a person who will assume you are a criminal, not a cop.
</p></div><p>How does the answer "no" or "probably not" to the first two questions mean the cops are likely going to get shot? How does the answer "no" or "probably not" to the third question make any sense? Whoever wrote that shit should be embarrassed.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>From the article you linked : Like most incidents that get people shot , these are easily avoided by police in most cases .
All they have to do is ask themselves a few questions : Does this person have a history of violence ? Is this person accused of a violent crime ? What time of day are we doing the raid ? Are we absolutely sure we can trust the information we have ?
If the answer to any of these question is " no " or " probably not , " then chances are you are about to walk into an avoidable , violent confrontation with a person who will assume you are a criminal , not a cop .
How does the answer " no " or " probably not " to the first two questions mean the cops are likely going to get shot ?
How does the answer " no " or " probably not " to the third question make any sense ?
Whoever wrote that shit should be embarrassed .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>From the article you linked:
Like most incidents that get people shot, these are easily avoided by police in most cases.
All they have to do is ask themselves a few questions:

    Does this person have a history of violence?Is this person accused of a violent crime?What time of day are we doing the raid?Are we absolutely sure we can trust the information we have?
If the answer to any of these question is "no" or "probably not," then chances are you are about to walk into an avoidable, violent confrontation with a person who will assume you are a criminal, not a cop.
How does the answer "no" or "probably not" to the first two questions mean the cops are likely going to get shot?
How does the answer "no" or "probably not" to the third question make any sense?
Whoever wrote that shit should be embarrassed.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_0422202.30932160</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_0422202.30935222</id>
	<title>Summary of the interview</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264700580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Nobody watches local network affiliates of ABC, NBC and CBS anymore.  Boo-hoo.  Consumers who no longer rely on the editorial staffs of the organizations which fed the local affiliates their talking points don't get fed the right opinions and, therefore, wallow in ignorance because they acquire opinions from a variety of sources and not from the "professional" journalists who always fact check and never let biases touch their reporting.</p><p>The article is a pungent mixture of sour grapes and whiny nostalgia.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Nobody watches local network affiliates of ABC , NBC and CBS anymore .
Boo-hoo. Consumers who no longer rely on the editorial staffs of the organizations which fed the local affiliates their talking points do n't get fed the right opinions and , therefore , wallow in ignorance because they acquire opinions from a variety of sources and not from the " professional " journalists who always fact check and never let biases touch their reporting.The article is a pungent mixture of sour grapes and whiny nostalgia .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Nobody watches local network affiliates of ABC, NBC and CBS anymore.
Boo-hoo.  Consumers who no longer rely on the editorial staffs of the organizations which fed the local affiliates their talking points don't get fed the right opinions and, therefore, wallow in ignorance because they acquire opinions from a variety of sources and not from the "professional" journalists who always fact check and never let biases touch their reporting.The article is a pungent mixture of sour grapes and whiny nostalgia.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_0422202.30932232</id>
	<title>I'm guilty...</title>
	<author>bemymonkey</author>
	<datestamp>1264688340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Checking out my Google Reader account leaves me a bit shocked.</p><p>~300-400 articles per day, and only about 30 of those (from Reuters and BBC) are actual news. The rest is gadgets, software and other tech stuff.</p><p>Oh well, other people waste their time with Twitter, Facebook and the like.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Checking out my Google Reader account leaves me a bit shocked. ~ 300-400 articles per day , and only about 30 of those ( from Reuters and BBC ) are actual news .
The rest is gadgets , software and other tech stuff.Oh well , other people waste their time with Twitter , Facebook and the like .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Checking out my Google Reader account leaves me a bit shocked.~300-400 articles per day, and only about 30 of those (from Reuters and BBC) are actual news.
The rest is gadgets, software and other tech stuff.Oh well, other people waste their time with Twitter, Facebook and the like.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_0422202.30942288</id>
	<title>Re:I disagree...</title>
	<author>Areyoukiddingme</author>
	<datestamp>1264676880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>What you see now are a bunch of semi-informed folks jumping from one site to another, posting witty comments based on their narrow view of a subject, without ever really appreciating the depth/breadth of the subject.
</p><p>
I would attribute this in part to the culture shift underway in our society, where discussion among individuals has been relegated to trite comments on<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/. and bulletin boards, as opposed to attending meetings and engaging in real dialogue with other individuals in a face to face fashion.</p></div></blockquote><p>Maybe on 4chan and youtube you get comments like that.  (Possibly exclusively comments like that, in those venues...)  Slashdot is proof that it's possible to have something else.  The slashcode moderation system is inordinately successful.  A membership site with a simple moderation system works so well that the comments can be more valuable than the articles.  The comments are nearly always more valuable than the summary.
</p><p>Just as an example, the title and summary of the article yesterday claimed that the color of dinosaur feathers is now known.  In the comments, it quickly became obvious that no such claims had been made.  The colors quoted in the summary were artists conceptions, as always.  So even when Slashdot headlines are poisoned with misinformation, Slashdot comments work to clear it up very quickly.  The combination of membership login, posting, and moderation goes a very long way.
</p><p>As a further example, I asked a question in the lithium-air battery thread about why Tesla Roadsters use such physically small cells, and got two answers within hours reminding me of Tesla's stated goal of riding on the coattails of laptop research and development, thereby avoiding the expense of developing their own cell assembly processes and procedures.  Neither response told me what the differences in performance characteristics are as cell size increases, which was disappointing, but both responses were informative and valid.  Neither of them confirmed my own bias either, when I speculated that patent licensing limitations are involved.  So not only does Slashdot unearth informative responses, but it's also not an echo chamber.  Amazing, isn't it.
</p><p>Do we still make snide comments, rude jokes, and ribald commentary?  You bet.  Is it tagged +1 Funny if it's funny?  Yep.  Is it tagged -1 Overrated if it's stupid?  Yep.  Can you read the comments with settings that will completely bury all humor if you want to?  Yep.  But I wouldn't.
</p><p>So in my opinion, the culture shift underway in our society is quite a lot less monolithic than you portray, and I challenge your characterization of Slashdot in particular.  Are there places full of trite observations and outright stupidity?  Yes.  Does Slashdot have real dialog with other individuals?  You bet.  I contend that it's <i>more</i> valuable dialog than face to face, because I believe that real thought has to be written down.  Written words can be analyzed, dissected, quoted, contradicted, supported, all with minimal effort.  Spoken words hardly even count.  The spoken word devolves into a game of telephone with breathtaking speed.  The written word is persistent and attributable and searchable.  I would expect people to be more invested in it than they would be in verbal dialogue, which is ephemeral and only half-heard at the best of times.
</p><p>
You're right.  Something <i>is</i> lost when we are not held accountable for our words.  Aren't you lucky you got accounted +5 insightful?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>What you see now are a bunch of semi-informed folks jumping from one site to another , posting witty comments based on their narrow view of a subject , without ever really appreciating the depth/breadth of the subject .
I would attribute this in part to the culture shift underway in our society , where discussion among individuals has been relegated to trite comments on / .
and bulletin boards , as opposed to attending meetings and engaging in real dialogue with other individuals in a face to face fashion.Maybe on 4chan and youtube you get comments like that .
( Possibly exclusively comments like that , in those venues... ) Slashdot is proof that it 's possible to have something else .
The slashcode moderation system is inordinately successful .
A membership site with a simple moderation system works so well that the comments can be more valuable than the articles .
The comments are nearly always more valuable than the summary .
Just as an example , the title and summary of the article yesterday claimed that the color of dinosaur feathers is now known .
In the comments , it quickly became obvious that no such claims had been made .
The colors quoted in the summary were artists conceptions , as always .
So even when Slashdot headlines are poisoned with misinformation , Slashdot comments work to clear it up very quickly .
The combination of membership login , posting , and moderation goes a very long way .
As a further example , I asked a question in the lithium-air battery thread about why Tesla Roadsters use such physically small cells , and got two answers within hours reminding me of Tesla 's stated goal of riding on the coattails of laptop research and development , thereby avoiding the expense of developing their own cell assembly processes and procedures .
Neither response told me what the differences in performance characteristics are as cell size increases , which was disappointing , but both responses were informative and valid .
Neither of them confirmed my own bias either , when I speculated that patent licensing limitations are involved .
So not only does Slashdot unearth informative responses , but it 's also not an echo chamber .
Amazing , is n't it .
Do we still make snide comments , rude jokes , and ribald commentary ?
You bet .
Is it tagged + 1 Funny if it 's funny ?
Yep. Is it tagged -1 Overrated if it 's stupid ?
Yep. Can you read the comments with settings that will completely bury all humor if you want to ?
Yep. But I would n't .
So in my opinion , the culture shift underway in our society is quite a lot less monolithic than you portray , and I challenge your characterization of Slashdot in particular .
Are there places full of trite observations and outright stupidity ?
Yes. Does Slashdot have real dialog with other individuals ?
You bet .
I contend that it 's more valuable dialog than face to face , because I believe that real thought has to be written down .
Written words can be analyzed , dissected , quoted , contradicted , supported , all with minimal effort .
Spoken words hardly even count .
The spoken word devolves into a game of telephone with breathtaking speed .
The written word is persistent and attributable and searchable .
I would expect people to be more invested in it than they would be in verbal dialogue , which is ephemeral and only half-heard at the best of times .
You 're right .
Something is lost when we are not held accountable for our words .
Are n't you lucky you got accounted + 5 insightful ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What you see now are a bunch of semi-informed folks jumping from one site to another, posting witty comments based on their narrow view of a subject, without ever really appreciating the depth/breadth of the subject.
I would attribute this in part to the culture shift underway in our society, where discussion among individuals has been relegated to trite comments on /.
and bulletin boards, as opposed to attending meetings and engaging in real dialogue with other individuals in a face to face fashion.Maybe on 4chan and youtube you get comments like that.
(Possibly exclusively comments like that, in those venues...)  Slashdot is proof that it's possible to have something else.
The slashcode moderation system is inordinately successful.
A membership site with a simple moderation system works so well that the comments can be more valuable than the articles.
The comments are nearly always more valuable than the summary.
Just as an example, the title and summary of the article yesterday claimed that the color of dinosaur feathers is now known.
In the comments, it quickly became obvious that no such claims had been made.
The colors quoted in the summary were artists conceptions, as always.
So even when Slashdot headlines are poisoned with misinformation, Slashdot comments work to clear it up very quickly.
The combination of membership login, posting, and moderation goes a very long way.
As a further example, I asked a question in the lithium-air battery thread about why Tesla Roadsters use such physically small cells, and got two answers within hours reminding me of Tesla's stated goal of riding on the coattails of laptop research and development, thereby avoiding the expense of developing their own cell assembly processes and procedures.
Neither response told me what the differences in performance characteristics are as cell size increases, which was disappointing, but both responses were informative and valid.
Neither of them confirmed my own bias either, when I speculated that patent licensing limitations are involved.
So not only does Slashdot unearth informative responses, but it's also not an echo chamber.
Amazing, isn't it.
Do we still make snide comments, rude jokes, and ribald commentary?
You bet.
Is it tagged +1 Funny if it's funny?
Yep.  Is it tagged -1 Overrated if it's stupid?
Yep.  Can you read the comments with settings that will completely bury all humor if you want to?
Yep.  But I wouldn't.
So in my opinion, the culture shift underway in our society is quite a lot less monolithic than you portray, and I challenge your characterization of Slashdot in particular.
Are there places full of trite observations and outright stupidity?
Yes.  Does Slashdot have real dialog with other individuals?
You bet.
I contend that it's more valuable dialog than face to face, because I believe that real thought has to be written down.
Written words can be analyzed, dissected, quoted, contradicted, supported, all with minimal effort.
Spoken words hardly even count.
The spoken word devolves into a game of telephone with breathtaking speed.
The written word is persistent and attributable and searchable.
I would expect people to be more invested in it than they would be in verbal dialogue, which is ephemeral and only half-heard at the best of times.
You're right.
Something is lost when we are not held accountable for our words.
Aren't you lucky you got accounted +5 insightful?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_0422202.30932672</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_0422202.30932168</id>
	<title>Personalized news</title>
	<author>nothermark</author>
	<datestamp>1264688040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I would say the issue is we are force fed more and more mindless drivel the reporters are interested in and less news we need.  The result is we go elsewhere and they increase the drivel level.  Newspaper stories have shrunk into the same soundbites as the TV so why both to read them.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I would say the issue is we are force fed more and more mindless drivel the reporters are interested in and less news we need .
The result is we go elsewhere and they increase the drivel level .
Newspaper stories have shrunk into the same soundbites as the TV so why both to read them .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I would say the issue is we are force fed more and more mindless drivel the reporters are interested in and less news we need.
The result is we go elsewhere and they increase the drivel level.
Newspaper stories have shrunk into the same soundbites as the TV so why both to read them.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_0422202.30932050</id>
	<title>Well duh!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264687260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>Boring news is called boring because it is indeed boring. If people were interested in boring news then it wouldn't be boring, it would be interesting. Technically anything that is newsworthy shouldn't be boring, because it would be interesting to someone.<br> <br>Ok now I'm boring myself with this.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Boring news is called boring because it is indeed boring .
If people were interested in boring news then it would n't be boring , it would be interesting .
Technically anything that is newsworthy should n't be boring , because it would be interesting to someone .
Ok now I 'm boring myself with this .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Boring news is called boring because it is indeed boring.
If people were interested in boring news then it wouldn't be boring, it would be interesting.
Technically anything that is newsworthy shouldn't be boring, because it would be interesting to someone.
Ok now I'm boring myself with this.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_0422202.30939036</id>
	<title>Re:Well duh!</title>
	<author>PrepaidReviews</author>
	<datestamp>1264710300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Exactly - I don't think it is necessarily ignorance that is the outcome but quite the opposite.  I think we are now exposed to news on a global scale and at a much faster pace than ever before.  I prefer to get my news this way as it allows me to pick and choose what is important to me.

Why let a channel dictate what is newsworthy?</htmltext>
<tokenext>Exactly - I do n't think it is necessarily ignorance that is the outcome but quite the opposite .
I think we are now exposed to news on a global scale and at a much faster pace than ever before .
I prefer to get my news this way as it allows me to pick and choose what is important to me .
Why let a channel dictate what is newsworthy ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Exactly - I don't think it is necessarily ignorance that is the outcome but quite the opposite.
I think we are now exposed to news on a global scale and at a much faster pace than ever before.
I prefer to get my news this way as it allows me to pick and choose what is important to me.
Why let a channel dictate what is newsworthy?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_0422202.30932122</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_0422202.30933066</id>
	<title>Speaking From Personal Experience...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264693560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>My parents-mom specifically-gets ALL of her "news" from FoxNews, The New York Post and frantic panic screeds from her Tea Party "friends" on the internet.</p><p>Both mom and dad have gone from open-minded, politically-active, culturally-aware moderates, to racist, culturally-ignorant and politically hateful towards Democrats and anyone who considers themselves "progressive".  The "death panels" are real.  No, seriously!  They fully believe and are totally prepared to stand before a "tribunal" of insurance representatives and doctors to "defend" their right to health care.  I wish I were kidding, but I asked a LOT of pointed questions about this.</p><p>Anyone who "selects" their desired news reading should be considered a <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Useful\_idiot" title="wikipedia.org" rel="nofollow">"Useful Idiot"</a> [wikipedia.org]</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>My parents-mom specifically-gets ALL of her " news " from FoxNews , The New York Post and frantic panic screeds from her Tea Party " friends " on the internet.Both mom and dad have gone from open-minded , politically-active , culturally-aware moderates , to racist , culturally-ignorant and politically hateful towards Democrats and anyone who considers themselves " progressive " .
The " death panels " are real .
No , seriously !
They fully believe and are totally prepared to stand before a " tribunal " of insurance representatives and doctors to " defend " their right to health care .
I wish I were kidding , but I asked a LOT of pointed questions about this.Anyone who " selects " their desired news reading should be considered a " Useful Idiot " [ wikipedia.org ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>My parents-mom specifically-gets ALL of her "news" from FoxNews, The New York Post and frantic panic screeds from her Tea Party "friends" on the internet.Both mom and dad have gone from open-minded, politically-active, culturally-aware moderates, to racist, culturally-ignorant and politically hateful towards Democrats and anyone who considers themselves "progressive".
The "death panels" are real.
No, seriously!
They fully believe and are totally prepared to stand before a "tribunal" of insurance representatives and doctors to "defend" their right to health care.
I wish I were kidding, but I asked a LOT of pointed questions about this.Anyone who "selects" their desired news reading should be considered a "Useful Idiot" [wikipedia.org]</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_0422202.30936972</id>
	<title>Ignorance? I don't think so.</title>
	<author>Carpeaux</author>
	<datestamp>1264705440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext> I read Slashdot, Lifehacker, The Atlantic, Sherdog (yeah, I like MMA) and take a look at the main topics of Google News (US and my country's, Brazil) through my iGoogle page. Anything beyond that, I don't care.
 I am ignorant of everything else only in the sense that I am ignorant of Soviet architecture: I am not supposed to know everything nor will I try to, so it is only natural to always be ignorant about something.
 20 years ago I would be forced to read a whole newspaper daily just to find out these same things and would end up knowing more about things I don't care about? Bummer.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I read Slashdot , Lifehacker , The Atlantic , Sherdog ( yeah , I like MMA ) and take a look at the main topics of Google News ( US and my country 's , Brazil ) through my iGoogle page .
Anything beyond that , I do n't care .
I am ignorant of everything else only in the sense that I am ignorant of Soviet architecture : I am not supposed to know everything nor will I try to , so it is only natural to always be ignorant about something .
20 years ago I would be forced to read a whole newspaper daily just to find out these same things and would end up knowing more about things I do n't care about ?
Bummer .</tokentext>
<sentencetext> I read Slashdot, Lifehacker, The Atlantic, Sherdog (yeah, I like MMA) and take a look at the main topics of Google News (US and my country's, Brazil) through my iGoogle page.
Anything beyond that, I don't care.
I am ignorant of everything else only in the sense that I am ignorant of Soviet architecture: I am not supposed to know everything nor will I try to, so it is only natural to always be ignorant about something.
20 years ago I would be forced to read a whole newspaper daily just to find out these same things and would end up knowing more about things I don't care about?
Bummer.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_0422202.30936440</id>
	<title>I'm not missing out.</title>
	<author>bobsacks</author>
	<datestamp>1264703940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I'd say it can lead to ignorance of certain events. I get the vast majority of my news from my RSS feeds from sites that have stuff on them that I care about. I will occasionally miss out on really important things like celebrity gossip or some random white girl killed in some random place. But you know what? I am ok with that. Those things do not affect my life in any way and I could care less if I hear about them.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'd say it can lead to ignorance of certain events .
I get the vast majority of my news from my RSS feeds from sites that have stuff on them that I care about .
I will occasionally miss out on really important things like celebrity gossip or some random white girl killed in some random place .
But you know what ?
I am ok with that .
Those things do not affect my life in any way and I could care less if I hear about them .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'd say it can lead to ignorance of certain events.
I get the vast majority of my news from my RSS feeds from sites that have stuff on them that I care about.
I will occasionally miss out on really important things like celebrity gossip or some random white girl killed in some random place.
But you know what?
I am ok with that.
Those things do not affect my life in any way and I could care less if I hear about them.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_0422202.30932248</id>
	<title>I Disagree, That's the Only Model That Works</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264688460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>I disagree with you.  I think giving people the news they want is the only way this has worked.  Because who else is there in the equation to please with the news?  You have the newsmakers, the government and the newsreaders.  And only the last one makes sense.  <br> <br>

Allow me to point out what is wrong with your simplified explanation.  Sure, news has relied on "Mycountryian Idol" and movie reviews on slow news days or even on a site where they can present a dearth of information.  However, once the jaywalking impalement law is passed, some people are going to experience a loved one being impaled for jaywalking.  Now what do people want to hear news about?  TV or the impalement of citizens for jaywalking?  The reporters understand this and know that breaking this now<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... even breaking the possibility in advance before the law is passed<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... will generate higher ratings than their competitor.  <br> <br>

