<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: What people say they read online vs. What they really read online</title>
	<atom:link href="http://adrianmonck.com/2009/03/people-read-online-read-online/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://adrianmonck.com/2009/03/people-read-online-read-online/</link>
	<description>a blog about news and stuff</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Thu, 10 May 2012 16:11:40 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.2</generator>
	<item>
		<title>By: Charlotte</title>
		<link>http://adrianmonck.com/2009/03/people-read-online-read-online/comment-page-1/#comment-2668</link>
		<dc:creator>Charlotte</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 18 Mar 2009 22:56:41 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://adrianmonck.com/?p=3034#comment-2668</guid>
		<description>Should &lt;em&gt;The Economist&lt;/em&gt; really pander to people who have them as their home page for vanity, shouldn&#039;t they concentrate on ensuring they provide quality content that their current readers enjoy. Quality will increase readership not altering to try and attract readers that think street photography &#039;gets&#039; it to a higher degree. They are significantly different. Perez Hilton gets millions of readers and is a guilty pleasure for a huge amount of people but that doesn&#039;t mean &lt;em&gt;The Economist&lt;/em&gt; should start taking note of whether Britney Spears is wearing underwear today.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Should <em>The Economist</em> really pander to people who have them as their home page for vanity, shouldn’t they concentrate on ensuring they provide quality content that their current readers enjoy. Quality will increase readership not altering to try and attract readers that think street photography ‘gets’ it to a higher degree. They are significantly different. Perez Hilton gets millions of readers and is a guilty pleasure for a huge amount of people but that doesn’t mean <em>The Economist</em> should start taking note of whether Britney Spears is wearing underwear today.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: S block</title>
		<link>http://adrianmonck.com/2009/03/people-read-online-read-online/comment-page-1/#comment-2667</link>
		<dc:creator>S block</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 18 Mar 2009 22:11:17 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://adrianmonck.com/?p=3034#comment-2667</guid>
		<description>Adrian:
Unfortunately, the Rebeccas of the world get their news from writers who don&#039;t do the scholarship, many of whom are imposters in costume designed by the Mr. Sartorialists in the media world. 

This would explain why people in Washington think (or know) that the general public is uninformed and not likely to become informed. Repubs, Democrats and the President all knew without any question that bonuses were to be paid even under the bailout to AIG as the topic was specifically discussed in committee and yet when it became public they all acted as if they are disgusted and had no idea; and the public laps it up and gets disgusted. And if they didn&#039;t know where the money was going to go, then I am disgusted. By in large, the press doesn&#039;t present such information; it&#039;s like they are addicted to the soundbites of politicians and just regurgitate them to us. 

The lack of accountability is something that both sides of the aisle count on and are therefore loath to challenge each other in the public square.

There is great opportunity for journalists to do the right thing, call things as they really are, ruffle a few feathers and put the truth back into reporting. They, indeed, have also become the imposters, see lengthily discussions on Kluth&#039;s blog and as described by Don Henley in Dirty Laundry.

We are going to be in even bigger trouble if the cynicism and distrust of government and the markets continues much further.

Thanks for the opportunity to comment.

SB</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Adrian:<br />
Unfortunately, the Rebeccas of the world get their news from writers who don’t do the scholarship, many of whom are imposters in costume designed by the Mr. Sartorialists in the media world. </p>
<p>This would explain why people in Washington think (or know) that the general public is uninformed and not likely to become informed. Repubs, Democrats and the President all knew without any question that bonuses were to be paid even under the bailout to AIG as the topic was specifically discussed in committee and yet when it became public they all acted as if they are disgusted and had no idea; and the public laps it up and gets disgusted. And if they didn’t know where the money was going to go, then I am disgusted. By in large, the press doesn’t present such information; it’s like they are addicted to the soundbites of politicians and just regurgitate them to us. </p>
<p>The lack of accountability is something that both sides of the aisle count on and are therefore loath to challenge each other in the public square.</p>
<p>There is great opportunity for journalists to do the right thing, call things as they really are, ruffle a few feathers and put the truth back into reporting. They, indeed, have also become the imposters, see lengthily discussions on Kluth’s blog and as described by Don Henley in Dirty Laundry.</p>
<p>We are going to be in even bigger trouble if the cynicism and distrust of government and the markets continues much further.</p>
<p>Thanks for the opportunity to comment.</p>
<p>SB</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>

