<?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: Washington Post, Social Networks and Transparency</title>
	<atom:link href="http://mediactive.com/2009/09/30/washington-post-social-networks-and-transparency/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://mediactive.com/2009/09/30/washington-post-social-networks-and-transparency/</link>
	<description>Creating a User&#039;s Guide to Democratized Media</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Tue, 07 Feb 2012 01:41:12 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1</generator>
	<item>
		<title>By: Mindy McAdams</title>
		<link>http://mediactive.com/2009/09/30/washington-post-social-networks-and-transparency/#comment-998</link>
		<dc:creator>Mindy McAdams</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 11 Nov 2009 22:33:14 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://mediactive.com/?p=604#comment-998</guid>
		<description>Re: &quot;I wish that U.S. news organizations would drop the pretense of being impartial and having no world view. There’s no conflict between having a world view and doing great journalism.&quot; 

I agree, and I wish we could say this in rooms full of journalists without eliciting gasps of horror. Well, maybe I elicit gasps because I usually say, &quot;I don&#039;t believe in objectivity.&quot; I should learn to be more subtle. 

Still, why can&#039;t we say trying one&#039;s best to be fair, to be accurate, to be complete, are better goals -- better for the public, and better for the journalism -- than filling in a lot of he-said-she-said to create a facade of objectivity?

More transparency -- from individual journalists as well as from journalism organizations -- would make journalism better, and would be a big step toward restoring the credibility that has been lost.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Re: &#8220;I wish that U.S. news organizations would drop the pretense of being impartial and having no world view. There’s no conflict between having a world view and doing great journalism.&#8221; </p>
<p>I agree, and I wish we could say this in rooms full of journalists without eliciting gasps of horror. Well, maybe I elicit gasps because I usually say, &#8220;I don&#8217;t believe in objectivity.&#8221; I should learn to be more subtle. </p>
<p>Still, why can&#8217;t we say trying one&#8217;s best to be fair, to be accurate, to be complete, are better goals &#8212; better for the public, and better for the journalism &#8212; than filling in a lot of he-said-she-said to create a facade of objectivity?</p>
<p>More transparency &#8212; from individual journalists as well as from journalism organizations &#8212; would make journalism better, and would be a big step toward restoring the credibility that has been lost.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>