This sort of capitalistic scheme for news is not without faults but your example is down right disingenuous.  A single news source breaking the story of someone passing laws to impale jaywalkers would bring down their site as people rushed to read more about where and how this is happening.  Despite the lack of bad things happening resulting in crap news on TV and in print, you must understand that people (at least Americans) still are very concerned with themselves and their well being above anything or anybody else.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I disagree with you .
I think giving people the news they want is the only way this has worked .
Because who else is there in the equation to please with the news ?
You have the newsmakers , the government and the newsreaders .
And only the last one makes sense .
Allow me to point out what is wrong with your simplified explanation .
Sure , news has relied on " Mycountryian Idol " and movie reviews on slow news days or even on a site where they can present a dearth of information .
However , once the jaywalking impalement law is passed , some people are going to experience a loved one being impaled for jaywalking .
Now what do people want to hear news about ?
TV or the impalement of citizens for jaywalking ?
The reporters understand this and know that breaking this now ... even breaking the possibility in advance before the law is passed ... will generate higher ratings than their competitor .
This sort of capitalistic scheme for news is not without faults but your example is down right disingenuous .
A single news source breaking the story of someone passing laws to impale jaywalkers would bring down their site as people rushed to read more about where and how this is happening .
Despite the lack of bad things happening resulting in crap news on TV and in print , you must understand that people ( at least Americans ) still are very concerned with themselves and their well being above anything or anybody else .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I disagree with you.
I think giving people the news they want is the only way this has worked.
Because who else is there in the equation to please with the news?
You have the newsmakers, the government and the newsreaders.
And only the last one makes sense.
Allow me to point out what is wrong with your simplified explanation.
Sure, news has relied on "Mycountryian Idol" and movie reviews on slow news days or even on a site where they can present a dearth of information.
However, once the jaywalking impalement law is passed, some people are going to experience a loved one being impaled for jaywalking.
Now what do people want to hear news about?
TV or the impalement of citizens for jaywalking?
The reporters understand this and know that breaking this now ... even breaking the possibility in advance before the law is passed ... will generate higher ratings than their competitor.
This sort of capitalistic scheme for news is not without faults but your example is down right disingenuous.
A single news source breaking the story of someone passing laws to impale jaywalkers would bring down their site as people rushed to read more about where and how this is happening.
Despite the lack of bad things happening resulting in crap news on TV and in print, you must understand that people (at least Americans) still are very concerned with themselves and their well being above anything or anybody else.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_0422202.30932086</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_0422202.30935202</id>
	<title>Re:New should not be tailored to consumers</title>
	<author>WeatherGod</author>
	<datestamp>1264700520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>As odd as it sounds, I think that news should not ever be tailored to the "consumer". Telling the people only what they want to hear is just as bad (if not worse) than only telling them the news YOU want them to hear... </p></div><p>The problem is with confirmation bias.  In either case, having control of the message being delivered allows for confirmation bias to set into the minds of the people.  If there are no contrary information or if information is only about certain topics, then the reader's world view shrinks.</p><p>Because contrary and/or "boring" news tends to be undesirable, humans will tend towards things that pleases them.  The internet allows for a very fine-grained control over the information that you view, and it is easy for people to fall very deep into a confirmation bias.</p><p>It is difficult to come out of this bias when you have control over your own sources.  At least with sources like newspapers, tv, and radio, the broadcasters can still slip in other stories to keep you out of a rut.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>As odd as it sounds , I think that news should not ever be tailored to the " consumer " .
Telling the people only what they want to hear is just as bad ( if not worse ) than only telling them the news YOU want them to hear... The problem is with confirmation bias .
In either case , having control of the message being delivered allows for confirmation bias to set into the minds of the people .
If there are no contrary information or if information is only about certain topics , then the reader 's world view shrinks.Because contrary and/or " boring " news tends to be undesirable , humans will tend towards things that pleases them .
The internet allows for a very fine-grained control over the information that you view , and it is easy for people to fall very deep into a confirmation bias.It is difficult to come out of this bias when you have control over your own sources .
At least with sources like newspapers , tv , and radio , the broadcasters can still slip in other stories to keep you out of a rut .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>As odd as it sounds, I think that news should not ever be tailored to the "consumer".
Telling the people only what they want to hear is just as bad (if not worse) than only telling them the news YOU want them to hear... The problem is with confirmation bias.
In either case, having control of the message being delivered allows for confirmation bias to set into the minds of the people.
If there are no contrary information or if information is only about certain topics, then the reader's world view shrinks.Because contrary and/or "boring" news tends to be undesirable, humans will tend towards things that pleases them.
The internet allows for a very fine-grained control over the information that you view, and it is easy for people to fall very deep into a confirmation bias.It is difficult to come out of this bias when you have control over your own sources.
At least with sources like newspapers, tv, and radio, the broadcasters can still slip in other stories to keep you out of a rut.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_0422202.30932086</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_0422202.30932672</id>
	<title>I disagree...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264691100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>60 years ago most people did not even own a television, let alone even know about the existence of the internet.  Many had a newspaper and perhaps a radio.  Neither of which offered the volume of content available to individuals today.</p><p>I think the OP missed the point.  It's not the availability of news that is the problem, nor is it the filtering to tastes, it's a combination of apathy, time, and format.</p><p>Voters just do not feel connected to their government anymore, and many politicians have a hard time connecting with voters.  Reporters have a 30 second spot on which to discuss a topic - plenty of time I'm sure to explore anything complex.  The Internet offers the ability to more closely follow a given subject, but time pushes back as to what extent the individual can digest information in volume.</p><p>What you see now are a bunch of semi-informed folks jumping from one site to another, posting witty comments based on their narrow view of a subject, without ever really appreciating the depth/breadth of the subject.</p><p>I would attribute this in part to the culture shift underway in our society, where discussion among individuals has been relegated to trite comments on<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/. and bulletin boards, as opposed to attending meetings and engaging in real dialogue with other individuals in a face to face fashion.  People are not invested in the dialogue, therefore their knowledge suffers as does the content of the conversation.</p><p>Something is being lost when we are not held accountable for our words, and not expecting our words to count.  Have you ever watched a politician attend / speak at a town hall meeting?  They struggle through with their sound bites, because the format forces a more thorough dialogue of the subject matter.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>60 years ago most people did not even own a television , let alone even know about the existence of the internet .
Many had a newspaper and perhaps a radio .
Neither of which offered the volume of content available to individuals today.I think the OP missed the point .
It 's not the availability of news that is the problem , nor is it the filtering to tastes , it 's a combination of apathy , time , and format.Voters just do not feel connected to their government anymore , and many politicians have a hard time connecting with voters .
Reporters have a 30 second spot on which to discuss a topic - plenty of time I 'm sure to explore anything complex .
The Internet offers the ability to more closely follow a given subject , but time pushes back as to what extent the individual can digest information in volume.What you see now are a bunch of semi-informed folks jumping from one site to another , posting witty comments based on their narrow view of a subject , without ever really appreciating the depth/breadth of the subject.I would attribute this in part to the culture shift underway in our society , where discussion among individuals has been relegated to trite comments on / .
and bulletin boards , as opposed to attending meetings and engaging in real dialogue with other individuals in a face to face fashion .
People are not invested in the dialogue , therefore their knowledge suffers as does the content of the conversation.Something is being lost when we are not held accountable for our words , and not expecting our words to count .
Have you ever watched a politician attend / speak at a town hall meeting ?
They struggle through with their sound bites , because the format forces a more thorough dialogue of the subject matter .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>60 years ago most people did not even own a television, let alone even know about the existence of the internet.
Many had a newspaper and perhaps a radio.
Neither of which offered the volume of content available to individuals today.I think the OP missed the point.
It's not the availability of news that is the problem, nor is it the filtering to tastes, it's a combination of apathy, time, and format.Voters just do not feel connected to their government anymore, and many politicians have a hard time connecting with voters.
Reporters have a 30 second spot on which to discuss a topic - plenty of time I'm sure to explore anything complex.
The Internet offers the ability to more closely follow a given subject, but time pushes back as to what extent the individual can digest information in volume.What you see now are a bunch of semi-informed folks jumping from one site to another, posting witty comments based on their narrow view of a subject, without ever really appreciating the depth/breadth of the subject.I would attribute this in part to the culture shift underway in our society, where discussion among individuals has been relegated to trite comments on /.
and bulletin boards, as opposed to attending meetings and engaging in real dialogue with other individuals in a face to face fashion.
People are not invested in the dialogue, therefore their knowledge suffers as does the content of the conversation.Something is being lost when we are not held accountable for our words, and not expecting our words to count.
Have you ever watched a politician attend / speak at a town hall meeting?
They struggle through with their sound bites, because the format forces a more thorough dialogue of the subject matter.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_0422202.30932120</id>
	<title>Re:Well duh!</title>
	<author>MistrX</author>
	<datestamp>1264687740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I don't read boring news, I read slashdot!</p><p>Oh wait... I think I just confirmed your post and the article.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I do n't read boring news , I read slashdot ! Oh wait... I think I just confirmed your post and the article .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I don't read boring news, I read slashdot!Oh wait... I think I just confirmed your post and the article.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_0422202.30932050</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_0422202.30935708</id>
	<title>Deja Vu</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264701780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I remember when... oh so many years ago (way back when Netscape was just starting out) - Netscape and Yahoo (and others) started to create the Web Portal.  It was billed as a customizable content delivery system.</p><p>Back then everyone began predicting that we'd all become ignorant.  In some ways I feel that I know more today about the fringe than mainstream.  But I'm also the kind of person who reads &amp; watches both my local newspaper and TV as well as read websites like Slashdot.  Technology has allowed me to cast a wide net - but of course that's because I want to.  Some people want a narrow net.</p><p>Besides the weather - what news really is important?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I remember when... oh so many years ago ( way back when Netscape was just starting out ) - Netscape and Yahoo ( and others ) started to create the Web Portal .
It was billed as a customizable content delivery system.Back then everyone began predicting that we 'd all become ignorant .
In some ways I feel that I know more today about the fringe than mainstream .
But I 'm also the kind of person who reads &amp; watches both my local newspaper and TV as well as read websites like Slashdot .
Technology has allowed me to cast a wide net - but of course that 's because I want to .
Some people want a narrow net.Besides the weather - what news really is important ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I remember when... oh so many years ago (way back when Netscape was just starting out) - Netscape and Yahoo (and others) started to create the Web Portal.
It was billed as a customizable content delivery system.Back then everyone began predicting that we'd all become ignorant.
In some ways I feel that I know more today about the fringe than mainstream.
But I'm also the kind of person who reads &amp; watches both my local newspaper and TV as well as read websites like Slashdot.
Technology has allowed me to cast a wide net - but of course that's because I want to.
Some people want a narrow net.Besides the weather - what news really is important?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_0422202.30932396</id>
	<title>re:new should not be tailored to consumers</title>
	<author>ed.han</author>
	<datestamp>1264689600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>while philosophically i agree with this, i believe the "objective reporting" for which you are yearning has gone the way of the dodo.<br>
<br>
ed</htmltext>
<tokenext>while philosophically i agree with this , i believe the " objective reporting " for which you are yearning has gone the way of the dodo .
ed</tokentext>
<sentencetext>while philosophically i agree with this, i believe the "objective reporting" for which you are yearning has gone the way of the dodo.
ed</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_0422202.30932086</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_0422202.30932228</id>
	<title>More like a bifurcation?</title>
	<author>smchris</author>
	<datestamp>1264688340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Boring people choose electronic media that complete their central core of boringness and others choose portals like -- well, you know.</p><p>I feel that I am \_far\_ more knowledgeable about current events using portals like buzzflash, crooksandliars and<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/. than I would be dodging the ads and cherry pie recipes in a morning newspaper.  Who are we kidding to think the editorial board of your "local" newspaper isn't in bed with power?<br>
&nbsp;</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Boring people choose electronic media that complete their central core of boringness and others choose portals like -- well , you know.I feel that I am \ _far \ _ more knowledgeable about current events using portals like buzzflash , crooksandliars and / .
than I would be dodging the ads and cherry pie recipes in a morning newspaper .
Who are we kidding to think the editorial board of your " local " newspaper is n't in bed with power ?
 </tokentext>
<sentencetext>Boring people choose electronic media that complete their central core of boringness and others choose portals like -- well, you know.I feel that I am \_far\_ more knowledgeable about current events using portals like buzzflash, crooksandliars and /.
than I would be dodging the ads and cherry pie recipes in a morning newspaper.
Who are we kidding to think the editorial board of your "local" newspaper isn't in bed with power?
 </sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_0422202.30939174</id>
	<title>Re:I disagree...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264710660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"60 years ago most people did not even own a television, let alone even know about the existence of the internet."<br>That might be because there was no such thing as the internet 60 years ago....<br>Signed,<br>Capt. Obvious</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" 60 years ago most people did not even own a television , let alone even know about the existence of the internet .
" That might be because there was no such thing as the internet 60 years ago....Signed,Capt .
Obvious</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"60 years ago most people did not even own a television, let alone even know about the existence of the internet.
"That might be because there was no such thing as the internet 60 years ago....Signed,Capt.
Obvious</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_0422202.30932672</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_0422202.30932204</id>
	<title>More pervasive than just news</title>
	<author>Gothmolly</author>
	<datestamp>1264688220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>In the US at least, knowing a lot about ANYTHING makes you a nerd, a social outcast, the non-cool guy.  Ask a coworker how their boiler works, or how to change their oil.  Ask them how to chainsaw a tree.  Ask them how to wire a switch, or pull a shot of espresso.   Most will look at you like you showed them dirty pictures - "What?  Me?  Do actual labor?"  Combine this with the steady erosion of the effects of causality (helicopter parents, welfare system), combined with the death of Civics as a school subject, and you have population of effete, spoiled sheep, ready to accept whatever shackles are imposed, in order that they be safe and comfortable.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>In the US at least , knowing a lot about ANYTHING makes you a nerd , a social outcast , the non-cool guy .
Ask a coworker how their boiler works , or how to change their oil .
Ask them how to chainsaw a tree .
Ask them how to wire a switch , or pull a shot of espresso .
Most will look at you like you showed them dirty pictures - " What ?
Me ? Do actual labor ?
" Combine this with the steady erosion of the effects of causality ( helicopter parents , welfare system ) , combined with the death of Civics as a school subject , and you have population of effete , spoiled sheep , ready to accept whatever shackles are imposed , in order that they be safe and comfortable .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>In the US at least, knowing a lot about ANYTHING makes you a nerd, a social outcast, the non-cool guy.
Ask a coworker how their boiler works, or how to change their oil.
Ask them how to chainsaw a tree.
Ask them how to wire a switch, or pull a shot of espresso.
Most will look at you like you showed them dirty pictures - "What?
Me?  Do actual labor?
"  Combine this with the steady erosion of the effects of causality (helicopter parents, welfare system), combined with the death of Civics as a school subject, and you have population of effete, spoiled sheep, ready to accept whatever shackles are imposed, in order that they be safe and comfortable.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_0422202.30932186</id>
	<title>Other Consequences</title>
	<author>zeromorph</author>
	<datestamp>1264688160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It will affect social interaction in some way or the other, since you cannot be sure people heard something just in was in <em>your</em> news. This will lead to coordination problems due to the lack of <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common\_knowledge" title="wikipedia.org">common</a> [wikipedia.org] <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common\_knowledge\_(logic)" title="wikipedia.org">knowledge</a> [wikipedia.org]. (There is a nice book about culture, coordination, and common knowledge Michael Suk-Young Chwe.)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It will affect social interaction in some way or the other , since you can not be sure people heard something just in was in your news .
This will lead to coordination problems due to the lack of common [ wikipedia.org ] knowledge [ wikipedia.org ] .
( There is a nice book about culture , coordination , and common knowledge Michael Suk-Young Chwe .
)</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It will affect social interaction in some way or the other, since you cannot be sure people heard something just in was in your news.
This will lead to coordination problems due to the lack of common [wikipedia.org] knowledge [wikipedia.org].
(There is a nice book about culture, coordination, and common knowledge Michael Suk-Young Chwe.
)</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_0422202.30935638</id>
	<title>Re:Well duh!</title>
	<author>TheAndruu</author>
	<datestamp>1264701600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>The problem with newspapers or tv news stations is by the time it makes it there, I've already read it on the internet the day before.</htmltext>
<tokenext>The problem with newspapers or tv news stations is by the time it makes it there , I 've already read it on the internet the day before .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The problem with newspapers or tv news stations is by the time it makes it there, I've already read it on the internet the day before.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_0422202.30932122</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_0422202.30932562</id>
	<title>Yeah, I can see that...</title>
	<author>ErichTheRed</author>
	<datestamp>1264690500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>...you can make that argument for other things, not just current events. Once you start limiting people's exposure to things outside of their interest, it closes their mind off. Ask your average World of Warcraft addict about anything other than World of Warcraft, and they'll say they have a guild meeting to go to or that you're interrupting their grinding. I'm a technology nut, but even I know when to get off the computer and keep an eye on what's going on around me.</p><p>The problem is that feeding someone a steady diet of personalized content means that eventually they stop seeing other points of view. For example, I'm a left-leaning person, but I occasionally listen to the conservative talking heads screaming about what's going on. It may be comic relief for me, but at least I'm informed. Anyone who isn't becomes more and more entrenched in their belief system. Your average conservative hears nothing but Fox News, the conservative talk show crowd and the Tea Party Movement people, and refuses to believe that anyone else has a better idea. It's the same kind of groupthink that goes on in poorly-managed companies. I may think the conservative side of the house has things totally backwards, as I'm sure they think I do. But, I have both sides...once you start homing in on people's interests, their interests become narrower because of the lack of exposure.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>...you can make that argument for other things , not just current events .
Once you start limiting people 's exposure to things outside of their interest , it closes their mind off .
Ask your average World of Warcraft addict about anything other than World of Warcraft , and they 'll say they have a guild meeting to go to or that you 're interrupting their grinding .
I 'm a technology nut , but even I know when to get off the computer and keep an eye on what 's going on around me.The problem is that feeding someone a steady diet of personalized content means that eventually they stop seeing other points of view .
For example , I 'm a left-leaning person , but I occasionally listen to the conservative talking heads screaming about what 's going on .
It may be comic relief for me , but at least I 'm informed .
Anyone who is n't becomes more and more entrenched in their belief system .
Your average conservative hears nothing but Fox News , the conservative talk show crowd and the Tea Party Movement people , and refuses to believe that anyone else has a better idea .
It 's the same kind of groupthink that goes on in poorly-managed companies .
I may think the conservative side of the house has things totally backwards , as I 'm sure they think I do .
But , I have both sides...once you start homing in on people 's interests , their interests become narrower because of the lack of exposure .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>...you can make that argument for other things, not just current events.
Once you start limiting people's exposure to things outside of their interest, it closes their mind off.
Ask your average World of Warcraft addict about anything other than World of Warcraft, and they'll say they have a guild meeting to go to or that you're interrupting their grinding.
I'm a technology nut, but even I know when to get off the computer and keep an eye on what's going on around me.The problem is that feeding someone a steady diet of personalized content means that eventually they stop seeing other points of view.
For example, I'm a left-leaning person, but I occasionally listen to the conservative talking heads screaming about what's going on.
It may be comic relief for me, but at least I'm informed.
Anyone who isn't becomes more and more entrenched in their belief system.
Your average conservative hears nothing but Fox News, the conservative talk show crowd and the Tea Party Movement people, and refuses to believe that anyone else has a better idea.
It's the same kind of groupthink that goes on in poorly-managed companies.
I may think the conservative side of the house has things totally backwards, as I'm sure they think I do.
But, I have both sides...once you start homing in on people's interests, their interests become narrower because of the lack of exposure.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_0422202.30933088</id>
	<title>Overabundance</title>
	<author>dbarron</author>
	<datestamp>1264693620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>There's so much information to stuff into one's brain these days..that you pretty much have to be selective.<br>I think the overabundance is more responsible for this than the tailoring of new input to individual preference.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>There 's so much information to stuff into one 's brain these days..that you pretty much have to be selective.I think the overabundance is more responsible for this than the tailoring of new input to individual preference .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There's so much information to stuff into one's brain these days..that you pretty much have to be selective.I think the overabundance is more responsible for this than the tailoring of new input to individual preference.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_0422202.30933050</id>
