<?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: Stark contrasts</title>
	<atom:link href="http://blog-o-blog.com/17/02/2008/stark-contrasts/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://blog-o-blog.com/17/02/2008/stark-contrasts/</link>
	<description>is muffin but trouble</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Wed, 23 Dec 2009 14:12:42 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.9</generator>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
		<item>
		<title>By: James</title>
		<link>http://blog-o-blog.com/17/02/2008/stark-contrasts/comment-page-1/#comment-345</link>
		<dc:creator>James</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 18 Feb 2008 04:54:06 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blog-o-blog.com/17/02/2008/stark-contrasts/#comment-345</guid>
		<description>I would argue American papers were exactly community forums, and they were also freely partisan. Newspapers were very engaging &quot;blogs&quot; talking to each other and with the community. Factual accuracy was a problem, but firsthand reports and commentaries were frequent. Revolutionary papers and letters (public read what we now consider private) read much like political blogs today.

Things didn&#039;t really get national and sensational until the 1870&#039;s... and despite the NYT modelinq professional form, all really went downhill from there, I believe.

I argue blog mentality is not new, and it seems to appear &quot;naturally&quot; until corrupt it. The rise of blogs themselves attests tc this theory. Small papers don&#039;t learn blog thinking, I believe, they ARE the same as blog mentality, and they have been for a lonq time.

Ideally those garrulous fargoans should have their table covered with papers. This is one way newspapers can survive internet death.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I would argue American papers were exactly community forums, and they were also freely partisan. Newspapers were very engaging &#8220;blogs&#8221; talking to each other and with the community. Factual accuracy was a problem, but firsthand reports and commentaries were frequent. Revolutionary papers and letters (public read what we now consider private) read much like political blogs today.</p>
<p>Things didn&#8217;t really get national and sensational until the 1870&#8217;s&#8230; and despite the NYT modelinq professional form, all really went downhill from there, I believe.</p>
<p>I argue blog mentality is not new, and it seems to appear &#8220;naturally&#8221; until corrupt it. The rise of blogs themselves attests tc this theory. Small papers don&#8217;t learn blog thinking, I believe, they ARE the same as blog mentality, and they have been for a lonq time.</p>
<p>Ideally those garrulous fargoans should have their table covered with papers. This is one way newspapers can survive internet death.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
