<?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: Journalistic Standards in the Blogosphere</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.newsome.org/2006/10/journalistic-standards-in-blogosphere/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.newsome.org/2006/10/journalistic-standards-in-blogosphere/</link>
	<description>Kent Newsome on technology, music and life</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Sun, 05 Feb 2012 23:43:00 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1</generator>
	<item>
		<title>By: Kent</title>
		<link>http://www.newsome.org/2006/10/journalistic-standards-in-blogosphere/comment-page-1/#comment-4213</link>
		<dc:creator>Kent</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 14 Oct 2006 16:14:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://clients.emmense.com/newsome/?p=3252#comment-4213</guid>
		<description>Tish, you&#039;re right.  I talk too much about Mike, when I don&#039;t think he is either the appointed or an effective speaker for bloggers.  Despite my efforts at engaging him in conversation, I do not know Mike.  He seems to be a pretty OK guy at the core- I just don&#039;t think  he does a good job of pre-thinking his public comments.Perhaps he still thinks like a regular guy and just says whatever he thinks at the time.  You can&#039;t do that when you get to the level of exposure Mike has.In sum, I agree with pretty much everything you said.P.S. I played a Bodeans song on my podcast last night (but not one from  Love &amp; Hope &amp; Sex &amp; Dreams).  It will be up later today. I enjoy your blog and I love its name.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Tish, you&#8217;re right.  I talk too much about Mike, when I don&#8217;t think he is either the appointed or an effective speaker for bloggers.  Despite my efforts at engaging him in conversation, I do not know Mike.  He seems to be a pretty OK guy at the core- I just don&#8217;t think  he does a good job of pre-thinking his public comments.Perhaps he still thinks like a regular guy and just says whatever he thinks at the time.  You can&#8217;t do that when you get to the level of exposure Mike has.In sum, I agree with pretty much everything you said.P.S. I played a Bodeans song on my podcast last night (but not one from  Love &amp; Hope &amp; Sex &amp; Dreams).  It will be up later today. I enjoy your blog and I love its name.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Tish Grier</title>
		<link>http://www.newsome.org/2006/10/journalistic-standards-in-blogosphere/comment-page-1/#comment-4214</link>
		<dc:creator>Tish Grier</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 13 Oct 2006 04:12:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://clients.emmense.com/newsome/?p=3252#comment-4214</guid>
		<description>&lt;I&gt;bloggers need to develop a code of ethics that legitimizes blogging as a reliable, and conflict free, information medium.&lt;/I&gt;Kent...by focusing on Arrington alone, you are failing to acknowledge how many bloggers do indeed adhere to a code of ethics (one form of this was drafted by Rebecca Blood and Jon Dube--look it up on Cyberjournalist.net look it up.)What the issue comes down to is who the blogger aspires to be--does the blogger aspire also to be an online journalist or is the blogger only in it for self-interest?  I don&#039;t know what Arrington&#039;s motives are, so I can&#039;t speak for him--but I can say that I&#039;ve done okay in my first year of online journalism (I write for Corante&#039;s media hub as well as contribute to Poynter Online and Huffington Post) and I&#039;ve kept a super-high level of ethics and integrity.The bigger question is why all you press guys are concentrating on Arrington as the exemplar of bloggers.  Arrington only speaks for himself, not the rest of us. The only folks who anointed him are the ones who keep asking him to speak at conferences.  If all the conference organizers weren&#039;t pumping up his ego, he might get it that he&#039;s not the blogosphere&#039;s official spokesman, just one of the rest of us.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><i>bloggers need to develop a code of ethics that legitimizes blogging as a reliable, and conflict free, information medium.</i>Kent&#8230;by focusing on Arrington alone, you are failing to acknowledge how many bloggers do indeed adhere to a code of ethics (one form of this was drafted by Rebecca Blood and Jon Dube&#8211;look it up on Cyberjournalist.net look it up.)What the issue comes down to is who the blogger aspires to be&#8211;does the blogger aspire also to be an online journalist or is the blogger only in it for self-interest?  I don&#8217;t know what Arrington&#8217;s motives are, so I can&#8217;t speak for him&#8211;but I can say that I&#8217;ve done okay in my first year of online journalism (I write for Corante&#8217;s media hub as well as contribute to Poynter Online and Huffington Post) and I&#8217;ve kept a super-high level of ethics and integrity.The bigger question is why all you press guys are concentrating on Arrington as the exemplar of bloggers.  Arrington only speaks for himself, not the rest of us. The only folks who anointed him are the ones who keep asking him to speak at conferences.  If all the conference organizers weren&#8217;t pumping up his ego, he might get it that he&#8217;s not the blogosphere&#8217;s official spokesman, just one of the rest of us.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>