	<title>Re:I Disagree, That's the Only Model That Works</title>
	<author>Ragzouken</author>
	<datestamp>1264693380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>We shouldn't be pleasing the newsreaders but rather pleasing society in the long term.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>We should n't be pleasing the newsreaders but rather pleasing society in the long term .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>We shouldn't be pleasing the newsreaders but rather pleasing society in the long term.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_0422202.30932248</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_0422202.30932802</id>
	<title>All the News You Want to See</title>
	<author>GTarrant</author>
	<datestamp>1264691940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>The reason people are less informed, IMO, is not because there's not enough news out there, it's that there are far too many.<br><br>That doesn't necessarily mean that there should be less.  However, the pervasiveness of "news sites" and aggregators means that people can make sure that the news they are exposed to is stuff they know they will likely agree with, and furthermore, omits any details that might make that news less positive or shed any negative light at all on the causes and groups they favor.  People can ensure, today, that they are only going to receive the kinds of news they want to hear and that reinforces their already-held beliefs.<br><br>My mother would keep Fox News on every television in the house so when walking from one room to another, she wouldn't miss a thing.  She'd turn it off only to listen to Rush or the like on the radio, and she got her online news and opinions from Fox, Townhall, etc.  This meant that everything she was exposed to not only was something she was likely to agree with, but it reinforced her beliefs, leading to her implicitly trusting everything they said - even if it was demonstrably untrue.<br><br>My aunt is the opposite, reading DailyKos daily and Rachel Maddow.  It doesn't matter whether it's the left or the right - what matters is that with so many news sources today, you can make sure that the news you see, read, and hear, is news that the source knows you'll agree with, and they can take advantage of that.<br><br>A great example is getting on the Metro to go to work this morning, I was handed both the Express (slanted left) and the Examiner (slanted right).  The Express cover story was on the State of the Union address.  The Examiner cover headline was "GOP Governor Challenges Obama on National TV", with a big picture of said governor, and you'd never even know that the reason was the State of the Union address and they were highlighting primarily the Republican response.<br><br>The problem with this is that it leads to severe polarization - my mother trusted Fox News and Rush Limbaugh to the point that even when it could be proved beyond all doubt that something they said was 100\% false (or even contradictory), it instead led to her shouting at the person because she agrees with so much of what they said on other topics that they can't possibly be wrong.  The fact that almost anything positive done by the "other side" would be ignored, never reported on, twisted into having "her side" take credit for it, or the like.<br><br>If someone dislikes gay people, they can be sure to find a news organization that will only post negative stories, ignoring all else, even if a gay person cured cancer or saved a thousand children from a fire.  And they go on happy that their opinion is being reinforced because hey, look at all these nasty people, and don't have to feel uncomfortable by being exposed to stories that potentially might challenge that worldview.  If they dislike organized religion, there's sites out that that will make sure to only point out the negatives thereof.<br><br>The polarization this leads to is tearing not just this, but many countries apart, with sides that, day after day, are hearing nothing but awful things being said about the "other side", and nothing but good things said to them about "their own side", daily reinforcement of something they're already predisposed to believe.  This ends any possibility of compromise, of discussion, of reasonable governance, because the other side is not just wrong, but evil, and compromise with evil is abhorrent.  The left can't just be to the left, they must be Communist and Socialist, and the right can't just be to the right, they are Fascist and Authoritarian.  No wonder we can't get anything done.</htmltext>
<tokenext>The reason people are less informed , IMO , is not because there 's not enough news out there , it 's that there are far too many.That does n't necessarily mean that there should be less .
However , the pervasiveness of " news sites " and aggregators means that people can make sure that the news they are exposed to is stuff they know they will likely agree with , and furthermore , omits any details that might make that news less positive or shed any negative light at all on the causes and groups they favor .
People can ensure , today , that they are only going to receive the kinds of news they want to hear and that reinforces their already-held beliefs.My mother would keep Fox News on every television in the house so when walking from one room to another , she would n't miss a thing .
She 'd turn it off only to listen to Rush or the like on the radio , and she got her online news and opinions from Fox , Townhall , etc .
This meant that everything she was exposed to not only was something she was likely to agree with , but it reinforced her beliefs , leading to her implicitly trusting everything they said - even if it was demonstrably untrue.My aunt is the opposite , reading DailyKos daily and Rachel Maddow .
It does n't matter whether it 's the left or the right - what matters is that with so many news sources today , you can make sure that the news you see , read , and hear , is news that the source knows you 'll agree with , and they can take advantage of that.A great example is getting on the Metro to go to work this morning , I was handed both the Express ( slanted left ) and the Examiner ( slanted right ) .
The Express cover story was on the State of the Union address .
The Examiner cover headline was " GOP Governor Challenges Obama on National TV " , with a big picture of said governor , and you 'd never even know that the reason was the State of the Union address and they were highlighting primarily the Republican response.The problem with this is that it leads to severe polarization - my mother trusted Fox News and Rush Limbaugh to the point that even when it could be proved beyond all doubt that something they said was 100 \ % false ( or even contradictory ) , it instead led to her shouting at the person because she agrees with so much of what they said on other topics that they ca n't possibly be wrong .
The fact that almost anything positive done by the " other side " would be ignored , never reported on , twisted into having " her side " take credit for it , or the like.If someone dislikes gay people , they can be sure to find a news organization that will only post negative stories , ignoring all else , even if a gay person cured cancer or saved a thousand children from a fire .
And they go on happy that their opinion is being reinforced because hey , look at all these nasty people , and do n't have to feel uncomfortable by being exposed to stories that potentially might challenge that worldview .
If they dislike organized religion , there 's sites out that that will make sure to only point out the negatives thereof.The polarization this leads to is tearing not just this , but many countries apart , with sides that , day after day , are hearing nothing but awful things being said about the " other side " , and nothing but good things said to them about " their own side " , daily reinforcement of something they 're already predisposed to believe .
This ends any possibility of compromise , of discussion , of reasonable governance , because the other side is not just wrong , but evil , and compromise with evil is abhorrent .
The left ca n't just be to the left , they must be Communist and Socialist , and the right ca n't just be to the right , they are Fascist and Authoritarian .
No wonder we ca n't get anything done .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The reason people are less informed, IMO, is not because there's not enough news out there, it's that there are far too many.That doesn't necessarily mean that there should be less.
However, the pervasiveness of "news sites" and aggregators means that people can make sure that the news they are exposed to is stuff they know they will likely agree with, and furthermore, omits any details that might make that news less positive or shed any negative light at all on the causes and groups they favor.
People can ensure, today, that they are only going to receive the kinds of news they want to hear and that reinforces their already-held beliefs.My mother would keep Fox News on every television in the house so when walking from one room to another, she wouldn't miss a thing.
She'd turn it off only to listen to Rush or the like on the radio, and she got her online news and opinions from Fox, Townhall, etc.
This meant that everything she was exposed to not only was something she was likely to agree with, but it reinforced her beliefs, leading to her implicitly trusting everything they said - even if it was demonstrably untrue.My aunt is the opposite, reading DailyKos daily and Rachel Maddow.
It doesn't matter whether it's the left or the right - what matters is that with so many news sources today, you can make sure that the news you see, read, and hear, is news that the source knows you'll agree with, and they can take advantage of that.A great example is getting on the Metro to go to work this morning, I was handed both the Express (slanted left) and the Examiner (slanted right).
The Express cover story was on the State of the Union address.
The Examiner cover headline was "GOP Governor Challenges Obama on National TV", with a big picture of said governor, and you'd never even know that the reason was the State of the Union address and they were highlighting primarily the Republican response.The problem with this is that it leads to severe polarization - my mother trusted Fox News and Rush Limbaugh to the point that even when it could be proved beyond all doubt that something they said was 100\% false (or even contradictory), it instead led to her shouting at the person because she agrees with so much of what they said on other topics that they can't possibly be wrong.
The fact that almost anything positive done by the "other side" would be ignored, never reported on, twisted into having "her side" take credit for it, or the like.If someone dislikes gay people, they can be sure to find a news organization that will only post negative stories, ignoring all else, even if a gay person cured cancer or saved a thousand children from a fire.
And they go on happy that their opinion is being reinforced because hey, look at all these nasty people, and don't have to feel uncomfortable by being exposed to stories that potentially might challenge that worldview.
If they dislike organized religion, there's sites out that that will make sure to only point out the negatives thereof.The polarization this leads to is tearing not just this, but many countries apart, with sides that, day after day, are hearing nothing but awful things being said about the "other side", and nothing but good things said to them about "their own side", daily reinforcement of something they're already predisposed to believe.
This ends any possibility of compromise, of discussion, of reasonable governance, because the other side is not just wrong, but evil, and compromise with evil is abhorrent.
The left can't just be to the left, they must be Communist and Socialist, and the right can't just be to the right, they are Fascist and Authoritarian.
No wonder we can't get anything done.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_0422202.30932366</id>
	<title>what could i say about....</title>
	<author>hesaigo999ca</author>
	<datestamp>1264689480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I know there is a joke in here somewhere about<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/., i just have to find it,<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.....wait for it......wait for it.....<br>Nah.....i'm getting nothing!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I know there is a joke in here somewhere about /. , i just have to find it , .....wait for it......wait for it.....Nah.....i 'm getting nothing !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I know there is a joke in here somewhere about /., i just have to find it, .....wait for it......wait for it.....Nah.....i'm getting nothing!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_0422202.30932974</id>
	<title>I would say...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264693080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Remove 'Personalized' and I would say yes...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Remove 'Personalized ' and I would say yes.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Remove 'Personalized' and I would say yes...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_0422202.30938378</id>
	<title>Re:Why do people choose personalized news?</title>
	<author>smellsofbikes</author>
	<datestamp>1264708680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>I don't think it's just a matter of liking the flexibility, customization, individuality, etc. We live in a world where we're barraged with news sources; there's far more than any one person could keep up with, even if they spent most of their time worrying about it. People are  overwhelmed, so they throw up their hands and stick to their little corner. It's a distinctly modern phenomenon.</p></div><p>People have *always* stuck in their little corners: look at life in Medieval Europe, where you could go your entire life without meeting someone who wasn't from your little town, or large parts of current-day China and Africa where all you see and hear is your tiny slice of the whole world.  The difference is that for some people now there's the option of finding out what's going on throughout the world.  Most people have always shunned the outside world, and most people are continuing to do so.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I do n't think it 's just a matter of liking the flexibility , customization , individuality , etc .
We live in a world where we 're barraged with news sources ; there 's far more than any one person could keep up with , even if they spent most of their time worrying about it .
People are overwhelmed , so they throw up their hands and stick to their little corner .
It 's a distinctly modern phenomenon.People have * always * stuck in their little corners : look at life in Medieval Europe , where you could go your entire life without meeting someone who was n't from your little town , or large parts of current-day China and Africa where all you see and hear is your tiny slice of the whole world .
The difference is that for some people now there 's the option of finding out what 's going on throughout the world .
Most people have always shunned the outside world , and most people are continuing to do so .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I don't think it's just a matter of liking the flexibility, customization, individuality, etc.
We live in a world where we're barraged with news sources; there's far more than any one person could keep up with, even if they spent most of their time worrying about it.
People are  overwhelmed, so they throw up their hands and stick to their little corner.
It's a distinctly modern phenomenon.People have *always* stuck in their little corners: look at life in Medieval Europe, where you could go your entire life without meeting someone who wasn't from your little town, or large parts of current-day China and Africa where all you see and hear is your tiny slice of the whole world.
The difference is that for some people now there's the option of finding out what's going on throughout the world.
Most people have always shunned the outside world, and most people are continuing to do so.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_0422202.30932226</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_0422202.30932634</id>
	<title>Re:Why do people choose personalized news?</title>
	<author>NeoSkandranon</author>
	<datestamp>1264690920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Don't forget:  so they can get news they "agree with"</p><p>Which means spun the way they like it.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Do n't forget : so they can get news they " agree with " Which means spun the way they like it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Don't forget:  so they can get news they "agree with"Which means spun the way they like it.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_0422202.30932226</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_0422202.30932246</id>
	<title>Well duh.</title>
	<author>gzipped\_tar</author>
	<datestamp>1264688460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>Most of us employ the Internet not to seek the best information, but rather to select information that confirms our prejudices. -- Nicholas Kristof</p></div></blockquote><p>Example: slashdot.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Most of us employ the Internet not to seek the best information , but rather to select information that confirms our prejudices .
-- Nicholas KristofExample : slashdot .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Most of us employ the Internet not to seek the best information, but rather to select information that confirms our prejudices.
-- Nicholas KristofExample: slashdot.
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_0422202.30932806</id>
	<title>A Young Lady's Illustrated Primer</title>
	<author>KTheorem</author>
	<datestamp>1264692000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>This was rather explicitly covered in Neal Stephenson's book <em>The Diamond Age</em>. In the Neo Victorian phyle, the higher social ranking a member has the less personalized their newspaper is due to the thought that there are certain things higher ups need to know and it's best if they were all on the same page. <br> <br>Then again, the Vickies are also depicted as un-curious and possessing of a stagnant society, so take from that what you will.</htmltext>
<tokenext>This was rather explicitly covered in Neal Stephenson 's book The Diamond Age .
In the Neo Victorian phyle , the higher social ranking a member has the less personalized their newspaper is due to the thought that there are certain things higher ups need to know and it 's best if they were all on the same page .
Then again , the Vickies are also depicted as un-curious and possessing of a stagnant society , so take from that what you will .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This was rather explicitly covered in Neal Stephenson's book The Diamond Age.
In the Neo Victorian phyle, the higher social ranking a member has the less personalized their newspaper is due to the thought that there are certain things higher ups need to know and it's best if they were all on the same page.
Then again, the Vickies are also depicted as un-curious and possessing of a stagnant society, so take from that what you will.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_0422202.30933340</id>
	<title>informed, but ignorant...?</title>
	<author>ecoshift</author>
	<datestamp>1264694760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"the overall knowledge of important issues is plummeting."</p><p>This is true.  But, allowing CNN or MSNBC or Fox or even the New York Times do your analysis and filtering won't help. Drilling down to the root causes and drivers impacting the issues you care about most reveals dynamics that are never discussed by media conglomerate news outlets.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" the overall knowledge of important issues is plummeting .
" This is true .
But , allowing CNN or MSNBC or Fox or even the New York Times do your analysis and filtering wo n't help .
Drilling down to the root causes and drivers impacting the issues you care about most reveals dynamics that are never discussed by media conglomerate news outlets .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"the overall knowledge of important issues is plummeting.
"This is true.
But, allowing CNN or MSNBC or Fox or even the New York Times do your analysis and filtering won't help.
Drilling down to the root causes and drivers impacting the issues you care about most reveals dynamics that are never discussed by media conglomerate news outlets.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_0422202.30933162</id>
	<title>Wake up!</title>
	<author>Phantom\_appendage</author>
	<datestamp>1264693920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I think this is troubling, the question we should be asking is why are are people no longer interested in the so-called boring news? This reflects that people are feeling increasingly disconnected from the real world, and becoming more immersed in their own fantasy worlds. After all, why engage with a broken political process? The more I follow politics, the more depressed I get. Who wants to feel depressed? This is great news for the people pulling the strings (elites, corporations). They have indulged escapism for a long time, and they only keep getting better at it. They have sedated the vast majority of the public with American Idol and bikini shots. Hence, there is no outrage, only apathy. Fifty years ago I bet there would be a march on Washington by now, over the health care legislation. But who wants to miss football? I wish people would wake up.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I think this is troubling , the question we should be asking is why are are people no longer interested in the so-called boring news ?
This reflects that people are feeling increasingly disconnected from the real world , and becoming more immersed in their own fantasy worlds .
After all , why engage with a broken political process ?
The more I follow politics , the more depressed I get .
Who wants to feel depressed ?
This is great news for the people pulling the strings ( elites , corporations ) .
They have indulged escapism for a long time , and they only keep getting better at it .
They have sedated the vast majority of the public with American Idol and bikini shots .
Hence , there is no outrage , only apathy .
Fifty years ago I bet there would be a march on Washington by now , over the health care legislation .
But who wants to miss football ?
I wish people would wake up .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I think this is troubling, the question we should be asking is why are are people no longer interested in the so-called boring news?
This reflects that people are feeling increasingly disconnected from the real world, and becoming more immersed in their own fantasy worlds.
After all, why engage with a broken political process?
The more I follow politics, the more depressed I get.
Who wants to feel depressed?
This is great news for the people pulling the strings (elites, corporations).
They have indulged escapism for a long time, and they only keep getting better at it.
They have sedated the vast majority of the public with American Idol and bikini shots.
Hence, there is no outrage, only apathy.
Fifty years ago I bet there would be a march on Washington by now, over the health care legislation.
But who wants to miss football?
I wish people would wake up.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_0422202.30936184</id>
	<title>A natural result of specialism.</title>
	<author>FiloEleven</author>
	<datestamp>1264703100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><em>The effect of this system is the disappearance of a public culture, and with it of the feelings of "belonging," of "community," of "togetherness," whose loss we deplore in these pseudo-technical terms. The very idea of The Public (as opposed to "the population") is growing dim. The laymen no longer entertain a conception of general knowledge which the experts can assume or the children acquire. The logical end is for each man to talk to himself and hope he will understand.</em> </p><p>This quote from Barzun's <em>Science: The Glorious Entertainment</em> refers to specialism in science, but applies equally well here.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>The effect of this system is the disappearance of a public culture , and with it of the feelings of " belonging , " of " community , " of " togetherness , " whose loss we deplore in these pseudo-technical terms .
The very idea of The Public ( as opposed to " the population " ) is growing dim .
The laymen no longer entertain a conception of general knowledge which the experts can assume or the children acquire .
The logical end is for each man to talk to himself and hope he will understand .
This quote from Barzun 's Science : The Glorious Entertainment refers to specialism in science , but applies equally well here .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The effect of this system is the disappearance of a public culture, and with it of the feelings of "belonging," of "community," of "togetherness," whose loss we deplore in these pseudo-technical terms.
The very idea of The Public (as opposed to "the population") is growing dim.
The laymen no longer entertain a conception of general knowledge which the experts can assume or the children acquire.
The logical end is for each man to talk to himself and hope he will understand.
This quote from Barzun's Science: The Glorious Entertainment refers to specialism in science, but applies equally well here.
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_0422202.30936544</id>
	<title>It exists</title>
	<author>r\_jensen11</author>
	<datestamp>1264704240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Two American news sources do just that:</p><p>NPR<br>News Hour With Jim Lehrer (PBS)</p><p>Other news sources which are held in high regard (and many say that these are better than the two listed above):<br>BBC World News<br>Naked News</p><p>One of the problems, though, is that the vast majority of people are complacent with regards to civic duties that they feel it's not worth it to get depressed by the news.  After all, how can one person do anything about it?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Two American news sources do just that : NPRNews Hour With Jim Lehrer ( PBS ) Other news sources which are held in high regard ( and many say that these are better than the two listed above ) : BBC World NewsNaked NewsOne of the problems , though , is that the vast majority of people are complacent with regards to civic duties that they feel it 's not worth it to get depressed by the news .
After all , how can one person do anything about it ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Two American news sources do just that:NPRNews Hour With Jim Lehrer (PBS)Other news sources which are held in high regard (and many say that these are better than the two listed above):BBC World NewsNaked NewsOne of the problems, though, is that the vast majority of people are complacent with regards to civic duties that they feel it's not worth it to get depressed by the news.
After all, how can one person do anything about it?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_0422202.30932150</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_0422202.30932594</id>
	<title>Just what is it that I "need" to know?</title>
	<author>flajann</author>
	<datestamp>1264690680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I have a big issue with the notion of someone else deciding what I "need to know". That's my decision to make, and now I have the power of choice, thanks to the Internet. I can pull from the BBC news, Asian Times, and a number of other sources around the world to get a real balance of what is going on that is not wholly dependent on one news organization's -- or even one country's -- biases. <p>

