<?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:georss="http://www.georss.org/georss" xmlns:geo="http://www.w3.org/2003/01/geo/wgs84_pos#" xmlns:media="http://search.yahoo.com/mrss/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: The Missing Link?</title>
	<atom:link href="http://amyandrew.wordpress.com/2008/12/28/linking/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://amyandrew.wordpress.com/2008/12/28/linking/</link>
	<description>Newspaper and Online Journalist</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Tue, 03 Mar 2009 14:53:48 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.com/</generator>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
		<item>
		<title>By: Adam Hall</title>
		<link>http://amyandrew.wordpress.com/2008/12/28/linking/#comment-15</link>
		<dc:creator>Adam Hall</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 12 Jan 2009 22:24:49 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://amyandrew.wordpress.com/?p=156#comment-15</guid>
		<description>Without a journalism degree behind me, my knowledge is somewhat limited but could it not be argued that &#039;the chosen few&#039; are what have led us to this point. As you suggest, using a term which I have never heard before but find remarkably intriguing, &#039;churnalism&#039; and the idea of free speech combined with the internet means that everyone can have a say on current events, the past and the future. However, &#039;the chosen few&#039; arguably give us fresh arguments and ideas whereas the &#039;churnalists&#039; give a different spin on already expressed ideas. This is not to suggest that local journalists do not have often interesting and new arguments, but with respect to national issues, how can when the information is so widely publicised and read, the influence of &#039;the chosen few&#039; not filter down into the arguments of local journalists. This may lend itself to the growth of the aforementioned churnalism.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Without a journalism degree behind me, my knowledge is somewhat limited but could it not be argued that &#8216;the chosen few&#8217; are what have led us to this point. As you suggest, using a term which I have never heard before but find remarkably intriguing, &#8216;churnalism&#8217; and the idea of free speech combined with the internet means that everyone can have a say on current events, the past and the future. However, &#8216;the chosen few&#8217; arguably give us fresh arguments and ideas whereas the &#8216;churnalists&#8217; give a different spin on already expressed ideas. This is not to suggest that local journalists do not have often interesting and new arguments, but with respect to national issues, how can when the information is so widely publicised and read, the influence of &#8216;the chosen few&#8217; not filter down into the arguments of local journalists. This may lend itself to the growth of the aforementioned churnalism.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: amyandrew</title>
		<link>http://amyandrew.wordpress.com/2008/12/28/linking/#comment-13</link>
		<dc:creator>amyandrew</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 11 Jan 2009 08:55:48 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://amyandrew.wordpress.com/?p=156#comment-13</guid>
		<description>That is an interesting point, and we should certainly be careful about relying too heavily on &#039;the chosen few&#039;. 
I absolutely agree with you; the beauty of the Internet is that it offers us information and views which before now weren&#039;t available. News industries haven&#039;t had to take on board direct criticism/interaction from their readers to this extent, and I for one celebrate such changes! 
Waghorn&#039;s idea is to promote interchanging multimedia so local journalism can keep afloat, but whether or not this can work is debatable, for just these reasons.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>That is an interesting point, and we should certainly be careful about relying too heavily on &#8216;the chosen few&#8217;.<br />
I absolutely agree with you; the beauty of the Internet is that it offers us information and views which before now weren&#8217;t available. News industries haven&#8217;t had to take on board direct criticism/interaction from their readers to this extent, and I for one celebrate such changes!<br />
Waghorn&#8217;s idea is to promote interchanging multimedia so local journalism can keep afloat, but whether or not this can work is debatable, for just these reasons.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Robin</title>
		<link>http://amyandrew.wordpress.com/2008/12/28/linking/#comment-12</link>
		<dc:creator>Robin</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 01 Jan 2009 16:20:27 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://amyandrew.wordpress.com/?p=156#comment-12</guid>
		<description>The thing about Robert Preston is that every dog has its day. Todays  expert is tomorrow&#039;s pundit and the day after tomorrow&#039;s  has been.  Its easy to be smart but I wonder where Preston has invested his money in the last 18 moths - where does he bank ? think of George Soros who has forgotten more than Preston ever knew about financial success - Soros invested in Lehman Bros weeks before they went to the wall. If experts know so much about where the stock market and where  the financial world is going why aren&#039;t they all millionaires ? The same ith the football pools - if experts were always right Littlewoods would have been bankrupt 50 years ago. Some have the humility to recognise this ( see Anatole Kaletsky ). Frankly anyone who writes intelligently and with some humility is worth reading, and there are lots of those, lots can do it and no one should be put off by reputations.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>The thing about Robert Preston is that every dog has its day. Todays  expert is tomorrow&#8217;s pundit and the day after tomorrow&#8217;s  has been.  Its easy to be smart but I wonder where Preston has invested his money in the last 18 moths &#8211; where does he bank ? think of George Soros who has forgotten more than Preston ever knew about financial success &#8211; Soros invested in Lehman Bros weeks before they went to the wall. If experts know so much about where the stock market and where  the financial world is going why aren&#8217;t they all millionaires ? The same ith the football pools &#8211; if experts were always right Littlewoods would have been bankrupt 50 years ago. Some have the humility to recognise this ( see Anatole Kaletsky ). Frankly anyone who writes intelligently and with some humility is worth reading, and there are lots of those, lots can do it and no one should be put off by reputations.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
