<?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/"
	xmlns:media="http://search.yahoo.com/mrss/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Alternative journalism or same-old, same-old?</title>
	<atom:link href="http://patrickchalmers.wordpress.com/2007/03/16/alternative-journalism-or-same-old-same-old/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://patrickchalmers.wordpress.com/2007/03/16/alternative-journalism-or-same-old-same-old/</link>
	<description>joined-up journalism in search of real democracy</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Mon, 25 May 2009 12:36:13 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.com/</generator>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
		<item>
		<title>By: david law</title>
		<link>http://patrickchalmers.wordpress.com/2007/03/16/alternative-journalism-or-same-old-same-old/#comment-12</link>
		<dc:creator>david law</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 23 Mar 2007 19:10:16 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://patrickchalmers.wordpress.com/2007/03/16/alternative-journalism-or-same-old-same-old/#comment-12</guid>
		<description>Good work . 

The CRS presence and the 8 Bové cars are enough in themselves, surely ? 

Our local spokesman for Monsanto is longtime Senateur  for Avranches Jean Bizet. 

The rest of us know already what thoses spokespeople will say; the voice of the manifestants is NEVER heard.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Good work . </p>
<p>The CRS presence and the 8 Bové cars are enough in themselves, surely ? </p>
<p>Our local spokesman for Monsanto is longtime Senateur  for Avranches Jean Bizet. </p>
<p>The rest of us know already what thoses spokespeople will say; the voice of the manifestants is NEVER heard.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Daniel Simpson</title>
		<link>http://patrickchalmers.wordpress.com/2007/03/16/alternative-journalism-or-same-old-same-old/#comment-10</link>
		<dc:creator>Daniel Simpson</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 16 Mar 2007 16:09:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://patrickchalmers.wordpress.com/2007/03/16/alternative-journalism-or-same-old-same-old/#comment-10</guid>
		<description>&lt;i&gt;I am more interested in thinking about how we can fill the information vacuums they and others manage to leave unfilled despite their prodigious daily outpourings.&lt;/i&gt;

Heartening to hear it! ;)

That&#039;s what&#039;s so often lacking in dissections of mainstream media shortcomings.

&lt;i&gt;[W]hat is lacking ... is the richer, subtler, contextualised coverage of proceedings. That is where alternative journalists and alternative journalism can shine and where it is sorely needed.&lt;/i&gt;

Absolutely - but the real challenge seems to me to be to incorporate the same approach back into a comprehensive attempt to report news, in the conventional sense of daily developments. A sort of redefinition of the paradigm you describe Reuters and its rivals filtering their inputs and outputs through. That way it might be possible to conceptualise a transferable throughput model... :)

In non-corporate babble, we need to figure out what ought to make news and why, and how at the same time to make its coverage as convincing as possible. So I think you&#039;d ultimately need to feature Monsanto - not in that cloying &quot;give them a chance to put their point of view&quot; kind of way that pseudo-objectivity suggests, but in a &quot;this is what i&#039;m publishing so what have you got to say for yourselves&quot; kind of doorstep. The point wouldn&#039;t be to air it all either - but to try and make your report address the strongest criticism they could make of it. That&#039;s how really powerful news gets made, in my view.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><i>I am more interested in thinking about how we can fill the information vacuums they and others manage to leave unfilled despite their prodigious daily outpourings.</i></p>
<p>Heartening to hear it! <img src='http://s.wordpress.com/wp-includes/images/smilies/icon_wink.gif' alt=';)' class='wp-smiley' /> </p>
<p>That&#8217;s what&#8217;s so often lacking in dissections of mainstream media shortcomings.</p>
<p><i>[W]hat is lacking &#8230; is the richer, subtler, contextualised coverage of proceedings. That is where alternative journalists and alternative journalism can shine and where it is sorely needed.</i></p>
<p>Absolutely &#8211; but the real challenge seems to me to be to incorporate the same approach back into a comprehensive attempt to report news, in the conventional sense of daily developments. A sort of redefinition of the paradigm you describe Reuters and its rivals filtering their inputs and outputs through. That way it might be possible to conceptualise a transferable throughput model&#8230; <img src='http://s.wordpress.com/wp-includes/images/smilies/icon_smile.gif' alt=':)' class='wp-smiley' /> </p>
<p>In non-corporate babble, we need to figure out what ought to make news and why, and how at the same time to make its coverage as convincing as possible. So I think you&#8217;d ultimately need to feature Monsanto &#8211; not in that cloying &#8220;give them a chance to put their point of view&#8221; kind of way that pseudo-objectivity suggests, but in a &#8220;this is what i&#8217;m publishing so what have you got to say for yourselves&#8221; kind of doorstep. The point wouldn&#8217;t be to air it all either &#8211; but to try and make your report address the strongest criticism they could make of it. That&#8217;s how really powerful news gets made, in my view.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