Lately, Haiti has been in the news, and for good reason. The problem I have is that I think Haiti is over-reported. Every major news site pounces on the same bit of news I've already read elsewhere, and they are of course dropping other news I might be a bit more interested in. When every news outlet everywhere ALL decide I "need to know" news X, that's a personal affront.</p><p>

And more importantly, someone is deciding what it is I "DON'T need to know". That's even worse, because if they choose not to publish it, I can't make the choice for myself. But that's the beauty of "citizen journalism" -- that coverage is unfiltered and raw, and I can get to it before some editor decides to drop it unto the floor. Case in point: <a href="http://pittsburghpolice.net/" title="pittsburghpolice.net">The G20 summit in Pittsburgh and how the police there attacked the University of Pittsburgh students</a> [pittsburghpolice.net]. There were lots of videos uploaded to YouTube about what was really happening in the streets -- a lot that I never saw on the major news outlets like CNN and FOX. Students that had nothing to do with the protests were being gassed, tasered, and chased around their own campus. You'd think that should've gotten a lot of attention by the news as something we need to know. Nope.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I have a big issue with the notion of someone else deciding what I " need to know " .
That 's my decision to make , and now I have the power of choice , thanks to the Internet .
I can pull from the BBC news , Asian Times , and a number of other sources around the world to get a real balance of what is going on that is not wholly dependent on one news organization 's -- or even one country 's -- biases .
Lately , Haiti has been in the news , and for good reason .
The problem I have is that I think Haiti is over-reported .
Every major news site pounces on the same bit of news I 've already read elsewhere , and they are of course dropping other news I might be a bit more interested in .
When every news outlet everywhere ALL decide I " need to know " news X , that 's a personal affront .
And more importantly , someone is deciding what it is I " DO N'T need to know " .
That 's even worse , because if they choose not to publish it , I ca n't make the choice for myself .
But that 's the beauty of " citizen journalism " -- that coverage is unfiltered and raw , and I can get to it before some editor decides to drop it unto the floor .
Case in point : The G20 summit in Pittsburgh and how the police there attacked the University of Pittsburgh students [ pittsburghpolice.net ] .
There were lots of videos uploaded to YouTube about what was really happening in the streets -- a lot that I never saw on the major news outlets like CNN and FOX .
Students that had nothing to do with the protests were being gassed , tasered , and chased around their own campus .
You 'd think that should 've gotten a lot of attention by the news as something we need to know .
Nope .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I have a big issue with the notion of someone else deciding what I "need to know".
That's my decision to make, and now I have the power of choice, thanks to the Internet.
I can pull from the BBC news, Asian Times, and a number of other sources around the world to get a real balance of what is going on that is not wholly dependent on one news organization's -- or even one country's -- biases.
Lately, Haiti has been in the news, and for good reason.
The problem I have is that I think Haiti is over-reported.
Every major news site pounces on the same bit of news I've already read elsewhere, and they are of course dropping other news I might be a bit more interested in.
When every news outlet everywhere ALL decide I "need to know" news X, that's a personal affront.
And more importantly, someone is deciding what it is I "DON'T need to know".
That's even worse, because if they choose not to publish it, I can't make the choice for myself.
But that's the beauty of "citizen journalism" -- that coverage is unfiltered and raw, and I can get to it before some editor decides to drop it unto the floor.
Case in point: The G20 summit in Pittsburgh and how the police there attacked the University of Pittsburgh students [pittsburghpolice.net].
There were lots of videos uploaded to YouTube about what was really happening in the streets -- a lot that I never saw on the major news outlets like CNN and FOX.
Students that had nothing to do with the protests were being gassed, tasered, and chased around their own campus.
You'd think that should've gotten a lot of attention by the news as something we need to know.
Nope.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_0422202.30932226</id>
	<title>Why do people choose personalized news?</title>
	<author>wjc\_25</author>
	<datestamp>1264688280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>I don't think it's just a matter of liking the flexibility, customization, individuality, etc. We live in a world where we're barraged with news sources; there's far more than any one person could keep up with, even if they spent most of their time worrying about it. People are  overwhelmed, so they throw up their hands and stick to their little corner. It's a distinctly modern phenomenon.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I do n't think it 's just a matter of liking the flexibility , customization , individuality , etc .
We live in a world where we 're barraged with news sources ; there 's far more than any one person could keep up with , even if they spent most of their time worrying about it .
People are overwhelmed , so they throw up their hands and stick to their little corner .
It 's a distinctly modern phenomenon .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I don't think it's just a matter of liking the flexibility, customization, individuality, etc.
We live in a world where we're barraged with news sources; there's far more than any one person could keep up with, even if they spent most of their time worrying about it.
People are  overwhelmed, so they throw up their hands and stick to their little corner.
It's a distinctly modern phenomenon.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_0422202.30932940</id>
	<title>Re:The article reeks of elitist attitude...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264692960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Also, cocks.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Also , cocks .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Also, cocks.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_0422202.30932088</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_0422202.30940450</id>
	<title>Nobody uses personalized news.</title>
	<author>Hurricane78</author>
	<datestamp>1264671300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Because people fear, they will miss something. I&rsquo;ve seen such projects fail big time, more than once.<br>I recommend not trying to throw away money, by implementing it.</p><p>A better method is, to weigh (e.g. sort) by personal priorities. Never hide anything. Just put it a bit lower on the list.</p><p>But hell, the whole system is an epic fail anyway, with its total lack of even the acknowledgment of trust networks as a basic mechanism of human society.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Because people fear , they will miss something .
I    ve seen such projects fail big time , more than once.I recommend not trying to throw away money , by implementing it.A better method is , to weigh ( e.g .
sort ) by personal priorities .
Never hide anything .
Just put it a bit lower on the list.But hell , the whole system is an epic fail anyway , with its total lack of even the acknowledgment of trust networks as a basic mechanism of human society .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Because people fear, they will miss something.
I’ve seen such projects fail big time, more than once.I recommend not trying to throw away money, by implementing it.A better method is, to weigh (e.g.
sort) by personal priorities.
Never hide anything.
Just put it a bit lower on the list.But hell, the whole system is an epic fail anyway, with its total lack of even the acknowledgment of trust networks as a basic mechanism of human society.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_0422202.30932502</id>
	<title>Real news aggregation</title>
	<author>Lord Grey</author>
	<datestamp>1264690260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>
Face it:  Every news outlet filters and edits, so what you see or hear is at the very least a subset of the reported item.  Even if a news outlet just regurgitates a syndicated column or wire report, <b>someone</b> did the original filtering and editing.
</p><p>
Every journalist spin a story a different way.  Whether to sensationalize it, make it fit a more conservative or liberal viewpoint, or even just to make a printed story fit into a certain column length or a video fit into a certain time segment.  We <b>never</b> hear the whole story from a single news outlet.
</p><p>
What I want is an aggregation of viewpoints.  For a given issue, I want to read the just-the-facts story, the liberal newspaper's story, and the version that appeared in <i>Hey, I'm a Wacko, Too</i> monthly.  Ideally, some magical technology will gather all those different versions and sift the contents, remove the duplicated stuff (even opinions!), then present me with a single chunk of news to digest.  Properly annotated, of course, so I know which news outlet reported what.  Even Fox News' stuff could be included, for hilarity if nothing else.
</p><p>
To be truly informed about the "important issue" I would need to see all the angles.  I can do what I described above myself, manually, but it takes so much time that I usually don't bother unless the issue is truly important to me.  So yes, I want my "personalized news" and I think it would better than what I see now.
</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Face it : Every news outlet filters and edits , so what you see or hear is at the very least a subset of the reported item .
Even if a news outlet just regurgitates a syndicated column or wire report , someone did the original filtering and editing .
Every journalist spin a story a different way .
Whether to sensationalize it , make it fit a more conservative or liberal viewpoint , or even just to make a printed story fit into a certain column length or a video fit into a certain time segment .
We never hear the whole story from a single news outlet .
What I want is an aggregation of viewpoints .
For a given issue , I want to read the just-the-facts story , the liberal newspaper 's story , and the version that appeared in Hey , I 'm a Wacko , Too monthly .
Ideally , some magical technology will gather all those different versions and sift the contents , remove the duplicated stuff ( even opinions !
) , then present me with a single chunk of news to digest .
Properly annotated , of course , so I know which news outlet reported what .
Even Fox News ' stuff could be included , for hilarity if nothing else .
To be truly informed about the " important issue " I would need to see all the angles .
I can do what I described above myself , manually , but it takes so much time that I usually do n't bother unless the issue is truly important to me .
So yes , I want my " personalized news " and I think it would better than what I see now .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>
Face it:  Every news outlet filters and edits, so what you see or hear is at the very least a subset of the reported item.
Even if a news outlet just regurgitates a syndicated column or wire report, someone did the original filtering and editing.
Every journalist spin a story a different way.
Whether to sensationalize it, make it fit a more conservative or liberal viewpoint, or even just to make a printed story fit into a certain column length or a video fit into a certain time segment.
We never hear the whole story from a single news outlet.
What I want is an aggregation of viewpoints.
For a given issue, I want to read the just-the-facts story, the liberal newspaper's story, and the version that appeared in Hey, I'm a Wacko, Too monthly.
Ideally, some magical technology will gather all those different versions and sift the contents, remove the duplicated stuff (even opinions!
), then present me with a single chunk of news to digest.
Properly annotated, of course, so I know which news outlet reported what.
Even Fox News' stuff could be included, for hilarity if nothing else.
To be truly informed about the "important issue" I would need to see all the angles.
I can do what I described above myself, manually, but it takes so much time that I usually don't bother unless the issue is truly important to me.
So yes, I want my "personalized news" and I think it would better than what I see now.
</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_0422202.30933448</id>
	<title>Re:New should not be tailored to consumers</title>
	<author>jjoelc</author>
	<datestamp>1264695240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I do realize my statement was an oversimplification.. Exaggeration is a valid way to illustrate an opinion.</p><p>Maybe I should clarify a bit... I think news (in general) in the US is so concerned about the ratings (and thus the $$$) that they jump at any press release they feel will be sensational enough to entice the advertisers to their show. American Idol and movie tie-ins are not news. Celebrity scandals in general are not news. They are ratings grabs. Even the legitimate news items tend to be sensationalized for as long as it takes us to get sick of hearing about them, and start watching American Idol just to escape from the constant barrage. That is about the point the news starts running items about American Idol again.</p><p>The press is always very quick to tout their necessity to a free society, to speak of the lofty ideals and point out what happens to places without a free press. But they are very willing to set those ideals aside and choose the most money over the greater good they just got done talking about in the last segment.</p><p>I work at a TV station, and we had a (failed) news show for a while with the stated goal of "Informing people who don't want to be informed" (seriously.. Don't you wonder why it failed?) Sounds great, but just like everyone else, the stories they ran were entertainment, they just had vegas showgirls and strippers reading the weather... (yes, it was that bad...)</p><p>Let me ask it another way... If the "mainstream" news media was doing its' job, would the blogging news sites still be around in anything but niche capacity?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I do realize my statement was an oversimplification.. Exaggeration is a valid way to illustrate an opinion.Maybe I should clarify a bit... I think news ( in general ) in the US is so concerned about the ratings ( and thus the $ $ $ ) that they jump at any press release they feel will be sensational enough to entice the advertisers to their show .
American Idol and movie tie-ins are not news .
Celebrity scandals in general are not news .
They are ratings grabs .
Even the legitimate news items tend to be sensationalized for as long as it takes us to get sick of hearing about them , and start watching American Idol just to escape from the constant barrage .
That is about the point the news starts running items about American Idol again.The press is always very quick to tout their necessity to a free society , to speak of the lofty ideals and point out what happens to places without a free press .
But they are very willing to set those ideals aside and choose the most money over the greater good they just got done talking about in the last segment.I work at a TV station , and we had a ( failed ) news show for a while with the stated goal of " Informing people who do n't want to be informed " ( seriously.. Do n't you wonder why it failed ?
) Sounds great , but just like everyone else , the stories they ran were entertainment , they just had vegas showgirls and strippers reading the weather... ( yes , it was that bad... ) Let me ask it another way... If the " mainstream " news media was doing its ' job , would the blogging news sites still be around in anything but niche capacity ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I do realize my statement was an oversimplification.. Exaggeration is a valid way to illustrate an opinion.Maybe I should clarify a bit... I think news (in general) in the US is so concerned about the ratings (and thus the $$$) that they jump at any press release they feel will be sensational enough to entice the advertisers to their show.
American Idol and movie tie-ins are not news.
Celebrity scandals in general are not news.
They are ratings grabs.
Even the legitimate news items tend to be sensationalized for as long as it takes us to get sick of hearing about them, and start watching American Idol just to escape from the constant barrage.
That is about the point the news starts running items about American Idol again.The press is always very quick to tout their necessity to a free society, to speak of the lofty ideals and point out what happens to places without a free press.
But they are very willing to set those ideals aside and choose the most money over the greater good they just got done talking about in the last segment.I work at a TV station, and we had a (failed) news show for a while with the stated goal of "Informing people who don't want to be informed" (seriously.. Don't you wonder why it failed?
) Sounds great, but just like everyone else, the stories they ran were entertainment, they just had vegas showgirls and strippers reading the weather... (yes, it was that bad...)Let me ask it another way... If the "mainstream" news media was doing its' job, would the blogging news sites still be around in anything but niche capacity?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_0422202.30932086</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_0422202.30932584</id>
	<title>I've noticed I do this</title>
	<author>Thyamine</author>
	<datestamp>1264690620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I realize now and then that I'm doing that.. reading only tech sites and the like.  I'll try and hit a more general news site like CNN or the BBC and try and see what else is going on in the world, even if I'm not all that interested just so people don't say 'Oh hey, that's terrible about Haiti' and I turn around to say 'What?  What's going on?'.  It's easier with print media since the 'important' things are right there on the front page, but when you tailor your news sites around one or two topics, you can't help but miss other important events in the world.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I realize now and then that I 'm doing that.. reading only tech sites and the like .
I 'll try and hit a more general news site like CNN or the BBC and try and see what else is going on in the world , even if I 'm not all that interested just so people do n't say 'Oh hey , that 's terrible about Haiti ' and I turn around to say 'What ?
What 's going on ? ' .
It 's easier with print media since the 'important ' things are right there on the front page , but when you tailor your news sites around one or two topics , you ca n't help but miss other important events in the world .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I realize now and then that I'm doing that.. reading only tech sites and the like.
I'll try and hit a more general news site like CNN or the BBC and try and see what else is going on in the world, even if I'm not all that interested just so people don't say 'Oh hey, that's terrible about Haiti' and I turn around to say 'What?
What's going on?'.
It's easier with print media since the 'important' things are right there on the front page, but when you tailor your news sites around one or two topics, you can't help but miss other important events in the world.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_0422202.30932160</id>
	<title>What they need to hear?</title>
	<author>MikeRT</author>
	<datestamp>1264687980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>This coming from the same mainstream media that usually just regurgitates whatever the police and prosecutors allege in a criminal report? Case in point, <a href="http://www.codemonkeyramblings.com/mt/mt-ftsearch.cgi?blog\_id=2&amp;tag=Ryan\%20Frederick&amp;limit=20" title="codemonkeyramblings.com">what happened to Ryan Frederick</a> [codemonkeyramblings.com]. Absolutely questionable and "juicy" from the beginning. At the very least, the papers should have made a scandal about why the police would be so moronic as to raid a small-time pot user <strong>3 nights after a man with a vendetta against him burgled his home</strong>. If that isn't a public interest scandal right up there with "sex offenders are in your neighborhood," then I don't know what is because when the news poured out about what really went down, it made a lot of his community deeply uncomfortable about what the police would do to "protect them" (BTW, it gets worse, like the police using men who are active burglars to get them evidence).<br> <br>
Excuse me, but if Google or someone can create an active intelligent search agent which will build me a comprehensive list of public corruption news, political news, civil liberties issues, etc., then I'll be a hell of a lot more informed and less "ignorant" than I would be if I had to read a paper or magazine that caters more toward the <strong>assumption</strong> that the only thing people want to read about is celebrity news and what pretty white girl got killed after hooking up with 3 strange men in a foreign country.</htmltext>
<tokenext>This coming from the same mainstream media that usually just regurgitates whatever the police and prosecutors allege in a criminal report ?
Case in point , what happened to Ryan Frederick [ codemonkeyramblings.com ] .
Absolutely questionable and " juicy " from the beginning .
At the very least , the papers should have made a scandal about why the police would be so moronic as to raid a small-time pot user 3 nights after a man with a vendetta against him burgled his home .
If that is n't a public interest scandal right up there with " sex offenders are in your neighborhood , " then I do n't know what is because when the news poured out about what really went down , it made a lot of his community deeply uncomfortable about what the police would do to " protect them " ( BTW , it gets worse , like the police using men who are active burglars to get them evidence ) .
Excuse me , but if Google or someone can create an active intelligent search agent which will build me a comprehensive list of public corruption news , political news , civil liberties issues , etc. , then I 'll be a hell of a lot more informed and less " ignorant " than I would be if I had to read a paper or magazine that caters more toward the assumption that the only thing people want to read about is celebrity news and what pretty white girl got killed after hooking up with 3 strange men in a foreign country .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This coming from the same mainstream media that usually just regurgitates whatever the police and prosecutors allege in a criminal report?
Case in point, what happened to Ryan Frederick [codemonkeyramblings.com].
Absolutely questionable and "juicy" from the beginning.
At the very least, the papers should have made a scandal about why the police would be so moronic as to raid a small-time pot user 3 nights after a man with a vendetta against him burgled his home.
If that isn't a public interest scandal right up there with "sex offenders are in your neighborhood," then I don't know what is because when the news poured out about what really went down, it made a lot of his community deeply uncomfortable about what the police would do to "protect them" (BTW, it gets worse, like the police using men who are active burglars to get them evidence).
Excuse me, but if Google or someone can create an active intelligent search agent which will build me a comprehensive list of public corruption news, political news, civil liberties issues, etc., then I'll be a hell of a lot more informed and less "ignorant" than I would be if I had to read a paper or magazine that caters more toward the assumption that the only thing people want to read about is celebrity news and what pretty white girl got killed after hooking up with 3 strange men in a foreign country.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_0422202.30932560</id>
	<title>What's the point?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264690500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I don't like sports, I don't like gossip, I don't like "faits divers", I don't like political squabbling. I don't care for most mainstream media "news".</p><p>Thus I'm ignorant because I don't care about this crap? So be it.</p><p>I need the time for the stuff I like and care about. For instance science, technology, entertainment, computing, bikes, etc. And all the stuff mainstream media usually don't report due to their political allegiance and political correctness. I'll leave to the "gurus" like the one who pontified about this the job to know all the mainstream media junk if that's so important for them.</p><p>--<br>El Guerrero del Interfaz</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I do n't like sports , I do n't like gossip , I do n't like " faits divers " , I do n't like political squabbling .
I do n't care for most mainstream media " news " .Thus I 'm ignorant because I do n't care about this crap ?
So be it.I need the time for the stuff I like and care about .
For instance science , technology , entertainment , computing , bikes , etc .
And all the stuff mainstream media usually do n't report due to their political allegiance and political correctness .
I 'll leave to the " gurus " like the one who pontified about this the job to know all the mainstream media junk if that 's so important for them.--El Guerrero del Interfaz</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I don't like sports, I don't like gossip, I don't like "faits divers", I don't like political squabbling.
I don't care for most mainstream media "news".Thus I'm ignorant because I don't care about this crap?
So be it.I need the time for the stuff I like and care about.
For instance science, technology, entertainment, computing, bikes, etc.
And all the stuff mainstream media usually don't report due to their political allegiance and political correctness.
I'll leave to the "gurus" like the one who pontified about this the job to know all the mainstream media junk if that's so important for them.--El Guerrero del Interfaz</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_0422202.30932114</id>
	<title>Most Definitely</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264687680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Offtopic</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Yes! I subconsciously want to read about Tiger Woods' next affair.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Yes !
I subconsciously want to read about Tiger Woods ' next affair .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yes!
I subconsciously want to read about Tiger Woods' next affair.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_0422202.30933414</id>
	<title>Re:I Disagree, That's the Only Model That Works</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264695060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>"Because who else is there in the equation to please with the news?"</i></p><p>That's the problem right there: the purpose of news is not to please. Yet is treated as such both by many consumers and by many of the media outlets.</p><p>For commercial media it is against their interests to publish important news instead of 'fun news'.<br>But probably many people think there's no such thing as important news, there's just "fun" and "boring".</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" Because who else is there in the equation to please with the news ?
" That 's the problem right there : the purpose of news is not to please .
Yet is treated as such both by many consumers and by many of the media outlets.For commercial media it is against their interests to publish important news instead of 'fun news'.But probably many people think there 's no such thing as important news , there 's just " fun " and " boring " .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"Because who else is there in the equation to please with the news?
"That's the problem right there: the purpose of news is not to please.
Yet is treated as such both by many consumers and by many of the media outlets.For commercial media it is against their interests to publish important news instead of 'fun news'.But probably many people think there's no such thing as important news, there's just "fun" and "boring".</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_0422202.30932248</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_0422202.30933890</id>
	<title>Ain't what it used to be</title>
	<author>rbrander</author>
	<datestamp>1264696800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I'm just old enough to remember the Watergate hearings (early teens at the time, just starting to pay attention to politics).  I remember the wall-to-wall coverage of them - the hush that fell on the hearing room when Alexander Butterfield told the Ervin commission that he had set up tape recorders to go on automatically in the Oval Office so that every word of Nixon's every discussion was recorded.</p><p>So, if that was the coverage of the hearings on a small burglary and wiretapping case, why is nobody watching the vastly more important hearings about a government systematically distorting intelligence to mislead the country into war, demanding Tom Ridge elevate terror alerts when elections were upcoming, giving the OK to warrantless wiretapping, imprisoning Americans without trial, and torturing prisoners?</p><p>Oh, yeah.  There weren't any hearings.</p><p>"News" today, "Leaks" in particular, are just formal and informal press releases, respectively.  And the "journalists" do stenography of those releases to maintain their precious "access".   The most "Access"-heavy insider of all is former Watergate hero Bob Woodward, who writes hagiographies of pols when they are in power and mild criticism of them when they are falling out of it anyway and the criticism no longer matters.</p><p>I'll read anybody who purveys checkable facts that the powerful didn't want them to know.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm just old enough to remember the Watergate hearings ( early teens at the time , just starting to pay attention to politics ) .
I remember the wall-to-wall coverage of them - the hush that fell on the hearing room when Alexander Butterfield told the Ervin commission that he had set up tape recorders to go on automatically in the Oval Office so that every word of Nixon 's every discussion was recorded.So , if that was the coverage of the hearings on a small burglary and wiretapping case , why is nobody watching the vastly more important hearings about a government systematically distorting intelligence to mislead the country into war , demanding Tom Ridge elevate terror alerts when elections were upcoming , giving the OK to warrantless wiretapping , imprisoning Americans without trial , and torturing prisoners ? Oh , yeah .
There were n't any hearings .
" News " today , " Leaks " in particular , are just formal and informal press releases , respectively .
And the " journalists " do stenography of those releases to maintain their precious " access " .
The most " Access " -heavy insider of all is former Watergate hero Bob Woodward , who writes hagiographies of pols when they are in power and mild criticism of them when they are falling out of it anyway and the criticism no longer matters.I 'll read anybody who purveys checkable facts that the powerful did n't want them to know .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm just old enough to remember the Watergate hearings (early teens at the time, just starting to pay attention to politics).
I remember the wall-to-wall coverage of them - the hush that fell on the hearing room when Alexander Butterfield told the Ervin commission that he had set up tape recorders to go on automatically in the Oval Office so that every word of Nixon's every discussion was recorded.So, if that was the coverage of the hearings on a small burglary and wiretapping case, why is nobody watching the vastly more important hearings about a government systematically distorting intelligence to mislead the country into war, demanding Tom Ridge elevate terror alerts when elections were upcoming, giving the OK to warrantless wiretapping, imprisoning Americans without trial, and torturing prisoners?Oh, yeah.
There weren't any hearings.
"News" today, "Leaks" in particular, are just formal and informal press releases, respectively.
And the "journalists" do stenography of those releases to maintain their precious "access".
The most "Access"-heavy insider of all is former Watergate hero Bob Woodward, who writes hagiographies of pols when they are in power and mild criticism of them when they are falling out of it anyway and the criticism no longer matters.I'll read anybody who purveys checkable facts that the powerful didn't want them to know.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_0422202.30932328</id>
	<title>And so the Information Wars begin..</title>
	<author>DiscountBorg(TM)</author>
	<datestamp>1264689120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>Really, as soon as we got more than one TV channel with the news on it, we had the option of picking and choosing the news that causes us the least discomfort and appeals to our personal biases.  The internet has of course taken this to the extreme, now we have news and information sites tailor-made to appeal to the cognitive biases of whatever demograph you fit into.  You can spend your entire life on the internet as a young-earth creationist and never challenge your beliefs once.

The problem of course is human nature.  If you are a conspiracy theorist there is plenty of media available depending on your political spectrum, from the Obama Deception to Zeitgeist.  Both examples take advantage of the ability our human brains have for associating things that may have no relation to each other at all. All you have to do is take little snippets of media, string them together into some kind of narrative complete with Scary Music (tm) and you can make up any kind of "facts" you want.  I've actually heard some people on the net defend the absurdity that is Zeitgeist by claiming it is anti-propaganda, as if there is some kind of information war going on and we must fight 'bad' information with 'good' information.

