<?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"
	>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: The blogosphere is growing up</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.mathewingram.com/work/2006/02/09/the-blogosphere-is-growing-up/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.mathewingram.com/work/2006/02/09/the-blogosphere-is-growing-up/</link>
	<description>... at the intersection of media, technology, business and the web</description>
	<pubDate>Thu, 04 Dec 2008 08:19:04 +0000</pubDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.6.2</generator>
		<item>
		<title>By: globeandmail.com: Ingram: We need power, Scotty!</title>
		<link>http://www.mathewingram.com/work/2006/02/09/the-blogosphere-is-growing-up/#comment-76032</link>
		<dc:creator>globeandmail.com: Ingram: We need power, Scotty!</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 30 Oct 2006 01:16:18 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.mathewingram.com/work/index.php/2006/02/09/the-blogosphere-is-growing-up/#comment-76032</guid>
		<description>&lt;!--%kramer-ref-pre%--&gt;[...]  [...]&lt;!--%kramer-ref-post%--&gt;</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><!--%kramer-ref-pre%-->[...]  [...]<!--%kramer-ref-post%--></p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: robhyndman.com</title>
		<link>http://www.mathewingram.com/work/2006/02/09/the-blogosphere-is-growing-up/#comment-374</link>
		<dc:creator>robhyndman.com</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 09 Feb 2006 22:47:42 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.mathewingram.com/work/index.php/2006/02/09/the-blogosphere-is-growing-up/#comment-374</guid>
		<description>[...] At the time, I was startled by the scope and immediacy of the A list coverage - partly because it was so obviously well-engineered, but also because I sensed it was perhaps hasty for those involved to get so on the bandwagon so quickly. Now a controversy has bubbled up over whether some of those bloggers adequately disclosed their interest in the venture (as one would generally be required to under the usual editorial requirements of mainstream media). I&#8217;ve no doubt that all of this was quite innocently done and well-intentioned - FON is, after all, a really cool idea. But the disclosure issue is a fascinating one that highlights the growing pains of this new media form. Mathew Ingram of the Globe covers the issue in some detail in his post &#8220;The blogosphere is growing up&#8220;, as does Mark Evans of the Post - two observers who are quite familiar with the world of editorial oversight. [...]</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[...] At the time, I was startled by the scope and immediacy of the A list coverage - partly because it was so obviously well-engineered, but also because I sensed it was perhaps hasty for those involved to get so on the bandwagon so quickly. Now a controversy has bubbled up over whether some of those bloggers adequately disclosed their interest in the venture (as one would generally be required to under the usual editorial requirements of mainstream media). I&#8217;ve no doubt that all of this was quite innocently done and well-intentioned - FON is, after all, a really cool idea. But the disclosure issue is a fascinating one that highlights the growing pains of this new media form. Mathew Ingram of the Globe covers the issue in some detail in his post &#8220;The blogosphere is growing up&#8220;, as does Mark Evans of the Post - two observers who are quite familiar with the world of editorial oversight. [...]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Stuart MacDonald</title>
		<link>http://www.mathewingram.com/work/2006/02/09/the-blogosphere-is-growing-up/#comment-369</link>
		<dc:creator>Stuart MacDonald</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 09 Feb 2006 19:40:04 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.mathewingram.com/work/index.php/2006/02/09/the-blogosphere-is-growing-up/#comment-369</guid>
		<description>It's more a comment that the lack of oversight inherently means that the possibility of doing something which calls ones judgement into question is higher.There's no "second password" to enter. I think that risk is part and parcel of a blog. Heck, smaller scale, but I've sure sent out a few 3am emails that I wish had never left my Drafts, and I'm pretty sure I'm not alone. Same principle.

-- Stuart</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>It&#8217;s more a comment that the lack of oversight inherently means that the possibility of doing something which calls ones judgement into question is higher.There&#8217;s no &#8220;second password&#8221; to enter. I think that risk is part and parcel of a blog. Heck, smaller scale, but I&#8217;ve sure sent out a few 3am emails that I wish had never left my Drafts, and I&#8217;m pretty sure I&#8217;m not alone. Same principle.</p>
<p>&#8211; Stuart</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Mathew</title>
		<link>http://www.mathewingram.com/work/2006/02/09/the-blogosphere-is-growing-up/#comment-368</link>
		<dc:creator>Mathew</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 09 Feb 2006 19:08:09 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.mathewingram.com/work/index.php/2006/02/09/the-blogosphere-is-growing-up/#comment-368</guid>
		<description>That's a fair point, Stuart.  Some form of oversight is definitely worthwhile -- and more blogs could probably benefit from a little of that.  At the same time, however, newspapers and other traditional media often get carried away with this principle and become almost paralyzed by the perceived pressure to always be "objective."  And I think somewhere in the middle there is a happy medium.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>That&#8217;s a fair point, Stuart.  Some form of oversight is definitely worthwhile &#8212; and more blogs could probably benefit from a little of that.  At the same time, however, newspapers and other traditional media often get carried away with this principle and become almost paralyzed by the perceived pressure to always be &#8220;objective.&#8221;  And I think somewhere in the middle there is a happy medium.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Stuart MacDonald</title>
		<link>http://www.mathewingram.com/work/2006/02/09/the-blogosphere-is-growing-up/#comment-367</link>
		<dc:creator>Stuart MacDonald</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 09 Feb 2006 18:43:07 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.mathewingram.com/work/index.php/2006/02/09/the-blogosphere-is-growing-up/#comment-367</guid>
		<description>Ya know, I can't help but go back to some of the "future of media" stuff we talked about a while back. To recap, one core value of traditional media is Editorial Oversight. Now, say what you will about how that skews voices, or how reporters have an obligation to Fight The Man, or how it slows everything down etc. but fact is, you at least get a second set of eyes and the opportunity for sobre second thought before hitting "post".

Sobre second thought isn't just fact checking -- it's also a reality check on the ethics involved, isn't it? Doesn't the lack of same reduce the ability of the medium to go mainstream?

-- Stuart</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Ya know, I can&#8217;t help but go back to some of the &#8220;future of media&#8221; stuff we talked about a while back. To recap, one core value of traditional media is Editorial Oversight. Now, say what you will about how that skews voices, or how reporters have an obligation to Fight The Man, or how it slows everything down etc. but fact is, you at least get a second set of eyes and the opportunity for sobre second thought before hitting &#8220;post&#8221;.</p>
<p>Sobre second thought isn&#8217;t just fact checking &#8212; it&#8217;s also a reality check on the ethics involved, isn&#8217;t it? Doesn&#8217;t the lack of same reduce the ability of the medium to go mainstream?</p>
<p>&#8211; Stuart</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
