<?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: Who said the internet is killing journalism?</title>
	<atom:link href="http://prestonstahley.com/web-design/who-said-the-internet-is-killing-journalism/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://prestonstahley.com/web-design/who-said-the-internet-is-killing-journalism/</link>
	<description>Web Designer, Artist, Gamer</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Tue, 23 Jun 2009 21:46:24 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.9.1</generator>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
		<item>
		<title>By: Justin Masters</title>
		<link>http://prestonstahley.com/web-design/who-said-the-internet-is-killing-journalism/comment-page-1/#comment-6</link>
		<dc:creator>Justin Masters</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 23 Jun 2009 21:40:44 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://prestonstahley.com/?p=193#comment-6</guid>
		<description>I agree that bloggers can be biased, fail to report accurate information, or be completely wrong on facts. However I feel he is missing a major element. The subscribers. They choose which blogs/news sites they read. Obviously they will flock to accurate sites.
While large readership numbers don&#039;t directly relate to subscrition revenues since most sites are free.... revenue can come in other forms such as advertising. While the printed local newspapaer can distribute to the surronding community, the online version can reach around the world. With sucessful data mining advertisments can be crafted to the individual making for a higher hit rate on those advertisements. If the argument is revenue = quality newsroom staff then I think a look at Google is in order who makes most of its revenue off of advertising.
The internet does offer a different business model but it is definetly one that can be profitable.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I agree that bloggers can be biased, fail to report accurate information, or be completely wrong on facts. However I feel he is missing a major element. The subscribers. They choose which blogs/news sites they read. Obviously they will flock to accurate sites.<br />
While large readership numbers don&#8217;t directly relate to subscrition revenues since most sites are free&#8230;. revenue can come in other forms such as advertising. While the printed local newspapaer can distribute to the surronding community, the online version can reach around the world. With sucessful data mining advertisments can be crafted to the individual making for a higher hit rate on those advertisements. If the argument is revenue = quality newsroom staff then I think a look at Google is in order who makes most of its revenue off of advertising.<br />
The internet does offer a different business model but it is definetly one that can be profitable.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Steve Cusumano</title>
		<link>http://prestonstahley.com/web-design/who-said-the-internet-is-killing-journalism/comment-page-1/#comment-7</link>
		<dc:creator>Steve Cusumano</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 28 Apr 2009 02:57:35 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://prestonstahley.com/?p=193#comment-7</guid>
		<description>The Internet is not killing journalism. Journalism, in fact, has never been stronger or more vibrant, and the Internet plays a big part of that. The simple truth is that there is a TON invested in the old way of doing things, so much so that even those that recognize what needs to be change don&#039;t have the support/financial backing to make those changes happen and still survive in the short term. And since other news organizations won&#039;t change the way they do business until they see someone ELSE succeed in the new formula, it just feeds back into itself in the most depressing way.

And just to throw this out there, before one makes this inevitable connection...Journalism is NOT equal to newspapers. Yes, newspapers are dying, and the Internet has a lot to do with that, but the Internet is not the CAUSE of this...dumb decisions by top executives are killing newspapers, at least newspapers in a print format. No industry in all of history can stay successful without adjusting its business model to new technology and innovation. What makes newspapers (specifically) or journalism (generally) any different?</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>The Internet is not killing journalism. Journalism, in fact, has never been stronger or more vibrant, and the Internet plays a big part of that. The simple truth is that there is a TON invested in the old way of doing things, so much so that even those that recognize what needs to be change don&#8217;t have the support/financial backing to make those changes happen and still survive in the short term. And since other news organizations won&#8217;t change the way they do business until they see someone ELSE succeed in the new formula, it just feeds back into itself in the most depressing way.</p>
<p>And just to throw this out there, before one makes this inevitable connection&#8230;Journalism is NOT equal to newspapers. Yes, newspapers are dying, and the Internet has a lot to do with that, but the Internet is not the CAUSE of this&#8230;dumb decisions by top executives are killing newspapers, at least newspapers in a print format. No industry in all of history can stay successful without adjusting its business model to new technology and innovation. What makes newspapers (specifically) or journalism (generally) any different?</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