Nowadays I frequently run into people who believe in 2012, and they provide me with tons of videos full of 'proof' of their conjecture.  I run into people who believe that Obama is not an American citizen, they likewise have tons of 'proof'.  This is just the beginning of a phenomenon made possible by information customized to appeal to cognitive bias.  The article above is really just the tip of the iceberg.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Really , as soon as we got more than one TV channel with the news on it , we had the option of picking and choosing the news that causes us the least discomfort and appeals to our personal biases .
The internet has of course taken this to the extreme , now we have news and information sites tailor-made to appeal to the cognitive biases of whatever demograph you fit into .
You can spend your entire life on the internet as a young-earth creationist and never challenge your beliefs once .
The problem of course is human nature .
If you are a conspiracy theorist there is plenty of media available depending on your political spectrum , from the Obama Deception to Zeitgeist .
Both examples take advantage of the ability our human brains have for associating things that may have no relation to each other at all .
All you have to do is take little snippets of media , string them together into some kind of narrative complete with Scary Music ( tm ) and you can make up any kind of " facts " you want .
I 've actually heard some people on the net defend the absurdity that is Zeitgeist by claiming it is anti-propaganda , as if there is some kind of information war going on and we must fight 'bad ' information with 'good ' information .
Nowadays I frequently run into people who believe in 2012 , and they provide me with tons of videos full of 'proof ' of their conjecture .
I run into people who believe that Obama is not an American citizen , they likewise have tons of 'proof' .
This is just the beginning of a phenomenon made possible by information customized to appeal to cognitive bias .
The article above is really just the tip of the iceberg .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Really, as soon as we got more than one TV channel with the news on it, we had the option of picking and choosing the news that causes us the least discomfort and appeals to our personal biases.
The internet has of course taken this to the extreme, now we have news and information sites tailor-made to appeal to the cognitive biases of whatever demograph you fit into.
You can spend your entire life on the internet as a young-earth creationist and never challenge your beliefs once.
The problem of course is human nature.
If you are a conspiracy theorist there is plenty of media available depending on your political spectrum, from the Obama Deception to Zeitgeist.
Both examples take advantage of the ability our human brains have for associating things that may have no relation to each other at all.
All you have to do is take little snippets of media, string them together into some kind of narrative complete with Scary Music (tm) and you can make up any kind of "facts" you want.
I've actually heard some people on the net defend the absurdity that is Zeitgeist by claiming it is anti-propaganda, as if there is some kind of information war going on and we must fight 'bad' information with 'good' information.
Nowadays I frequently run into people who believe in 2012, and they provide me with tons of videos full of 'proof' of their conjecture.
I run into people who believe that Obama is not an American citizen, they likewise have tons of 'proof'.
This is just the beginning of a phenomenon made possible by information customized to appeal to cognitive bias.
The article above is really just the tip of the iceberg.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_0422202.30933386</id>
	<title>Re:I must say</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264694940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>"Politicians are like little children"  because YOU elect children.  Once we get idiots to either get informed or not vote this will be a problem.  It is not the politicians that act like children its citizens who elect childish politicians.  Next time you whine about this "issue" think who voted for this guy.  It is like the chicken and the egg problem except we know who comes first, voters who then let "politicians" into office.</htmltext>
<tokenext>" Politicians are like little children " because YOU elect children .
Once we get idiots to either get informed or not vote this will be a problem .
It is not the politicians that act like children its citizens who elect childish politicians .
Next time you whine about this " issue " think who voted for this guy .
It is like the chicken and the egg problem except we know who comes first , voters who then let " politicians " into office .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"Politicians are like little children"  because YOU elect children.
Once we get idiots to either get informed or not vote this will be a problem.
It is not the politicians that act like children its citizens who elect childish politicians.
Next time you whine about this "issue" think who voted for this guy.
It is like the chicken and the egg problem except we know who comes first, voters who then let "politicians" into office.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_0422202.30932222</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_0422202.30932164</id>
	<title>Ignorance is bliss</title>
	<author>richtaur</author>
	<datestamp>1264687980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Personally I'm not just bored by regular news, I also often find it depressing. All I follow is technology news, because that's what I find interesting and what I want to occupy most of my time.<br>
<br>
News is mostly entertainment anyway; you will hear about the *really* important stuff from friends or relatives.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Personally I 'm not just bored by regular news , I also often find it depressing .
All I follow is technology news , because that 's what I find interesting and what I want to occupy most of my time .
News is mostly entertainment anyway ; you will hear about the * really * important stuff from friends or relatives .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Personally I'm not just bored by regular news, I also often find it depressing.
All I follow is technology news, because that's what I find interesting and what I want to occupy most of my time.
News is mostly entertainment anyway; you will hear about the *really* important stuff from friends or relatives.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_0422202.30932092</id>
	<title>Just look at the surprise that Obama's a leftist.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264687620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Good God, folks, he graded out as the most leftist Senator, by far.</p><p>Why the hell is anyone surprised that he's governed from the hard left?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Good God , folks , he graded out as the most leftist Senator , by far.Why the hell is anyone surprised that he 's governed from the hard left ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Good God, folks, he graded out as the most leftist Senator, by far.Why the hell is anyone surprised that he's governed from the hard left?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_0422202.30933062</id>
	<title>Important thing to remember.</title>
	<author>Simulant</author>
	<datestamp>1264693500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p> Generally speaking, News in America is not really a product or a service and consumers of news are not really customers.  The primary product of the news business is advertising and the real customers are the corporations that purchase that advertising.</p><p>
&nbsp; &nbsp; The news we get to see is filtered in a big way by the system we've set up.  "Keeping the public informed" is almost entirely incidental these days.</p><p>
&nbsp; &nbsp; There was a time when we thought we could rely on ethics to keep things in check.... how has that worked out for us?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Generally speaking , News in America is not really a product or a service and consumers of news are not really customers .
The primary product of the news business is advertising and the real customers are the corporations that purchase that advertising .
    The news we get to see is filtered in a big way by the system we 've set up .
" Keeping the public informed " is almost entirely incidental these days .
    There was a time when we thought we could rely on ethics to keep things in check.... how has that worked out for us ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext> Generally speaking, News in America is not really a product or a service and consumers of news are not really customers.
The primary product of the news business is advertising and the real customers are the corporations that purchase that advertising.
    The news we get to see is filtered in a big way by the system we've set up.
"Keeping the public informed" is almost entirely incidental these days.
    There was a time when we thought we could rely on ethics to keep things in check.... how has that worked out for us?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_0422202.30932304</id>
	<title>Yes it does</title>
	<author>cbope</author>
	<datestamp>1264688880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Having the news more and more "personalized" to what the consumer wants, not what the consumer needs, is essentially like inbreeding for the brain. The outcome is not going to be pleasing in the end.</p><p>It's sad that the average attention span is so short these days that many people are only interested in things interesting *to them*. Uninteresting or boring things, which may themselves be very important to society as a whole, do not even show up on the radar because they are not interesting *to them*.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Having the news more and more " personalized " to what the consumer wants , not what the consumer needs , is essentially like inbreeding for the brain .
The outcome is not going to be pleasing in the end.It 's sad that the average attention span is so short these days that many people are only interested in things interesting * to them * .
Uninteresting or boring things , which may themselves be very important to society as a whole , do not even show up on the radar because they are not interesting * to them * .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Having the news more and more "personalized" to what the consumer wants, not what the consumer needs, is essentially like inbreeding for the brain.
The outcome is not going to be pleasing in the end.It's sad that the average attention span is so short these days that many people are only interested in things interesting *to them*.
Uninteresting or boring things, which may themselves be very important to society as a whole, do not even show up on the radar because they are not interesting *to them*.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_0422202.30932754</id>
	<title>Re:New should not be tailored to consumers</title>
	<author>LihTox</author>
	<datestamp>1264691640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>I think that news should not ever be tailored to the "consumer"</i></p><p>That statement is overly general, to the point of absurdity.  As a physicist, I am going to be interested in certain news items which others might not even understand.  The same goes for businesspeople, lawyers, and so forth.  Similarly, local news is by definition tailored to the consumer: I don't read about traffic fatalities in Bangor, Maine, nor should I.</p><p>What you're really arguing, I think, is that there is a certain subset of news which is important for everyone, and I'd agree with that.  But the onus lies partially on the consumer as on the news distributor: if television news programs replaced their fluff pieces with solid news, would people watch?  Is it really up to the news agencies to candy-coat, trick, or force people into watching news?  I think not.</p><p>It is a problem, but the solution is to encourage people to see news-reading as an important activity.  Part of that solution might be a revamp of high school education to teach people *how* to read/watch/listen to the news and interpret what they hear, and basically what they should do with it.  A person can stare at the TV screen and see that the DOW has dropped by 100 points and that a jetliner crashed in Ethiopia, but what good does it do for them to see that if they don't know what to do with the information?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I think that news should not ever be tailored to the " consumer " That statement is overly general , to the point of absurdity .
As a physicist , I am going to be interested in certain news items which others might not even understand .
The same goes for businesspeople , lawyers , and so forth .
Similarly , local news is by definition tailored to the consumer : I do n't read about traffic fatalities in Bangor , Maine , nor should I.What you 're really arguing , I think , is that there is a certain subset of news which is important for everyone , and I 'd agree with that .
But the onus lies partially on the consumer as on the news distributor : if television news programs replaced their fluff pieces with solid news , would people watch ?
Is it really up to the news agencies to candy-coat , trick , or force people into watching news ?
I think not.It is a problem , but the solution is to encourage people to see news-reading as an important activity .
Part of that solution might be a revamp of high school education to teach people * how * to read/watch/listen to the news and interpret what they hear , and basically what they should do with it .
A person can stare at the TV screen and see that the DOW has dropped by 100 points and that a jetliner crashed in Ethiopia , but what good does it do for them to see that if they do n't know what to do with the information ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I think that news should not ever be tailored to the "consumer"That statement is overly general, to the point of absurdity.
As a physicist, I am going to be interested in certain news items which others might not even understand.
The same goes for businesspeople, lawyers, and so forth.
Similarly, local news is by definition tailored to the consumer: I don't read about traffic fatalities in Bangor, Maine, nor should I.What you're really arguing, I think, is that there is a certain subset of news which is important for everyone, and I'd agree with that.
But the onus lies partially on the consumer as on the news distributor: if television news programs replaced their fluff pieces with solid news, would people watch?
Is it really up to the news agencies to candy-coat, trick, or force people into watching news?
I think not.It is a problem, but the solution is to encourage people to see news-reading as an important activity.
Part of that solution might be a revamp of high school education to teach people *how* to read/watch/listen to the news and interpret what they hear, and basically what they should do with it.
A person can stare at the TV screen and see that the DOW has dropped by 100 points and that a jetliner crashed in Ethiopia, but what good does it do for them to see that if they don't know what to do with the information?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_0422202.30932086</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_0422202.30933634</id>
	<title>Re:What they need to hear?</title>
	<author>nine-times</author>
	<datestamp>1264696080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>This coming from the same mainstream media that usually just regurgitates whatever the police and prosecutors allege in a criminal report?</p></div><p>Also, in political news, they regurgitate whatever the Democratic party line is followed by whatever the Republican party line is, and then claim to have shown "both sides" as though that means they've provided an in-depth and thorough reporting of all possible opinions on the subject.
</p><p>Oh, and then there's the constant reporting of the impending doom of the newspaper and how disastrous it would be while I have yet to hear a halfway decent explanation in mainstream media of the importance of net neutrality.  Maybe that's not nefarious, but they're just self-involved and technologically ignorant.
</p><p>On the other hand, all this seems like a failure of the organizations that make up our "mainstream media", but not a failure of the concept of news media organizations.  Take what you say farther down:</p><p><div class="quote"><p>Excuse me, but if Google or someone can create an active intelligent search agent which will build me a comprehensive list of public corruption news, political news, civil liberties issues, etc., then I'll be a hell of a lot more informed and less "ignorant" than I would be if I had to read a paper or magazine...</p></div><p>It could be possible to have the "intelligent search agent" be a group of people who spend their day searching out the news you really should know about.  That would be our current setup.  The problem isn't with the configuration of a group of people trying to decide what news is important; the problem is that the groups we have doing that are all obsessed with Tiger Woods' sex life.  Or more to the point: the problem is that our news organizations are funded based on their pop-culture popularity, and our culture is obsessed with Tiger Woods' sex life.
</p><p>If we want better news, we either have to change the way news gets funded and distributed, or we have to change our culture to value more important things.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>This coming from the same mainstream media that usually just regurgitates whatever the police and prosecutors allege in a criminal report ? Also , in political news , they regurgitate whatever the Democratic party line is followed by whatever the Republican party line is , and then claim to have shown " both sides " as though that means they 've provided an in-depth and thorough reporting of all possible opinions on the subject .
Oh , and then there 's the constant reporting of the impending doom of the newspaper and how disastrous it would be while I have yet to hear a halfway decent explanation in mainstream media of the importance of net neutrality .
Maybe that 's not nefarious , but they 're just self-involved and technologically ignorant .
On the other hand , all this seems like a failure of the organizations that make up our " mainstream media " , but not a failure of the concept of news media organizations .
Take what you say farther down : Excuse me , but if Google or someone can create an active intelligent search agent which will build me a comprehensive list of public corruption news , political news , civil liberties issues , etc. , then I 'll be a hell of a lot more informed and less " ignorant " than I would be if I had to read a paper or magazine...It could be possible to have the " intelligent search agent " be a group of people who spend their day searching out the news you really should know about .
That would be our current setup .
The problem is n't with the configuration of a group of people trying to decide what news is important ; the problem is that the groups we have doing that are all obsessed with Tiger Woods ' sex life .
Or more to the point : the problem is that our news organizations are funded based on their pop-culture popularity , and our culture is obsessed with Tiger Woods ' sex life .
If we want better news , we either have to change the way news gets funded and distributed , or we have to change our culture to value more important things .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This coming from the same mainstream media that usually just regurgitates whatever the police and prosecutors allege in a criminal report?Also, in political news, they regurgitate whatever the Democratic party line is followed by whatever the Republican party line is, and then claim to have shown "both sides" as though that means they've provided an in-depth and thorough reporting of all possible opinions on the subject.
Oh, and then there's the constant reporting of the impending doom of the newspaper and how disastrous it would be while I have yet to hear a halfway decent explanation in mainstream media of the importance of net neutrality.
Maybe that's not nefarious, but they're just self-involved and technologically ignorant.
On the other hand, all this seems like a failure of the organizations that make up our "mainstream media", but not a failure of the concept of news media organizations.
Take what you say farther down:Excuse me, but if Google or someone can create an active intelligent search agent which will build me a comprehensive list of public corruption news, political news, civil liberties issues, etc., then I'll be a hell of a lot more informed and less "ignorant" than I would be if I had to read a paper or magazine...It could be possible to have the "intelligent search agent" be a group of people who spend their day searching out the news you really should know about.
That would be our current setup.
The problem isn't with the configuration of a group of people trying to decide what news is important; the problem is that the groups we have doing that are all obsessed with Tiger Woods' sex life.
Or more to the point: the problem is that our news organizations are funded based on their pop-culture popularity, and our culture is obsessed with Tiger Woods' sex life.
If we want better news, we either have to change the way news gets funded and distributed, or we have to change our culture to value more important things.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_0422202.30932160</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_0422202.30935994</id>
	<title>Re:More pervasive than just news</title>
	<author>Jason Levine</author>
	<datestamp>1264702500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I don't know about that.  My co-workers (and I wouldn't call these folks nerds even though they do work in MIS) can do home repairs (including electrical) themselves.  They chop down their own trees.  My boss even raises chickens and sells the eggs.  That's definitely something that requires labor.</p><p>Of course, while they're talking about how they added an extension to their home and ran a new heating extension to keep it from freezing during the winter, I'm looking at them with a blank stare.  Give me a computer and I can take it apart and put it back together five times, no problem.  Give me some tools and a project to complete and I won't be so successful.  I've gotten better in the years since my wife and I purchased our house (recently replaced a bad thermocouple in my furnace), but there are still basic things that elude my expertise.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I do n't know about that .
My co-workers ( and I would n't call these folks nerds even though they do work in MIS ) can do home repairs ( including electrical ) themselves .
They chop down their own trees .
My boss even raises chickens and sells the eggs .
That 's definitely something that requires labor.Of course , while they 're talking about how they added an extension to their home and ran a new heating extension to keep it from freezing during the winter , I 'm looking at them with a blank stare .
Give me a computer and I can take it apart and put it back together five times , no problem .
Give me some tools and a project to complete and I wo n't be so successful .
I 've gotten better in the years since my wife and I purchased our house ( recently replaced a bad thermocouple in my furnace ) , but there are still basic things that elude my expertise .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I don't know about that.
My co-workers (and I wouldn't call these folks nerds even though they do work in MIS) can do home repairs (including electrical) themselves.
They chop down their own trees.
My boss even raises chickens and sells the eggs.
That's definitely something that requires labor.Of course, while they're talking about how they added an extension to their home and ran a new heating extension to keep it from freezing during the winter, I'm looking at them with a blank stare.
Give me a computer and I can take it apart and put it back together five times, no problem.
Give me some tools and a project to complete and I won't be so successful.
I've gotten better in the years since my wife and I purchased our house (recently replaced a bad thermocouple in my furnace), but there are still basic things that elude my expertise.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_0422202.30932204</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_0422202.30936066</id>
	<title>Who gets to decide what the important issues are?</title>
	<author>chainLynx</author>
	<datestamp>1264702740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I am never very sympathetic to this argument that "media decentralization is bringing about the apocalypse."  The New York Times can't print all the important news every day.  Indeed, elite media outlets go out of their way to censor news that they feel is inconvenient for the elites -- see Chomsky and Herman's "Manufacturing Consent."  Furthermore, there are dangers inherent in just the opposite, media consolidation.  I don't want Rupert Murdoch (or whoever) determining programming on every channel I get.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I am never very sympathetic to this argument that " media decentralization is bringing about the apocalypse .
" The New York Times ca n't print all the important news every day .
Indeed , elite media outlets go out of their way to censor news that they feel is inconvenient for the elites -- see Chomsky and Herman 's " Manufacturing Consent .
" Furthermore , there are dangers inherent in just the opposite , media consolidation .
I do n't want Rupert Murdoch ( or whoever ) determining programming on every channel I get .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I am never very sympathetic to this argument that "media decentralization is bringing about the apocalypse.
"  The New York Times can't print all the important news every day.
Indeed, elite media outlets go out of their way to censor news that they feel is inconvenient for the elites -- see Chomsky and Herman's "Manufacturing Consent.
"  Furthermore, there are dangers inherent in just the opposite, media consolidation.
I don't want Rupert Murdoch (or whoever) determining programming on every channel I get.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_0422202.30932244</id>
	<title>technology brings power. with power...</title>
	<author>h00manist</author>
	<datestamp>1264688460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>... comes responsibility.  of people using it, to use it as best they know, and people creating, legislating, and distributing it.  i'm actually an isp and content provider in one, running a cyber cafe. want to help publish educational content for people here?  no, it's not terribly profitable, games are more profitable, so we'll have to work for very little money, or publish stupid content, games and facebook, beer and porn and silly entertainment that sells, and have more users.  that's how the money distribution system works, like it or not, people are rewarded for creating stupid content or punished financially for creating smart content.  complaining about it has been done plenty, and changed nothing, so waste your time complaining if you want, and get nothing done.  if you want something done, do it. organize some people to research or create better work compensation and recognition mechanisms, and then maybe we will stop having poor repairmen and teachers, and rich sportspeople and prostitutes and corrupt politicians.</htmltext>
<tokenext>... comes responsibility .
of people using it , to use it as best they know , and people creating , legislating , and distributing it .
i 'm actually an isp and content provider in one , running a cyber cafe .
want to help publish educational content for people here ?
no , it 's not terribly profitable , games are more profitable , so we 'll have to work for very little money , or publish stupid content , games and facebook , beer and porn and silly entertainment that sells , and have more users .
that 's how the money distribution system works , like it or not , people are rewarded for creating stupid content or punished financially for creating smart content .
complaining about it has been done plenty , and changed nothing , so waste your time complaining if you want , and get nothing done .
if you want something done , do it .
organize some people to research or create better work compensation and recognition mechanisms , and then maybe we will stop having poor repairmen and teachers , and rich sportspeople and prostitutes and corrupt politicians .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>... comes responsibility.
of people using it, to use it as best they know, and people creating, legislating, and distributing it.
i'm actually an isp and content provider in one, running a cyber cafe.
want to help publish educational content for people here?
no, it's not terribly profitable, games are more profitable, so we'll have to work for very little money, or publish stupid content, games and facebook, beer and porn and silly entertainment that sells, and have more users.
that's how the money distribution system works, like it or not, people are rewarded for creating stupid content or punished financially for creating smart content.
complaining about it has been done plenty, and changed nothing, so waste your time complaining if you want, and get nothing done.
if you want something done, do it.
organize some people to research or create better work compensation and recognition mechanisms, and then maybe we will stop having poor repairmen and teachers, and rich sportspeople and prostitutes and corrupt politicians.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_0422202.30932480</id>
	<title>I get my personalized news on Faux News Channel</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264690140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It tells me everything I want to hear and only what I want to hear.</p><p>Are you saying this makes me ignorant???</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It tells me everything I want to hear and only what I want to hear.Are you saying this makes me ignorant ? ?
?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It tells me everything I want to hear and only what I want to hear.Are you saying this makes me ignorant??
?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_0422202.30935484</id>
	<title>Re:What they need to hear?</title>
	<author>WeatherGod</author>
	<datestamp>1264701180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Excuse me, but if Google or someone can create an active intelligent search agent which will build me a comprehensive list of public corruption news, political news, civil liberties issues, etc., then I'll be a hell of a lot more informed and less "ignorant" than I would be if I had to read a paper or magazine that caters more toward the <strong>assumption</strong> that the only thing people want to read about is celebrity news and what pretty white girl got killed after hooking up with 3 strange men in a foreign country.</p></div><p>While it is certainly laudable that you actively seek out information about topics involving corruption and government (which is more than I can say for many others that I know), isn't it still possible to fall into a similar problem that the article speaks of?   By being presented with only stories of corruption and failings of government, wouldn't you start to miss out on the success stories?  In other words, it is easy to recognize when something goes wrong, but it takes more effort to recognize when something goes right and use it as a fix for the things that go wrong.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Excuse me , but if Google or someone can create an active intelligent search agent which will build me a comprehensive list of public corruption news , political news , civil liberties issues , etc. , then I 'll be a hell of a lot more informed and less " ignorant " than I would be if I had to read a paper or magazine that caters more toward the assumption that the only thing people want to read about is celebrity news and what pretty white girl got killed after hooking up with 3 strange men in a foreign country.While it is certainly laudable that you actively seek out information about topics involving corruption and government ( which is more than I can say for many others that I know ) , is n't it still possible to fall into a similar problem that the article speaks of ?
By being presented with only stories of corruption and failings of government , would n't you start to miss out on the success stories ?
In other words , it is easy to recognize when something goes wrong , but it takes more effort to recognize when something goes right and use it as a fix for the things that go wrong .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Excuse me, but if Google or someone can create an active intelligent search agent which will build me a comprehensive list of public corruption news, political news, civil liberties issues, etc., then I'll be a hell of a lot more informed and less "ignorant" than I would be if I had to read a paper or magazine that caters more toward the assumption that the only thing people want to read about is celebrity news and what pretty white girl got killed after hooking up with 3 strange men in a foreign country.While it is certainly laudable that you actively seek out information about topics involving corruption and government (which is more than I can say for many others that I know), isn't it still possible to fall into a similar problem that the article speaks of?
By being presented with only stories of corruption and failings of government, wouldn't you start to miss out on the success stories?
In other words, it is easy to recognize when something goes wrong, but it takes more effort to recognize when something goes right and use it as a fix for the things that go wrong.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_0422202.30932160</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_0422202.30932818</id>
	<title>Re:New should not be tailored to consumers</title>
	<author>mcgrew</author>
	<datestamp>1264692120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I don't think they're telling you what they want you to hear. I think they're telling you what they want you to want to hear.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I do n't think they 're telling you what they want you to hear .
I think they 're telling you what they want you to want to hear .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I don't think they're telling you what they want you to hear.
I think they're telling you what they want you to want to hear.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_0422202.30932086</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_0422202.30933352</id>
	<title>News they want, not opinions...</title>
	<author>RingDev</author>
	<datestamp>1264694820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Funny, this very discussion was on NPR this morning. The guests were a journalist and a producer and they were talking about the current state of popular "news" networks. The specifically harped on NBC and FOX. These networks are getting great viewership not because they are presenting the news, but because that have celebrities presenting opinions. What you wind up with is the greatest success for capitalism (the networks produce a program that viewers want to watch) but the worst failure for information distribution (as all that is getting repeated is opinion, not fact).</p><p>So I'm all for the "get the news you want" angle, so long as it is news we are talking about. News that is factually based and composed by journalist. Not opinion pieces and partisan blowhards repeating the talking points that will help their preferred candidate/downer.</p><p>-Rick</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Funny , this very discussion was on NPR this morning .
The guests were a journalist and a producer and they were talking about the current state of popular " news " networks .
The specifically harped on NBC and FOX .
These networks are getting great viewership not because they are presenting the news , but because that have celebrities presenting opinions .
What you wind up with is the greatest success for capitalism ( the networks produce a program that viewers want to watch ) but the worst failure for information distribution ( as all that is getting repeated is opinion , not fact ) .So I 'm all for the " get the news you want " angle , so long as it is news we are talking about .
News that is factually based and composed by journalist .
Not opinion pieces and partisan blowhards repeating the talking points that will help their preferred candidate/downer.-Rick</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Funny, this very discussion was on NPR this morning.
The guests were a journalist and a producer and they were talking about the current state of popular "news" networks.
The specifically harped on NBC and FOX.
These networks are getting great viewership not because they are presenting the news, but because that have celebrities presenting opinions.
What you wind up with is the greatest success for capitalism (the networks produce a program that viewers want to watch) but the worst failure for information distribution (as all that is getting repeated is opinion, not fact).So I'm all for the "get the news you want" angle, so long as it is news we are talking about.
News that is factually based and composed by journalist.
Not opinion pieces and partisan blowhards repeating the talking points that will help their preferred candidate/downer.-Rick</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_0422202.30932248</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_0422202.30936646</id>
	<title>Re:What do I care about someone on the other side</title>
	<author>sjames</author>
	<datestamp>1264704480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>That's getting at the problem. Political news is really only important if anything you do or say will make a difference somehow, at least in aggregate. Sadly, that is becoming less and less true. Back when one 40 hr/week income was enough to run a household, there was time to do more things and make more difference. These days, you're lucky if you have the time to write a letter on the weekend which will be duly read by an underpaid intern and maybe receive a form letter in return. Then every few years you get to choose between a boot to the head and a kick in the nuts. The closest you can get to a good situation is to ignore it and hope it goes away (alas, it won't).</p><p>In some sense it's a reverse of the tragedy of the commons. If most people took action, the action would matter. since most people don't participate, participation doesn't make a difference, so nobody individually has any incentive to participate. And so, news about it *IS* irrelevant.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>That 's getting at the problem .
Political news is really only important if anything you do or say will make a difference somehow , at least in aggregate .
Sadly , that is becoming less and less true .
Back when one 40 hr/week income was enough to run a household , there was time to do more things and make more difference .
These days , you 're lucky if you have the time to write a letter on the weekend which will be duly read by an underpaid intern and maybe receive a form letter in return .
Then every few years you get to choose between a boot to the head and a kick in the nuts .
The closest you can get to a good situation is to ignore it and hope it goes away ( alas , it wo n't ) .In some sense it 's a reverse of the tragedy of the commons .
If most people took action , the action would matter .
since most people do n't participate , participation does n't make a difference , so nobody individually has any incentive to participate .
And so , news about it * IS * irrelevant .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That's getting at the problem.
Political news is really only important if anything you do or say will make a difference somehow, at least in aggregate.
Sadly, that is becoming less and less true.
Back when one 40 hr/week income was enough to run a household, there was time to do more things and make more difference.
These days, you're lucky if you have the time to write a letter on the weekend which will be duly read by an underpaid intern and maybe receive a form letter in return.
Then every few years you get to choose between a boot to the head and a kick in the nuts.
The closest you can get to a good situation is to ignore it and hope it goes away (alas, it won't).In some sense it's a reverse of the tragedy of the commons.
If most people took action, the action would matter.
since most people don't participate, participation doesn't make a difference, so nobody individually has any incentive to participate.
And so, news about it *IS* irrelevant.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_0422202.30932822</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_0422202.30932916</id>
	<title>Re:I Disagree, That's the Only Model That Works</title>
	<author>Simulant</author>
	<datestamp>1264692780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p> However, once the jaywalking impalement law is passed, some people are going to experience a loved one being impaled for jaywalking. Now what do people want to hear news about?</p> </div><p>Well,  some people probably want to hear news about the law but what about everyone else? Until you reach a critical mass of citizen impalements, I think the parent is correct.</p><p><div class="quote"><p> I think giving people the news they want is the only way this has worked.</p></div><p>How exactly has it worked?  I find my fellow countrymen to be more ignorant about history &amp; current events, both national &amp; international, than the citizens of most other countries, even 3rd world ones.  No offense....</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>However , once the jaywalking impalement law is passed , some people are going to experience a loved one being impaled for jaywalking .
Now what do people want to hear news about ?
Well , some people probably want to hear news about the law but what about everyone else ?
Until you reach a critical mass of citizen impalements , I think the parent is correct .
I think giving people the news they want is the only way this has worked.How exactly has it worked ?
I find my fellow countrymen to be more ignorant about history &amp; current events , both national &amp; international , than the citizens of most other countries , even 3rd world ones .
No offense... .</tokentext>
<sentencetext> However, once the jaywalking impalement law is passed, some people are going to experience a loved one being impaled for jaywalking.
Now what do people want to hear news about?
Well,  some people probably want to hear news about the law but what about everyone else?
Until you reach a critical mass of citizen impalements, I think the parent is correct.
I think giving people the news they want is the only way this has worked.How exactly has it worked?
I find my fellow countrymen to be more ignorant about history &amp; current events, both national &amp; international, than the citizens of most other countries, even 3rd world ones.
No offense....
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_0422202.30932248</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_0422202.30932592</id>
	<title>Re:The article reeks of elitist attitude...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264690680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I was banned from 4chan for "new faggotry", and now I can't get my meme news.</p><p>However, memes change quite slowly over time, so maybe you could post a synopsis of the last six months.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I was banned from 4chan for " new faggotry " , and now I ca n't get my meme news.However , memes change quite slowly over time , so maybe you could post a synopsis of the last six months .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I was banned from 4chan for "new faggotry", and now I can't get my meme news.However, memes change quite slowly over time, so maybe you could post a synopsis of the last six months.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_0422202.30932088</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_0422202.30952390</id>
	<title>Irony at its best I guess...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264791660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Hmmm... I've noticed that shift in content. The result is I've watched less and less news because I don't consider most of what they show now as news.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Hmmm... I 've noticed that shift in content .
The result is I 've watched less and less news because I do n't consider most of what they show now as news .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Hmmm... I've noticed that shift in content.
The result is I've watched less and less news because I don't consider most of what they show now as news.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_0422202.30932088</id>
	<title>The article reeks of elitist attitude...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264687620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I get my daily news of internet meme at 4chan.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I get my daily news of internet meme at 4chan .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I get my daily news of internet meme at 4chan.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_0422202.30945318</id>
	<title>Jim Lehrer</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264696020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Spend an hour watching the PBS NewsHour with Jim Lehrer, and then try watching any mainstream news program again. You'll quickly see how ignorant and valueless most local/national news broadcasts are.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Spend an hour watching the PBS NewsHour with Jim Lehrer , and then try watching any mainstream news program again .
You 'll quickly see how ignorant and valueless most local/national news broadcasts are .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Spend an hour watching the PBS NewsHour with Jim Lehrer, and then try watching any mainstream news program again.
You'll quickly see how ignorant and valueless most local/national news broadcasts are.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_0422202.30934608</id>
	<title>Old News...</title>
	<author>giminy</author>
	<datestamp>1264698840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I recommend that anyone interested in the issue of 'subjective reality' read Farhad Manjoo (of Slate Magazine)'s "True Enough: Learning to Live in a Post-Fact Society".  It's quite a fascinating look at the issue of our new media landscape...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I recommend that anyone interested in the issue of 'subjective reality ' read Farhad Manjoo ( of Slate Magazine ) 's " True Enough : Learning to Live in a Post-Fact Society " .
It 's quite a fascinating look at the issue of our new media landscape.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I recommend that anyone interested in the issue of 'subjective reality' read Farhad Manjoo (of Slate Magazine)'s "True Enough: Learning to Live in a Post-Fact Society".
It's quite a fascinating look at the issue of our new media landscape...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_0422202.30932214</id>
	<title>Slashdot?</title>
	<author>Gravitron 5000</author>
	<datestamp>1264688220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Well slashdot is fairly personalized.  You can make your own opinion about our collective ignorance.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Well slashdot is fairly personalized .
You can make your own opinion about our collective ignorance .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Well slashdot is fairly personalized.
You can make your own opinion about our collective ignorance.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_0422202.30937448</id>
	<title>Customizing Google News</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264706640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I tried customizing Google News to fit my own needs.  All this entailed was deleting the sports and entertainment sections.</p><p>The result?  I still get sports and entertainment news in the "Top Stories" sections.  (eg. Celebrity is dead, movie makes millions, sports team wins cup, etc..)</p><p>I only wish I could truly customize the news, but somebody will always have power over what I see/hear/read.  *sigh*</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I tried customizing Google News to fit my own needs .
All this entailed was deleting the sports and entertainment sections.The result ?
I still get sports and entertainment news in the " Top Stories " sections .
( eg. Celebrity is dead , movie makes millions , sports team wins cup , etc.. ) I only wish I could truly customize the news , but somebody will always have power over what I see/hear/read .
* sigh *</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I tried customizing Google News to fit my own needs.
All this entailed was deleting the sports and entertainment sections.The result?
I still get sports and entertainment news in the "Top Stories" sections.
(eg. Celebrity is dead, movie makes millions, sports team wins cup, etc..)I only wish I could truly customize the news, but somebody will always have power over what I see/hear/read.
*sigh*</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_0422202.30936342</id>
	<title>Re:Well duh!</title>
	<author>afabbro</author>
	<datestamp>1264703580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Newspapers are out because no-one has the time to read them.</p></div><p>Which is why The Economist folded.  Oh wait, I guess not - the densest newsmagazine on the planet continues to thrive.  Hey look, bookstores are still open.  Turns out people do have time to read!  Who knew!?!?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Newspapers are out because no-one has the time to read them.Which is why The Economist folded .
Oh wait , I guess not - the densest newsmagazine on the planet continues to thrive .
Hey look , bookstores are still open .
Turns out people do have time to read !
Who knew ! ? !
?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Newspapers are out because no-one has the time to read them.Which is why The Economist folded.
Oh wait, I guess not - the densest newsmagazine on the planet continues to thrive.
Hey look, bookstores are still open.
Turns out people do have time to read!
Who knew!?!
?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_0422202.30932122</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_0422202.30932822</id>
	<title>What do I care about someone on the other side ...</title>
	<author>da5idnetlimit.com</author>
	<datestamp>1264692120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I have the same feeling on that point. I even stopped watching tv news 18 months ago as all I had to look at was :</p><p>1 - Israel/Palestine<br>2 - Terrorism/War<br>3 - Wall Street collapsing<br>4 - shit I didn't care enough about to keep interested</p><p>As usual.<br>And for most points I had the "news" some time before on a webfeed.</p><p>The only advantage of newspaper is that the journalist is conveying an OPINION on what he reports. TV is giving the same slanted view, but no arguments carefuuly constructed, just a "here is what we think you should think about it in 90 seconds"</p><p>I now use google news and tailored it according to my points of interest, and I get the luxury of actually ignoring the rest as I DON'T CARE. I also get to make my own opinion.</p><p>"A specialist is someone who knows more and more things on less and less subjects"<br>So I am now a specialist news consumer.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I have the same feeling on that point .
I even stopped watching tv news 18 months ago as all I had to look at was : 1 - Israel/Palestine2 - Terrorism/War3 - Wall Street collapsing4 - shit I did n't care enough about to keep interestedAs usual.And for most points I had the " news " some time before on a webfeed.The only advantage of newspaper is that the journalist is conveying an OPINION on what he reports .
TV is giving the same slanted view , but no arguments carefuuly constructed , just a " here is what we think you should think about it in 90 seconds " I now use google news and tailored it according to my points of interest , and I get the luxury of actually ignoring the rest as I DO N'T CARE .
I also get to make my own opinion .
" A specialist is someone who knows more and more things on less and less subjects " So I am now a specialist news consumer .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I have the same feeling on that point.
I even stopped watching tv news 18 months ago as all I had to look at was :1 - Israel/Palestine2 - Terrorism/War3 - Wall Street collapsing4 - shit I didn't care enough about to keep interestedAs usual.And for most points I had the "news" some time before on a webfeed.The only advantage of newspaper is that the journalist is conveying an OPINION on what he reports.
TV is giving the same slanted view, but no arguments carefuuly constructed, just a "here is what we think you should think about it in 90 seconds"I now use google news and tailored it according to my points of interest, and I get the luxury of actually ignoring the rest as I DON'T CARE.
I also get to make my own opinion.
"A specialist is someone who knows more and more things on less and less subjects"So I am now a specialist news consumer.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_0422202.30932122</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_0422202.30932640</id>
	<title>I have to agree</title>
	<author>assertation</author>
	<datestamp>1264690920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I have to agree.</p><p>It was happening even before personalized news.  If you are into X, you tend to make friends and surround yourself with people who are into X.  You read books by people into X about X.  You to conventions for X.  Now, just add reading web sites, email lists and personalized news for X.  The news will increasingly become done by non-journalists on top of that.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I have to agree.It was happening even before personalized news .
If you are into X , you tend to make friends and surround yourself with people who are into X. You read books by people into X about X. You to conventions for X. Now , just add reading web sites , email lists and personalized news for X. The news will increasingly become done by non-journalists on top of that .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I have to agree.It was happening even before personalized news.
If you are into X, you tend to make friends and surround yourself with people who are into X.  You read books by people into X about X.  You to conventions for X.  Now, just add reading web sites, email lists and personalized news for X.  The news will increasingly become done by non-journalists on top of that.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_0422202.30934196</id>
	<title>Re:Does reading Slashdot lead to ignorance?</title>
	<author>mcgrew</author>
	<datestamp>1264697640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Your point is only valid if slashdot is the only news you read. I doubt that's the case with many here; I know it doesn't apply to me.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Your point is only valid if slashdot is the only news you read .
I doubt that 's the case with many here ; I know it does n't apply to me .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Your point is only valid if slashdot is the only news you read.
I doubt that's the case with many here; I know it doesn't apply to me.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_0422202.30932240</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_0422202.30933956</id>
	<title>Re:New should not be tailored to consumers</title>
	<author>nine-times</author>
	<datestamp>1264697040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>As odd as it sounds, I think that news should not ever be tailored to the "consumer". Telling the people only what they want to hear is just as bad (if not worse) than only telling them the news YOU want them to hear...</p></div><p>This whole thing reminds me of <a href="http://www.ted.com/talks/dan\_gilbert\_asks\_why\_are\_we\_happy.html" title="ted.com">a couple</a> [ted.com] of <a href="http://www.ted.com/talks/barry\_schwartz\_on\_the\_paradox\_of\_choice.html" title="ted.com">TED</a> [ted.com] <a href="http://www.ted.com/talks/malcolm\_gladwell\_on\_spaghetti\_sauce.html" title="ted.com">talks</a> [ted.com].  They're not directly related, but they're some food for thought on the following question: Is it good for us to get what we want?
</p><p>The big problem with our news these days, in my opinion, is that we're already "getting what we want" and so the "news" that most of us get are in the form of entertainment shows that cater to our emotional needs.  Strangely, I'm not talking about the Daily Show or the Colbert Report, but rather of all these news shows who put on vapid (but often attractive) pundits who tell us in snarky tones who we can blame for what's wrong with our lives.  News is aimed at the lowest common denominator to such a degree that you *need* a certain level of personalization in order to get real news right now.  You need to find a niche news source in order to get anything remotely informative, and increasingly even newspapers are becoming a niche source.
</p><p>Now I would agree that it would be great if new agencies were independent and credible groups of diverse but intelligent and informed people who told us the things we needed to know about, whether we liked it or not.  Part of the problem with that idea, though, is that our current news agencies are entertainment businesses run by entertainment empires for profit.  Another part of the problem is that people self-filter anyway-- keep telling people things that they don't want to hear and they stop listening.  Even when you get all your news in the form of a newspaper, you might only read the articles you're interested in.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>As odd as it sounds , I think that news should not ever be tailored to the " consumer " .
Telling the people only what they want to hear is just as bad ( if not worse ) than only telling them the news YOU want them to hear...This whole thing reminds me of a couple [ ted.com ] of TED [ ted.com ] talks [ ted.com ] .
They 're not directly related , but they 're some food for thought on the following question : Is it good for us to get what we want ?
The big problem with our news these days , in my opinion , is that we 're already " getting what we want " and so the " news " that most of us get are in the form of entertainment shows that cater to our emotional needs .
Strangely , I 'm not talking about the Daily Show or the Colbert Report , but rather of all these news shows who put on vapid ( but often attractive ) pundits who tell us in snarky tones who we can blame for what 's wrong with our lives .
News is aimed at the lowest common denominator to such a degree that you * need * a certain level of personalization in order to get real news right now .
You need to find a niche news source in order to get anything remotely informative , and increasingly even newspapers are becoming a niche source .
Now I would agree that it would be great if new agencies were independent and credible groups of diverse but intelligent and informed people who told us the things we needed to know about , whether we liked it or not .
Part of the problem with that idea , though , is that our current news agencies are entertainment businesses run by entertainment empires for profit .
Another part of the problem is that people self-filter anyway-- keep telling people things that they do n't want to hear and they stop listening .
Even when you get all your news in the form of a newspaper , you might only read the articles you 're interested in .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>As odd as it sounds, I think that news should not ever be tailored to the "consumer".
Telling the people only what they want to hear is just as bad (if not worse) than only telling them the news YOU want them to hear...This whole thing reminds me of a couple [ted.com] of TED [ted.com] talks [ted.com].
They're not directly related, but they're some food for thought on the following question: Is it good for us to get what we want?
The big problem with our news these days, in my opinion, is that we're already "getting what we want" and so the "news" that most of us get are in the form of entertainment shows that cater to our emotional needs.
Strangely, I'm not talking about the Daily Show or the Colbert Report, but rather of all these news shows who put on vapid (but often attractive) pundits who tell us in snarky tones who we can blame for what's wrong with our lives.
News is aimed at the lowest common denominator to such a degree that you *need* a certain level of personalization in order to get real news right now.
You need to find a niche news source in order to get anything remotely informative, and increasingly even newspapers are becoming a niche source.
Now I would agree that it would be great if new agencies were independent and credible groups of diverse but intelligent and informed people who told us the things we needed to know about, whether we liked it or not.
Part of the problem with that idea, though, is that our current news agencies are entertainment businesses run by entertainment empires for profit.
Another part of the problem is that people self-filter anyway-- keep telling people things that they don't want to hear and they stop listening.
Even when you get all your news in the form of a newspaper, you might only read the articles you're interested in.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_0422202.30932086</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_0422202.30947970</id>
	<title>cornflakes4brains</title>
	<author>cornflakes4brains</author>
	<datestamp>1264771440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>You can lead a jackass to water, but you can't make him think. People have chosen to be ignorant as long as there have been people.</htmltext>
<tokenext>You can lead a jackass to water , but you ca n't make him think .
People have chosen to be ignorant as long as there have been people .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You can lead a jackass to water, but you can't make him think.
People have chosen to be ignorant as long as there have been people.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_0422202.30932934</id>
	<title>Of course it does</title>
	<author>Snaller</author>
	<datestamp>1264692900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Just look at America.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Just look at America .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Just look at America.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_0422202.30932752</id>
	<title>Re:New should not be tailored to consumers</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264691580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>If a newcast airs with nothing but meaningful content--completely ignoring the audience, and no one is there to here it, does it make a sound?</htmltext>
<tokenext>If a newcast airs with nothing but meaningful content--completely ignoring the audience , and no one is there to here it , does it make a sound ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If a newcast airs with nothing but meaningful content--completely ignoring the audience, and no one is there to here it, does it make a sound?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_0422202.30932086</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_0422202.30932242</id>
	<title>Re:New should not be tailored to consumers</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264688460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>If I was planning on becoming a repressive regime leader, ruling my country with an iron fist... I would start by telling all of the people all the "news" they wanted to hear.... In-Depth reviews of the latest "Mycountryian Idol", all the sports news they wanted, how wonderful the newest movie blockbuster is (and who the stars are sleeping with!)<br> <br>
Then the populace would be too busy thinking about those silly topics to even notice or care that I had just imposed mandatory impalement sentences for jaywalkers.</p></div><p>You don't think this is already happening?!?  The leaders don't create it themselves because of the huge amount of man power involved, but you can be damned sure they use it exactly as you stated.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>If I was planning on becoming a repressive regime leader , ruling my country with an iron fist... I would start by telling all of the people all the " news " they wanted to hear.... In-Depth reviews of the latest " Mycountryian Idol " , all the sports news they wanted , how wonderful the newest movie blockbuster is ( and who the stars are sleeping with !
) Then the populace would be too busy thinking about those silly topics to even notice or care that I had just imposed mandatory impalement sentences for jaywalkers.You do n't think this is already happening ? ! ?
The leaders do n't create it themselves because of the huge amount of man power involved , but you can be damned sure they use it exactly as you stated .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If I was planning on becoming a repressive regime leader, ruling my country with an iron fist... I would start by telling all of the people all the "news" they wanted to hear.... In-Depth reviews of the latest "Mycountryian Idol", all the sports news they wanted, how wonderful the newest movie blockbuster is (and who the stars are sleeping with!
) 
Then the populace would be too busy thinking about those silly topics to even notice or care that I had just imposed mandatory impalement sentences for jaywalkers.You don't think this is already happening?!?
The leaders don't create it themselves because of the huge amount of man power involved, but you can be damned sure they use it exactly as you stated.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_0422202.30932086</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_0422202.30939796</id>
	<title>The big advantage of personal news aggregation.</title>
	<author>hey!</author>
	<datestamp>1264669320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Sure it makes us ignorant, but it don't for get: it does it with unprecedented speed and convenience.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Sure it makes us ignorant , but it do n't for get : it does it with unprecedented speed and convenience .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Sure it makes us ignorant, but it don't for get: it does it with unprecedented speed and convenience.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_0422202.30933304</id>
	<title>Re:it's worse than ignorance</title>
	<author>captainpanic</author>
	<datestamp>1264694520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Misinterpretation, distrust and disbelief are a fact of life. It's all over the internet...</p><p>But if newspapers believe they are in competition with the average blog, then encyclopedias are in competition with Harry Potter. Not true.</p><p>And putting all quality newspapers behind a paid registration together with the peer-reviewed scientific articles means that all the crap is out there for free, and you got to pay for all the quality information. Bad move.</p><p>Welcome to the Age of Information.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Misinterpretation , distrust and disbelief are a fact of life .
It 's all over the internet...But if newspapers believe they are in competition with the average blog , then encyclopedias are in competition with Harry Potter .
Not true.And putting all quality newspapers behind a paid registration together with the peer-reviewed scientific articles means that all the crap is out there for free , and you got to pay for all the quality information .
Bad move.Welcome to the Age of Information .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Misinterpretation, distrust and disbelief are a fact of life.
It's all over the internet...But if newspapers believe they are in competition with the average blog, then encyclopedias are in competition with Harry Potter.
Not true.And putting all quality newspapers behind a paid registration together with the peer-reviewed scientific articles means that all the crap is out there for free, and you got to pay for all the quality information.
Bad move.Welcome to the Age of Information.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_0422202.30932156</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_0422202.30932938</id>
	<title>Re:Well duh!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264692960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Newspapers are out because no-one has the time to read them. Real life TL;DR.</p></div><p>Your post was too long; didn't read.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Newspapers are out because no-one has the time to read them .
Real life TL ; DR.Your post was too long ; did n't read .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Newspapers are out because no-one has the time to read them.
Real life TL;DR.Your post was too long; didn't read.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_0422202.30932122</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_0422202.30934334</id>
	<title>Re:What they need to hear?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264698120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You say that, and I'm pretty anti-left-wing-media, but come on. On the day of, or day after the arrest, what the hell does the reporter have for news sources? Maybe a camera at the scene, the sheriff's report and the dude's arrest history and prior convictions. And, case in point, the Sacramento Bee did, on Saturday, a 4 page report on a kid who got killed by a Molotov cocktail, debunking the coronorer's report, the family's story, the adoptive family's story and the county prosecutor's statements.</p><p>However, on the day of the story, there's not much news. The accused doesn't really have time to put together a press release. Most of the eyewitnesses have nothing useful to say to the media, and the accused's lawyer hasn't yet been appointed or hired. Get a grip.If you want to see the bias in the news, start looking at what they ignore, not what the poorly report.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You say that , and I 'm pretty anti-left-wing-media , but come on .
On the day of , or day after the arrest , what the hell does the reporter have for news sources ?
Maybe a camera at the scene , the sheriff 's report and the dude 's arrest history and prior convictions .
And , case in point , the Sacramento Bee did , on Saturday , a 4 page report on a kid who got killed by a Molotov cocktail , debunking the coronorer 's report , the family 's story , the adoptive family 's story and the county prosecutor 's statements.However , on the day of the story , there 's not much news .
The accused does n't really have time to put together a press release .
Most of the eyewitnesses have nothing useful to say to the media , and the accused 's lawyer has n't yet been appointed or hired .
Get a grip.If you want to see the bias in the news , start looking at what they ignore , not what the poorly report .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You say that, and I'm pretty anti-left-wing-media, but come on.
On the day of, or day after the arrest, what the hell does the reporter have for news sources?
Maybe a camera at the scene, the sheriff's report and the dude's arrest history and prior convictions.
And, case in point, the Sacramento Bee did, on Saturday, a 4 page report on a kid who got killed by a Molotov cocktail, debunking the coronorer's report, the family's story, the adoptive family's story and the county prosecutor's statements.However, on the day of the story, there's not much news.
The accused doesn't really have time to put together a press release.
Most of the eyewitnesses have nothing useful to say to the media, and the accused's lawyer hasn't yet been appointed or hired.
Get a grip.If you want to see the bias in the news, start looking at what they ignore, not what the poorly report.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_0422202.30932160</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_0422202.30932960</id>
	<title>I read a study about this...</title>
	<author>argent</author>
	<datestamp>1264693020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I remember reading a study about this, about people only paying attention to the news that interested them, and completely ignoring events they don't care about.</p><p>Thing is, I read it when I was in college.</p><p>In 1980.</p><p>I don't think you can blame this one on the Internet.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I remember reading a study about this , about people only paying attention to the news that interested them , and completely ignoring events they do n't care about.Thing is , I read it when I was in college.In 1980.I do n't think you can blame this one on the Internet .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I remember reading a study about this, about people only paying attention to the news that interested them, and completely ignoring events they don't care about.Thing is, I read it when I was in college.In 1980.I don't think you can blame this one on the Internet.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_0422202.30932492</id>
	<title>Re:New should not be tailored to consumers</title>
	<author>TheVelvetFlamebait</author>
	<datestamp>1264690200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If you think about it, you are not giving people what they want, you are telling people what they want and then giving it to them. It is, in fact, the other way around: a repressive regime leader would be the last person to allow consumers choice over the news they get.</p><p>Acting on the assumption that people don't want to hear news that could topple their own local regime does nobody any good. Assuming the regime is any threat, they will have control over news outlets, so the news outlets choosing the news does more harm than good. Even if the news outlet is pure and untainted, then controlling the news and force-feeding to an unwilling public will just cause them not to listen (unless you force them yourself and turn yourself into an oppressor).</p><p>Essentially, what I'm trying to say is that this is not a matter of defence against tyranny. This is because, even though ignorance can lead to tyranny, it is not personalised news which is causing it. It is <b>indifference</b> that causes ignorance, and force-feeding news does little to help that.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If you think about it , you are not giving people what they want , you are telling people what they want and then giving it to them .
It is , in fact , the other way around : a repressive regime leader would be the last person to allow consumers choice over the news they get.Acting on the assumption that people do n't want to hear news that could topple their own local regime does nobody any good .
Assuming the regime is any threat , they will have control over news outlets , so the news outlets choosing the news does more harm than good .
Even if the news outlet is pure and untainted , then controlling the news and force-feeding to an unwilling public will just cause them not to listen ( unless you force them yourself and turn yourself into an oppressor ) .Essentially , what I 'm trying to say is that this is not a matter of defence against tyranny .
This is because , even though ignorance can lead to tyranny , it is not personalised news which is causing it .
It is indifference that causes ignorance , and force-feeding news does little to help that .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If you think about it, you are not giving people what they want, you are telling people what they want and then giving it to them.
It is, in fact, the other way around: a repressive regime leader would be the last person to allow consumers choice over the news they get.Acting on the assumption that people don't want to hear news that could topple their own local regime does nobody any good.
Assuming the regime is any threat, they will have control over news outlets, so the news outlets choosing the news does more harm than good.
Even if the news outlet is pure and untainted, then controlling the news and force-feeding to an unwilling public will just cause them not to listen (unless you force them yourself and turn yourself into an oppressor).Essentially, what I'm trying to say is that this is not a matter of defence against tyranny.
This is because, even though ignorance can lead to tyranny, it is not personalised news which is causing it.
It is indifference that causes ignorance, and force-feeding news does little to help that.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_0422202.30932086</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_0422202.30932222</id>
	<title>I must say</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264688280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>Alot of the news in my country is a joke. Really, it's a big joke.<p>
Politicians are like little children and are arguing and pestering eachother through the media and there's indeed the tendency to serve more news which seem to draw in more people, align with their soap-series, or magazine style "sex-facts", upskirts and what have you.</p><p>I've disconnected from "tv" because of that purpose, but now the crap is entering into my online experience and I choose to ignore it; for one it causes less frustration when "yet another important sounding headline" preaches nonsense. Or there's yet someone pushing some FUD through articles...</p><p>Important news will reach me one way or another, but I don't care about 90\% in "news" these days and wont waste time being "in the loop" constantly... I would if the quality would be much much better.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Alot of the news in my country is a joke .
Really , it 's a big joke .
Politicians are like little children and are arguing and pestering eachother through the media and there 's indeed the tendency to serve more news which seem to draw in more people , align with their soap-series , or magazine style " sex-facts " , upskirts and what have you.I 've disconnected from " tv " because of that purpose , but now the crap is entering into my online experience and I choose to ignore it ; for one it causes less frustration when " yet another important sounding headline " preaches nonsense .
Or there 's yet someone pushing some FUD through articles...Important news will reach me one way or another , but I do n't care about 90 \ % in " news " these days and wont waste time being " in the loop " constantly... I would if the quality would be much much better .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Alot of the news in my country is a joke.
Really, it's a big joke.
Politicians are like little children and are arguing and pestering eachother through the media and there's indeed the tendency to serve more news which seem to draw in more people, align with their soap-series, or magazine style "sex-facts", upskirts and what have you.I've disconnected from "tv" because of that purpose, but now the crap is entering into my online experience and I choose to ignore it; for one it causes less frustration when "yet another important sounding headline" preaches nonsense.
Or there's yet someone pushing some FUD through articles...Important news will reach me one way or another, but I don't care about 90\% in "news" these days and wont waste time being "in the loop" constantly... I would if the quality would be much much better.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_0422202.30936658</id>
	<title>Summary is misleading</title>
	<author>ikefox</author>
	<datestamp>1264704600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I think the quote in the summary was taken out of context. Lee wasn't claiming that the general populace is becoming more ignorant - he was claiming that there is little incentive for individuals to do reporting on a local scale because most individuals are not simply interested in local matters but national and world news as well. It was a response to the interviewer, who asked how plausible it could be now or in the future for an individual with specialized local knowledge to start an online newspaper for profit. That's why I've tagged badsummary. The full excerpt in context:</p><p><div class="quote"><p>James Turner: Do you think there would be a place for a model where I said, "I know more about Derry, New Hampshire than anybody else who can report about it. So I will just start a subscription site for anybody who wants to know about Derry"? Essentially, launch my own online newspaper by subscription and charge little enough that I'm making it up on volume. Could that work, or is that going to suffer from the same "getting the word out" problem that all the other disintermediation strategies seem to be hitting?

Chris Lee: I don't know. I'd like to see it work. I guess I'm skeptical. I think one of the observations about how consumers are behaving in the past five years that has surprised me the most is, again, this lack of feeling responsible for knowing the news of their country and their local government of that day. I don't think it's just a technology question. I think if you asked people now versus the same age group 20 years ago, I think they'd be stunningly less informed now about boring news, and tremendously more knowledgeable about bits of news that really interest them.

I'm not sure that's entirely bad. But the guy in Darien, Connecticut is going to be churning out a lot of news of the day. And if everybody'd rather dig into their little content niche for what they really care about, Mr. Darien's going to have trouble making money.



I'm not sure that's entirely bad. But the guy in Darien, Connecticut is going to be churning out a lot of news of the day. And if everybody'd rather dig into their little content niche for what they really care about, Mr. Darien's going to have trouble making money.</p> </div></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I think the quote in the summary was taken out of context .
Lee was n't claiming that the general populace is becoming more ignorant - he was claiming that there is little incentive for individuals to do reporting on a local scale because most individuals are not simply interested in local matters but national and world news as well .
It was a response to the interviewer , who asked how plausible it could be now or in the future for an individual with specialized local knowledge to start an online newspaper for profit .
That 's why I 've tagged badsummary .
The full excerpt in context : James Turner : Do you think there would be a place for a model where I said , " I know more about Derry , New Hampshire than anybody else who can report about it .
So I will just start a subscription site for anybody who wants to know about Derry " ?
Essentially , launch my own online newspaper by subscription and charge little enough that I 'm making it up on volume .
Could that work , or is that going to suffer from the same " getting the word out " problem that all the other disintermediation strategies seem to be hitting ?
Chris Lee : I do n't know .
I 'd like to see it work .
I guess I 'm skeptical .
I think one of the observations about how consumers are behaving in the past five years that has surprised me the most is , again , this lack of feeling responsible for knowing the news of their country and their local government of that day .
I do n't think it 's just a technology question .
I think if you asked people now versus the same age group 20 years ago , I think they 'd be stunningly less informed now about boring news , and tremendously more knowledgeable about bits of news that really interest them .
I 'm not sure that 's entirely bad .
But the guy in Darien , Connecticut is going to be churning out a lot of news of the day .
And if everybody 'd rather dig into their little content niche for what they really care about , Mr. Darien 's going to have trouble making money .
I 'm not sure that 's entirely bad .
But the guy in Darien , Connecticut is going to be churning out a lot of news of the day .
And if everybody 'd rather dig into their little content niche for what they really care about , Mr. Darien 's going to have trouble making money .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I think the quote in the summary was taken out of context.
Lee wasn't claiming that the general populace is becoming more ignorant - he was claiming that there is little incentive for individuals to do reporting on a local scale because most individuals are not simply interested in local matters but national and world news as well.
It was a response to the interviewer, who asked how plausible it could be now or in the future for an individual with specialized local knowledge to start an online newspaper for profit.
That's why I've tagged badsummary.
The full excerpt in context:James Turner: Do you think there would be a place for a model where I said, "I know more about Derry, New Hampshire than anybody else who can report about it.
So I will just start a subscription site for anybody who wants to know about Derry"?
Essentially, launch my own online newspaper by subscription and charge little enough that I'm making it up on volume.
Could that work, or is that going to suffer from the same "getting the word out" problem that all the other disintermediation strategies seem to be hitting?
Chris Lee: I don't know.
I'd like to see it work.
I guess I'm skeptical.
I think one of the observations about how consumers are behaving in the past five years that has surprised me the most is, again, this lack of feeling responsible for knowing the news of their country and their local government of that day.
I don't think it's just a technology question.
I think if you asked people now versus the same age group 20 years ago, I think they'd be stunningly less informed now about boring news, and tremendously more knowledgeable about bits of news that really interest them.
I'm not sure that's entirely bad.
But the guy in Darien, Connecticut is going to be churning out a lot of news of the day.
And if everybody'd rather dig into their little content niche for what they really care about, Mr. Darien's going to have trouble making money.
I'm not sure that's entirely bad.
But the guy in Darien, Connecticut is going to be churning out a lot of news of the day.
And if everybody'd rather dig into their little content niche for what they really care about, Mr. Darien's going to have trouble making money. 
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_0422202.30941926</id>
	<title>Timeline issues</title>
	<author>jonaskoelker</author>
	<datestamp>1264675740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>60 years ago most people did not even own a television, let alone even know about the existence of the internet.</p></div><p>60 years ago was $((2010 - 60)) = 1950.  The ARPANET is from 1969.</p><p>Am I to blame for being unaware of what role Cyberdyne Systems will play 19 years from now?<nobr> <wbr></nobr>;-)</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>60 years ago most people did not even own a television , let alone even know about the existence of the internet.60 years ago was $ ( ( 2010 - 60 ) ) = 1950 .
The ARPANET is from 1969.Am I to blame for being unaware of what role Cyberdyne Systems will play 19 years from now ?
; - )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>60 years ago most people did not even own a television, let alone even know about the existence of the internet.60 years ago was $((2010 - 60)) = 1950.
The ARPANET is from 1969.Am I to blame for being unaware of what role Cyberdyne Systems will play 19 years from now?
;-)
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_0422202.30932672</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_0422202.30932358</id>
	<title>Easily Radicalised</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264689480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Its a dangerous step to filter news according to what you're interested in.</p><p>One of the ways key that terrorists become radicalised is by only following news stories that support their views.</p><p>Its called a positive reinforcement cycle, and it can lead to very extreme opinions.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Its a dangerous step to filter news according to what you 're interested in.One of the ways key that terrorists become radicalised is by only following news stories that support their views.Its called a positive reinforcement cycle , and it can lead to very extreme opinions .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Its a dangerous step to filter news according to what you're interested in.One of the ways key that terrorists become radicalised is by only following news stories that support their views.Its called a positive reinforcement cycle, and it can lead to very extreme opinions.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_0422202.30932236</id>
	<title>Define "important"</title>
	<author>kikito</author>
	<datestamp>1264688400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I read what is important for *me*, thank you.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I read what is important for * me * , thank you .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I read what is important for *me*, thank you.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_0422202.30932086</id>
	<title>New should not be tailored to consumers</title>
	<author>jjoelc</author>
	<datestamp>1264687560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>As odd as it sounds, I think that news should not ever be tailored to the "consumer". Telling the people only what they want to hear is just as bad (if not worse) than only telling them the news YOU want them to hear... If I was planning on becoming a repressive regime leader, ruling my country with an iron fist... I would start by telling all of the people all the "news" they wanted to hear.... In-Depth reviews of the latest "Mycountryian Idol", all the sports news they wanted, how wonderful the newest movie blockbuster is (and who the stars are sleeping with!)</p><p>Then the populace would be too busy thinking about those silly topics to even notice or care that I had just imposed mandatory impalement sentences for jaywalkers.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>As odd as it sounds , I think that news should not ever be tailored to the " consumer " .
Telling the people only what they want to hear is just as bad ( if not worse ) than only telling them the news YOU want them to hear... If I was planning on becoming a repressive regime leader , ruling my country with an iron fist... I would start by telling all of the people all the " news " they wanted to hear.... In-Depth reviews of the latest " Mycountryian Idol " , all the sports news they wanted , how wonderful the newest movie blockbuster is ( and who the stars are sleeping with !
) Then the populace would be too busy thinking about those silly topics to even notice or care that I had just imposed mandatory impalement sentences for jaywalkers .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>As odd as it sounds, I think that news should not ever be tailored to the "consumer".
Telling the people only what they want to hear is just as bad (if not worse) than only telling them the news YOU want them to hear... If I was planning on becoming a repressive regime leader, ruling my country with an iron fist... I would start by telling all of the people all the "news" they wanted to hear.... In-Depth reviews of the latest "Mycountryian Idol", all the sports news they wanted, how wonderful the newest movie blockbuster is (and who the stars are sleeping with!
)Then the populace would be too busy thinking about those silly topics to even notice or care that I had just imposed mandatory impalement sentences for jaywalkers.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_0422202.30932134</id>
	<title>Good ol' times</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264687800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>First of all, always be careful about the "good old times", and how back then everything was better.</p><p>One possibility to counter these issues would be to detach the survival of the "news"-show from ratings/views, by e.g.<br>-make a tax and pay for the official news with it<br>-make something like a tax, which everyone who has a TV has to pay (done so in Switzerland, Germany) and pay the official news with it<br>-find news reporters who do it for free (hey, maybe someone wants to be on TV<nobr> <wbr></nobr>;) )</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>First of all , always be careful about the " good old times " , and how back then everything was better.One possibility to counter these issues would be to detach the survival of the " news " -show from ratings/views , by e.g.-make a tax and pay for the official news with it-make something like a tax , which everyone who has a TV has to pay ( done so in Switzerland , Germany ) and pay the official news with it-find news reporters who do it for free ( hey , maybe someone wants to be on TV ; ) )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>First of all, always be careful about the "good old times", and how back then everything was better.One possibility to counter these issues would be to detach the survival of the "news"-show from ratings/views, by e.g.-make a tax and pay for the official news with it-make something like a tax, which everyone who has a TV has to pay (done so in Switzerland, Germany) and pay the official news with it-find news reporters who do it for free (hey, maybe someone wants to be on TV ;) )</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_0422202.30937702</id>
	<title>Nes hasn't changed.</title>
	<author>Belial6</author>
	<datestamp>1264707120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>60 years ago, people got narrow biased news reports that were chosen by someone else.  Today, people get narrow biased news reports that are chosen by them.  I wold say that the situation has improved when it comes to exposure to different views.  60 years ago, if the town newspaper decided that they didn't like the mayor of the city two cities over, you were unlikely to meet a single person that didn't 'know' that he was a wife beating child molester, irrelevant of the facts.  Today, you would have some people who 'know' this, some people who 'know' it isn't true, and a lot of people that just don't care about he mayor two cities over.  When your standing around the water cooler at work, which time period is more likely to give you dissenting opinions?<br> <br>

The problem doesn't seem to be that people are getting biased inaccurate news.  The 'problem' seems to be that people are now becoming aware that the news they get is biased, and are struggling with the idea of choosing the bias themselves instead of having it chosen for them.</htmltext>
<tokenext>60 years ago , people got narrow biased news reports that were chosen by someone else .
Today , people get narrow biased news reports that are chosen by them .
I wold say that the situation has improved when it comes to exposure to different views .
60 years ago , if the town newspaper decided that they did n't like the mayor of the city two cities over , you were unlikely to meet a single person that did n't 'know ' that he was a wife beating child molester , irrelevant of the facts .
Today , you would have some people who 'know ' this , some people who 'know ' it is n't true , and a lot of people that just do n't care about he mayor two cities over .
When your standing around the water cooler at work , which time period is more likely to give you dissenting opinions ?
The problem does n't seem to be that people are getting biased inaccurate news .
The 'problem ' seems to be that people are now becoming aware that the news they get is biased , and are struggling with the idea of choosing the bias themselves instead of having it chosen for them .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>60 years ago, people got narrow biased news reports that were chosen by someone else.
Today, people get narrow biased news reports that are chosen by them.
I wold say that the situation has improved when it comes to exposure to different views.
60 years ago, if the town newspaper decided that they didn't like the mayor of the city two cities over, you were unlikely to meet a single person that didn't 'know' that he was a wife beating child molester, irrelevant of the facts.
Today, you would have some people who 'know' this, some people who 'know' it isn't true, and a lot of people that just don't care about he mayor two cities over.
When your standing around the water cooler at work, which time period is more likely to give you dissenting opinions?
The problem doesn't seem to be that people are getting biased inaccurate news.
The 'problem' seems to be that people are now becoming aware that the news they get is biased, and are struggling with the idea of choosing the bias themselves instead of having it chosen for them.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_0422202.30932672</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_0422202.30958682</id>
	<title>Re:Well duh!</title>
	<author>jesset77</author>
	<datestamp>1264779780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>I don't read boring news, I read slashdot!</p><p>Oh wait... I think I just confirmed your post and the article.</p></div><p>Well, TBH one reason I read slashdot is because crowdsourced comments are more difficult to bias than paid journalism. Perhaps we commenters come from a niche demographic to begin with, we're not perfect; I'm simply (lazy and) hard pressed to find a more stable journalistic platform.</p><p>Commenters reliably reflect most information from TFA and season it with their own personal perspectives (explaining why RTFA is so unpopular xD). Commenters misrepresenting TFA are regularly named and shamed. Many commenters even correct, clarify or expand upon summary and article alike. We demand references and citations from one another; sometimes we even get them.<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:P</p><p>It doesn't always work. It isn't always fair or informative. Oddly enough, if you serve up a genuinely high tech article about hard science, space or quantum physics the crowd starts sounding about as clueless as my grandmother on the topic. xD  But you can usually tell when the discussion has gone off and browse on to the next topic. I get more usable, bias-corrected "news" here (sadly) than from any other source of which I am aware.</p><p>This is a very peculiar thing. Perhaps we should brainstorm methods to distill fact from biased noise to arrive at an untainted wellspring of current affairs intel we can all drink from. The data is there, we just need to cancel out the opposing non-factual chaff. Someone, get <a href="http://www.cs.cmu.edu/~biglou/" title="cmu.edu">Luis Von Ahn</a> [cmu.edu] in here, STAT!<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:3</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I do n't read boring news , I read slashdot ! Oh wait... I think I just confirmed your post and the article.Well , TBH one reason I read slashdot is because crowdsourced comments are more difficult to bias than paid journalism .
Perhaps we commenters come from a niche demographic to begin with , we 're not perfect ; I 'm simply ( lazy and ) hard pressed to find a more stable journalistic platform.Commenters reliably reflect most information from TFA and season it with their own personal perspectives ( explaining why RTFA is so unpopular xD ) .
Commenters misrepresenting TFA are regularly named and shamed .
Many commenters even correct , clarify or expand upon summary and article alike .
We demand references and citations from one another ; sometimes we even get them .
: PIt does n't always work .
It is n't always fair or informative .
Oddly enough , if you serve up a genuinely high tech article about hard science , space or quantum physics the crowd starts sounding about as clueless as my grandmother on the topic .
xD But you can usually tell when the discussion has gone off and browse on to the next topic .
I get more usable , bias-corrected " news " here ( sadly ) than from any other source of which I am aware.This is a very peculiar thing .
Perhaps we should brainstorm methods to distill fact from biased noise to arrive at an untainted wellspring of current affairs intel we can all drink from .
The data is there , we just need to cancel out the opposing non-factual chaff .
Someone , get Luis Von Ahn [ cmu.edu ] in here , STAT !
: 3</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I don't read boring news, I read slashdot!Oh wait... I think I just confirmed your post and the article.Well, TBH one reason I read slashdot is because crowdsourced comments are more difficult to bias than paid journalism.
Perhaps we commenters come from a niche demographic to begin with, we're not perfect; I'm simply (lazy and) hard pressed to find a more stable journalistic platform.Commenters reliably reflect most information from TFA and season it with their own personal perspectives (explaining why RTFA is so unpopular xD).
Commenters misrepresenting TFA are regularly named and shamed.
Many commenters even correct, clarify or expand upon summary and article alike.
We demand references and citations from one another; sometimes we even get them.
:PIt doesn't always work.
It isn't always fair or informative.
Oddly enough, if you serve up a genuinely high tech article about hard science, space or quantum physics the crowd starts sounding about as clueless as my grandmother on the topic.
xD  But you can usually tell when the discussion has gone off and browse on to the next topic.
I get more usable, bias-corrected "news" here (sadly) than from any other source of which I am aware.This is a very peculiar thing.
Perhaps we should brainstorm methods to distill fact from biased noise to arrive at an untainted wellspring of current affairs intel we can all drink from.
The data is there, we just need to cancel out the opposing non-factual chaff.
Someone, get Luis Von Ahn [cmu.edu] in here, STAT!
:3
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_0422202.30932120</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_0422202.30932148</id>
	<title>La-la-la...</title>
	<author>oDDmON oUT</author>
	<datestamp>1264687920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Offtopic</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>...la-la-la-la-la-la-la! I can't *hear* you with my iPad plugged in!</p><p>[PS "postersubj" compression filter violates free expression]</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>...la-la-la-la-la-la-la !
I ca n't * hear * you with my iPad plugged in !
[ PS " postersubj " compression filter violates free expression ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>...la-la-la-la-la-la-la!
I can't *hear* you with my iPad plugged in!
[PS "postersubj" compression filter violates free expression]</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_0422202.30932310</id>
	<title>Plummeting?  No.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264689000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It can't be.  We are awash in more information; more than any time in recorded human history.</p><p>What he means is the central channels that usually bring us issues that matter dearly to a select set of billionaires are having trouble pushing message, because of information diversity.</p><p>Take this for example;</p><p>"In the end, the broadcast networks are only as healthy as the station business, and the station business is in big trouble."</p><p>And it's not being replaced by anything?  Chris is excluding (willfully perhaps) what is coming next, and he is ignoring WHY those stations are in trouble.  It's because they are old, aging institutions that cater exclusively to a self-absorbed generation (Boomers) who can't see things from anywhere past their own perspective.</p><p>Anyway tl;dr things are fine.  The sources of information we techies and kids are being exposed to are legitimate, despite the hand-wringing from olds.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It ca n't be .
We are awash in more information ; more than any time in recorded human history.What he means is the central channels that usually bring us issues that matter dearly to a select set of billionaires are having trouble pushing message , because of information diversity.Take this for example ; " In the end , the broadcast networks are only as healthy as the station business , and the station business is in big trouble .
" And it 's not being replaced by anything ?
Chris is excluding ( willfully perhaps ) what is coming next , and he is ignoring WHY those stations are in trouble .
It 's because they are old , aging institutions that cater exclusively to a self-absorbed generation ( Boomers ) who ca n't see things from anywhere past their own perspective.Anyway tl ; dr things are fine .
The sources of information we techies and kids are being exposed to are legitimate , despite the hand-wringing from olds .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It can't be.
We are awash in more information; more than any time in recorded human history.What he means is the central channels that usually bring us issues that matter dearly to a select set of billionaires are having trouble pushing message, because of information diversity.Take this for example;"In the end, the broadcast networks are only as healthy as the station business, and the station business is in big trouble.
"And it's not being replaced by anything?
Chris is excluding (willfully perhaps) what is coming next, and he is ignoring WHY those stations are in trouble.
It's because they are old, aging institutions that cater exclusively to a self-absorbed generation (Boomers) who can't see things from anywhere past their own perspective.Anyway tl;dr things are fine.
The sources of information we techies and kids are being exposed to are legitimate, despite the hand-wringing from olds.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_0422202.30932858</id>
	<title>It's difficult to care</title>
	<author>AP31R0N</author>
	<datestamp>1264692420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>because we feel we have no control over any of it.  Why should i follow the health care debate if i don't get to vote on it?  Either it will pass or fail without my input.  Either i'll be paying for it and benefiting from it, or i won't.  Writing my congress critter is as effective as prayer or wishing on a star.  The 2000 election reminded us that we NOT in charge because the SCotUS can coronate whomever they please.  My vote doesn't count if i happen to be in a populous area or in an area a candidate wants to disenfranchise.  i could vote with my wallet but my wallet is a gnat while corporations are like those asian hornets.</p><p><a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JDSf3Kshq1M" title="youtube.com">http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JDSf3Kshq1M</a> [youtube.com]</p><p>The news is overwhelmingly negative and spinning like a top.  It just makes me sad to hear people lie and how bad other people's lives are and how badly we treat each other.</p><p>Best source for news imho: Fark.com</p><p>BBC's horrific writing made me stop trying to follow it via RSS, he said.</p><p>--</p><p>Do question headlines annoy people?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>because we feel we have no control over any of it .
Why should i follow the health care debate if i do n't get to vote on it ?
Either it will pass or fail without my input .
Either i 'll be paying for it and benefiting from it , or i wo n't .
Writing my congress critter is as effective as prayer or wishing on a star .
The 2000 election reminded us that we NOT in charge because the SCotUS can coronate whomever they please .
My vote does n't count if i happen to be in a populous area or in an area a candidate wants to disenfranchise .
i could vote with my wallet but my wallet is a gnat while corporations are like those asian hornets.http : //www.youtube.com/watch ? v = JDSf3Kshq1M [ youtube.com ] The news is overwhelmingly negative and spinning like a top .
It just makes me sad to hear people lie and how bad other people 's lives are and how badly we treat each other.Best source for news imho : Fark.comBBC 's horrific writing made me stop trying to follow it via RSS , he said.--Do question headlines annoy people ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>because we feel we have no control over any of it.
Why should i follow the health care debate if i don't get to vote on it?
Either it will pass or fail without my input.
Either i'll be paying for it and benefiting from it, or i won't.
Writing my congress critter is as effective as prayer or wishing on a star.
The 2000 election reminded us that we NOT in charge because the SCotUS can coronate whomever they please.
My vote doesn't count if i happen to be in a populous area or in an area a candidate wants to disenfranchise.
i could vote with my wallet but my wallet is a gnat while corporations are like those asian hornets.http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JDSf3Kshq1M [youtube.com]The news is overwhelmingly negative and spinning like a top.
It just makes me sad to hear people lie and how bad other people's lives are and how badly we treat each other.Best source for news imho: Fark.comBBC's horrific writing made me stop trying to follow it via RSS, he said.--Do question headlines annoy people?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_0422202.30945898</id>
	<title>People are just as open-minded as they want to be</title>
	<author>LandGator</author>
	<datestamp>1264702560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>(to paraphrase Lincoln).<br> <br>

Pournelle and Niven in OATH OF FEALTY mentioned an exec using a news filter which both used specified sources, as well as x\% random sources.  Of course, that was only 29 years ago... www.webscription.net//p-683-oath-of-fealty.aspx <br> <br>

My wife's mystified why I keep Faux News on the channel list of the Dishplayer, and why I buy REASON, but I do need a balanced news feed.  Otherwise, I feel like just one of the sheeple.</htmltext>
<tokenext>( to paraphrase Lincoln ) .
Pournelle and Niven in OATH OF FEALTY mentioned an exec using a news filter which both used specified sources , as well as x \ % random sources .
Of course , that was only 29 years ago... www.webscription.net//p-683-oath-of-fealty.aspx My wife 's mystified why I keep Faux News on the channel list of the Dishplayer , and why I buy REASON , but I do need a balanced news feed .
Otherwise , I feel like just one of the sheeple .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>(to paraphrase Lincoln).
Pournelle and Niven in OATH OF FEALTY mentioned an exec using a news filter which both used specified sources, as well as x\% random sources.
Of course, that was only 29 years ago... www.webscription.net//p-683-oath-of-fealty.aspx  

My wife's mystified why I keep Faux News on the channel list of the Dishplayer, and why I buy REASON, but I do need a balanced news feed.
Otherwise, I feel like just one of the sheeple.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_0422202.30932798</id>
	<title>What good does it really do?</title>
	<author>elrous0</author>
	<datestamp>1264691880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Most of the newcasters broadcasting the news and deciding its content are only slightly less stupid than the general populace (when I was in the news businesses, there was a surpising dearth of History and Physics Ph.D.'s floatng around the office, making the decisions). So would their decisions about what constitutes "important news" really be so much better than Joe-Sixpack determining for himself what's important and what isn't?</htmltext>
<tokenext>Most of the newcasters broadcasting the news and deciding its content are only slightly less stupid than the general populace ( when I was in the news businesses , there was a surpising dearth of History and Physics Ph.D. 's floatng around the office , making the decisions ) .
So would their decisions about what constitutes " important news " really be so much better than Joe-Sixpack determining for himself what 's important and what is n't ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Most of the newcasters broadcasting the news and deciding its content are only slightly less stupid than the general populace (when I was in the news businesses, there was a surpising dearth of History and Physics Ph.D.'s floatng around the office, making the decisions).
So would their decisions about what constitutes "important news" really be so much better than Joe-Sixpack determining for himself what's important and what isn't?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_0422202.30932288</id>
	<title>Re:New should not be tailored to consumers</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264688700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>If I was planning on becoming a repressive regime leader, ruling my country with an iron fist... I would start by telling all of the people all the "news" they wanted to hear.... In-Depth reviews of the latest "Mycountryian Idol", all the sports news they wanted, how wonderful the newest movie blockbuster is (and who the stars are sleeping with!)</p></div><p>I think the recipe needs more bo*bs.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>If I was planning on becoming a repressive regime leader , ruling my country with an iron fist... I would start by telling all of the people all the " news " they wanted to hear.... In-Depth reviews of the latest " Mycountryian Idol " , all the sports news they wanted , how wonderful the newest movie blockbuster is ( and who the stars are sleeping with !
) I think the recipe needs more bo * bs .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If I was planning on becoming a repressive regime leader, ruling my country with an iron fist... I would start by telling all of the people all the "news" they wanted to hear.... In-Depth reviews of the latest "Mycountryian Idol", all the sports news they wanted, how wonderful the newest movie blockbuster is (and who the stars are sleeping with!
)I think the recipe needs more bo*bs.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_0422202.30932086</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_0422202.30934554</id>
	<title>Not useful for searching</title>
	<author>Grey Loki</author>
	<datestamp>1264698720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>Occasionally i'll be searching news stories or just the web in general, and in addition to wanting to find specific information, I find it's often helpful to read other related pages, or just generally see what else a google/bbc/whatever search turns up. If this information is filtered to my tastes, then I might start to misunderstand the 'lay of the land', or the 'big picture', or some other kind of phrase that can be put into speech marks.

I'd rather have news sources that are completely unbiased, and rely on good journalism to draw in readers (such as myself) rather than personalised news that skews my worldview.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Occasionally i 'll be searching news stories or just the web in general , and in addition to wanting to find specific information , I find it 's often helpful to read other related pages , or just generally see what else a google/bbc/whatever search turns up .
If this information is filtered to my tastes , then I might start to misunderstand the 'lay of the land ' , or the 'big picture ' , or some other kind of phrase that can be put into speech marks .
I 'd rather have news sources that are completely unbiased , and rely on good journalism to draw in readers ( such as myself ) rather than personalised news that skews my worldview .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Occasionally i'll be searching news stories or just the web in general, and in addition to wanting to find specific information, I find it's often helpful to read other related pages, or just generally see what else a google/bbc/whatever search turns up.
If this information is filtered to my tastes, then I might start to misunderstand the 'lay of the land', or the 'big picture', or some other kind of phrase that can be put into speech marks.
I'd rather have news sources that are completely unbiased, and rely on good journalism to draw in readers (such as myself) rather than personalised news that skews my worldview.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_0422202.30940016</id>
	<title>Re:More pervasive than just news</title>
	<author>BJ\_Covert\_Action</author>
	<datestamp>1264670100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>and you have population of effete, spoiled sheep, ready to accept whatever shackles are imposed, in order that they be safe and comfortable.</p></div><p>
Sounds like the Victorian Era.....which effectively ended when said social regime sent millions of young boys to die in the trenches of WWI. Ah what a bright future we have to look forward too =)</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>and you have population of effete , spoiled sheep , ready to accept whatever shackles are imposed , in order that they be safe and comfortable .
Sounds like the Victorian Era.....which effectively ended when said social regime sent millions of young boys to die in the trenches of WWI .
Ah what a bright future we have to look forward too = )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>and you have population of effete, spoiled sheep, ready to accept whatever shackles are imposed, in order that they be safe and comfortable.
Sounds like the Victorian Era.....which effectively ended when said social regime sent millions of young boys to die in the trenches of WWI.
Ah what a bright future we have to look forward too =)
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_0422202.30932204</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_0422202.30938028</id>
	<title>Re:New should not be tailored to consumers</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264707900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>There's a quote from John Brunner's book The Jagged Orbit that fits this. Something like "What people most want is to be told by some authority that what they are doing is exactly the right thing to be doing". They look for news that confirms this and flock to populist politicians that suggest this.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>There 's a quote from John Brunner 's book The Jagged Orbit that fits this .
Something like " What people most want is to be told by some authority that what they are doing is exactly the right thing to be doing " .
They look for news that confirms this and flock to populist politicians that suggest this .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There's a quote from John Brunner's book The Jagged Orbit that fits this.
Something like "What people most want is to be told by some authority that what they are doing is exactly the right thing to be doing".
They look for news that confirms this and flock to populist politicians that suggest this.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_0422202.30932086</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_0422202.30932464</id>
	<title>stop that nonsense</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264690080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Good God, folks, he graded out as the most leftist Senator, by far.</p><p>Why the hell is anyone surprised that he's governed from the hard left?</p></div><p>As a republican who voted for McCain, I gotta tell you, stop that stupid shit. Who graded him out, creationists? I don't like some of his policies (fuck I didn't even voted for him), but he's far from being a leftist.</p><p>

In fact, you have no idea of what a "hard left" is. People like you whorify what it means to be to left or to the right, to the point that those labels become meaningless. They become more and more like elementary school taunting name tagging than actual classifications of ideology and policy. I got a couple of countries I can advise you to visit if you really want to take a look at what the "hard left" is really like.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Good God , folks , he graded out as the most leftist Senator , by far.Why the hell is anyone surprised that he 's governed from the hard left ? As a republican who voted for McCain , I got ta tell you , stop that stupid shit .
Who graded him out , creationists ?
I do n't like some of his policies ( fuck I did n't even voted for him ) , but he 's far from being a leftist .
In fact , you have no idea of what a " hard left " is .
People like you whorify what it means to be to left or to the right , to the point that those labels become meaningless .
They become more and more like elementary school taunting name tagging than actual classifications of ideology and policy .
I got a couple of countries I can advise you to visit if you really want to take a look at what the " hard left " is really like .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Good God, folks, he graded out as the most leftist Senator, by far.Why the hell is anyone surprised that he's governed from the hard left?As a republican who voted for McCain, I gotta tell you, stop that stupid shit.
Who graded him out, creationists?
I don't like some of his policies (fuck I didn't even voted for him), but he's far from being a leftist.
In fact, you have no idea of what a "hard left" is.
People like you whorify what it means to be to left or to the right, to the point that those labels become meaningless.
They become more and more like elementary school taunting name tagging than actual classifications of ideology and policy.
I got a couple of countries I can advise you to visit if you really want to take a look at what the "hard left" is really like.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_0422202.30932092</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_0422202.30932240</id>
	<title>Does reading Slashdot lead to ignorance?</title>
	<author>MojoRilla</author>
	<datestamp>1264688460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>Does reading Slashdot lead to ignorance?  Nothing about the State of The Union here!  Just news for nerds.  If that is ignorance, give me a steaming platter!</htmltext>
<tokenext>Does reading Slashdot lead to ignorance ?
Nothing about the State of The Union here !
Just news for nerds .
If that is ignorance , give me a steaming platter !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Does reading Slashdot lead to ignorance?
Nothing about the State of The Union here!
Just news for nerds.
If that is ignorance, give me a steaming platter!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_0422202.30933644</id>
	<title>Because I just don't give a...</title>
	<author>ledow</author>
	<datestamp>1264696140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Because I just don't give a damn, basically.</p><p>I have a free local newspaper dropped through my door every week.  I glance at the front page (usually an advert, or a school promoting itself with a "news" story), I skip to the classified ads / jobs for anything unusual, that's about it unless someone I know will be in the paper.  My housemate doesn't even look at it.  I really don't care about local news as anything more than a sideline... "Hey, did you read that someone go stabbed in town the other day?" "Oh, really?  Another?" (I live in London, if they reported everything like that, it would be even more boring).  The rest is filler material and promotional stuff for schools, fetes, etc.</p><p>On a country-wide scale, I often skip at least 95\% of the "headline" stories entirely.  I just don't care enough about politicians or scaremongering.  On an international scale, I skip almost everything except for the Science sections (where I pretty much read every story).  Why?  Because I'm ignorant of the world?  Far from it, I'm just tired of reading about it every day and want something more "interesting" and positive (reported news is almost all negative).</p><p>If something is "important" (for my definition of important) it sometimes never gets reported (science, medical breakthroughs, etc. are boring, didn't you know?  And major world events, e.g. earthquakes, focus on how many British people died in Haiti... I really couldn't give a shit about that particular statistic - how about the actual news of the earthquake itself?).  If it does get reported, I find more material that I'm interested in elsewhere than I do wherever I spotted that piece of news (whether that's contradictory reports, or just more details).</p><p>Localised news is, for the most part, irrelevant.  I work in education in the UK so I often read about anything education-related.  Does that make me ignorant because I ignore the front page story about two US celebrities possibly breaking up?  Not really.  Who cares?</p><p>It's all to do with your definitions of: news, important and interesting.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Because I just do n't give a damn , basically.I have a free local newspaper dropped through my door every week .
I glance at the front page ( usually an advert , or a school promoting itself with a " news " story ) , I skip to the classified ads / jobs for anything unusual , that 's about it unless someone I know will be in the paper .
My housemate does n't even look at it .
I really do n't care about local news as anything more than a sideline... " Hey , did you read that someone go stabbed in town the other day ?
" " Oh , really ?
Another ? " ( I live in London , if they reported everything like that , it would be even more boring ) .
The rest is filler material and promotional stuff for schools , fetes , etc.On a country-wide scale , I often skip at least 95 \ % of the " headline " stories entirely .
I just do n't care enough about politicians or scaremongering .
On an international scale , I skip almost everything except for the Science sections ( where I pretty much read every story ) .
Why ? Because I 'm ignorant of the world ?
Far from it , I 'm just tired of reading about it every day and want something more " interesting " and positive ( reported news is almost all negative ) .If something is " important " ( for my definition of important ) it sometimes never gets reported ( science , medical breakthroughs , etc .
are boring , did n't you know ?
And major world events , e.g .
earthquakes , focus on how many British people died in Haiti... I really could n't give a shit about that particular statistic - how about the actual news of the earthquake itself ? ) .
If it does get reported , I find more material that I 'm interested in elsewhere than I do wherever I spotted that piece of news ( whether that 's contradictory reports , or just more details ) .Localised news is , for the most part , irrelevant .
I work in education in the UK so I often read about anything education-related .
Does that make me ignorant because I ignore the front page story about two US celebrities possibly breaking up ?
Not really .
Who cares ? It 's all to do with your definitions of : news , important and interesting .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Because I just don't give a damn, basically.I have a free local newspaper dropped through my door every week.
I glance at the front page (usually an advert, or a school promoting itself with a "news" story), I skip to the classified ads / jobs for anything unusual, that's about it unless someone I know will be in the paper.
My housemate doesn't even look at it.
I really don't care about local news as anything more than a sideline... "Hey, did you read that someone go stabbed in town the other day?
" "Oh, really?
Another?" (I live in London, if they reported everything like that, it would be even more boring).
The rest is filler material and promotional stuff for schools, fetes, etc.On a country-wide scale, I often skip at least 95\% of the "headline" stories entirely.
I just don't care enough about politicians or scaremongering.
On an international scale, I skip almost everything except for the Science sections (where I pretty much read every story).
Why?  Because I'm ignorant of the world?
Far from it, I'm just tired of reading about it every day and want something more "interesting" and positive (reported news is almost all negative).If something is "important" (for my definition of important) it sometimes never gets reported (science, medical breakthroughs, etc.
are boring, didn't you know?
And major world events, e.g.
earthquakes, focus on how many British people died in Haiti... I really couldn't give a shit about that particular statistic - how about the actual news of the earthquake itself?).
If it does get reported, I find more material that I'm interested in elsewhere than I do wherever I spotted that piece of news (whether that's contradictory reports, or just more details).Localised news is, for the most part, irrelevant.
I work in education in the UK so I often read about anything education-related.
Does that make me ignorant because I ignore the front page story about two US celebrities possibly breaking up?
Not really.
Who cares?It's all to do with your definitions of: news, important and interesting.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_0422202.30938958</id>
	<title>Re:it's worse than ignorance</title>
	<author>Scroatzilla</author>
	<datestamp>1264710060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I agree with your assessment that most folks tend to congregate with others who agree with them. I believe that's okay, though. That's pretty much how society works offline, too.</p><p>I would be interested to see some numbers around how many people have "well-rounded" information sources today vs. pre-internet. People interested in seeking out data and alternative viewpoints will probably always be a minority of the population-- but given today's abundance of information, the chances are that the percentage of such people will only increase.</p><p>So to answer the original original question: No, personalized news does not lead to ignorance. The mediocrity of most of the population already takes care of that.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I agree with your assessment that most folks tend to congregate with others who agree with them .
I believe that 's okay , though .
That 's pretty much how society works offline , too.I would be interested to see some numbers around how many people have " well-rounded " information sources today vs. pre-internet. People interested in seeking out data and alternative viewpoints will probably always be a minority of the population-- but given today 's abundance of information , the chances are that the percentage of such people will only increase.So to answer the original original question : No , personalized news does not lead to ignorance .
The mediocrity of most of the population already takes care of that .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I agree with your assessment that most folks tend to congregate with others who agree with them.
I believe that's okay, though.
That's pretty much how society works offline, too.I would be interested to see some numbers around how many people have "well-rounded" information sources today vs. pre-internet. People interested in seeking out data and alternative viewpoints will probably always be a minority of the population-- but given today's abundance of information, the chances are that the percentage of such people will only increase.So to answer the original original question: No, personalized news does not lead to ignorance.
The mediocrity of most of the population already takes care of that.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_0422202.30932156</parent>
</comment>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_28_0422202_10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_0422202.30932086
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_0422202.30932796
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_28_0422202_35</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_0422202.30932086
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_0422202.30932248
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_0422202.30933352
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_28_0422202_40</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_0422202.30932086
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_0422202.30932248
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_0422202.30933050
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_28_0422202_11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_0422202.30932092
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_0422202.30932464
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_28_0422202_8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_0422202.30932204
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_0422202.30935994
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_28_0422202_25</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_0422202.30932226
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_0422202.30938378
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_28_0422202_30</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_0422202.30932086
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_0422202.30932248
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_0422202.30936358
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_28_0422202_7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_0422202.30932150
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_0422202.30936544
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_28_0422202_17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_0422202.30932050
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_0422202.30932122
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_0422202.30939036
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_28_0422202_33</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_0422202.30932156
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_0422202.30933304
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_28_0422202_24</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_0422202.30932672
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_0422202.30942288
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_28_0422202_4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_0422202.30932672
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_0422202.30939174
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_28_0422202_6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_0422202.30932204
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_0422202.30940016
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_28_0422202_23</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_0422202.30932160
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_0422202.30933634
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_28_0422202_14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_0422202.30932086
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_0422202.30932248
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_0422202.30932916
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_28_0422202_1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_0422202.30932050
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_0422202.30932122
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_0422202.30932822
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_0422202.30936646
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_28_0422202_39</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_0422202.30932672
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_0422202.30937702
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_28_0422202_15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_0422202.30932088
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_0422202.30932592
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_28_0422202_29</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_0422202.30932050
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_0422202.30932120
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_0422202.30958682
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_28_0422202_22</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_0422202.30932160
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_0422202.30935484
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_28_0422202_36</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_0422202.30932086
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_0422202.30932396
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_28_0422202_2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_0422202.30932086
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_0422202.30932288
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_28_0422202_12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_0422202.30932086
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_0422202.30932818
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_28_0422202_37</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_0422202.30932226
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_0422202.30932634
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_28_0422202_28</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_0422202.30932204
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_0422202.30935260
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_28_0422202_31</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_0422202.30932672
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_0422202.30941926
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_28_0422202_27</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_0422202.30932050
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_0422202.30932122
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_0422202.30935638
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_28_0422202_18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_0422202.30932050
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_0422202.30932122
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_0422202.30932938
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_28_0422202_34</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_0422202.30932160
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_0422202.30934334
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_28_0422202_5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_0422202.30932086
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_0422202.30932752
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_28_0422202_19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_0422202.30932086
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_0422202.30932492
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_28_0422202_26</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_0422202.30932086
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_0422202.30933956
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_28_0422202_20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_0422202.30932086
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_0422202.30932248
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_0422202.30933414
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_28_0422202_43</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_0422202.30932086
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_0422202.30935202
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_28_0422202_16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_0422202.30932086
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_0422202.30933448
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_28_0422202_21</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_0422202.30932050
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_0422202.30932122
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_0422202.30936342
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_28_0422202_3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_0422202.30932086
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_0422202.30938028
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_28_0422202_42</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_0422202.30932088
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_0422202.30932940
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_28_0422202_13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_0422202.30932086
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_0422202.30932242
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_28_0422202_38</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_0422202.30932156
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_0422202.30938958
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_28_0422202_41</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_0422202.30932086
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_0422202.30932754
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_28_0422202_32</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_0422202.30932222
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_0422202.30933386
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_28_0422202_9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_0422202.30932160
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_0422202.30939224
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_28_0422202_0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_0422202.30932240
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_0422202.30934196
</commentlist>
</thread>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_28_0422202.17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_0422202.30932164
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_28_0422202.15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_0422202.30932222
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_0422202.30933386
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_28_0422202.5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_0422202.30932560
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_28_0422202.12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_0422202.30932204
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_0422202.30935994
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_0422202.30935260
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_0422202.30940016
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_28_0422202.4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_0422202.30932226
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_0422202.30932634
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_0422202.30938378
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_28_0422202.2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_0422202.30932806
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_28_0422202.18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_0422202.30932594
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_28_0422202.24</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_0422202.30932088
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_0422202.30932592
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_0422202.30932940
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_28_0422202.16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_0422202.30932802
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_28_0422202.10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_0422202.30933062
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_28_0422202.3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_0422202.30932092
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_0422202.30932464
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_28_0422202.1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_0422202.30932328
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_28_0422202.22</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_0422202.30932210
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_28_0422202.23</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_0422202.30932562
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_28_0422202.20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_0422202.30932240
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_0422202.30934196
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_28_0422202.21</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_0422202.30932672
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_0422202.30941926
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_0422202.30937702
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_0422202.30939174
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_0422202.30942288
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_28_0422202.19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_0422202.30933066
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_28_0422202.8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_0422202.30932206
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_28_0422202.6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_0422202.30932160
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_0422202.30935484
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_0422202.30934334
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_0422202.30933634
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_0422202.30939224
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_28_0422202.9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_0422202.30932156
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_0422202.30933304
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_0422202.30938958
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_28_0422202.0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_0422202.30932050
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_0422202.30932122
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_0422202.30939036
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_0422202.30936342
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_0422202.30932938
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_0422202.30935638
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_0422202.30932822
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_0422202.30936646
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_0422202.30932120
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_0422202.30958682
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_28_0422202.13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_0422202.30932150
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_0422202.30936544
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_28_0422202.7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_0422202.30932086
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_0422202.30933956
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_0422202.30932796
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_0422202.30932396
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_0422202.30933448
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_0422202.30938028
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_0422202.30932248
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_0422202.30936358
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_0422202.30932916
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_0422202.30933352
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_0422202.30933414
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_0422202.30933050
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_0422202.30935202
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_0422202.30932242
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_0422202.30932818
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_0422202.30932754
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_0422202.30932752
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_0422202.30932492
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_0422202.30932288
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_28_0422202.11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_0422202.30932246
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_28_0422202.14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_0422202.30932304
</commentlist>
</conversation>
