<?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: we the media available online</title>
	<atom:link href="http://gigaom.com/2004/08/17/we_the_media_av/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://gigaom.com/2004/08/17/we_the_media_av/</link>
	<description></description>
	<lastBuildDate>Wed, 19 Jun 2013 20:06:40 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.com/</generator>
	<item>
		<title>By: jk</title>
		<link>http://gigaom.com/2004/08/17/we_the_media_av/#comment-35506</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[jk]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 17 Aug 2004 14:52:34 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://jkontherun.wordpress.com/2004/08/17/we_the_media_av#comment-35506</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[
        Excellent articles, Joe.  It&#039;s an interesting subject and people either come down firmly on one side or the other.  I guess if media editors (read bloggers or web site editors) don&#039;t like the in-content ads then they don&#039;t have to deal with them.  No one is forcing them to use them.  As readers or consumers we often forget a phrase I find myself saying more and more often recently- vote with your wallet.  Don&#039;t patronize those sites and most importantly tell the site owner why.  Advertising is totally dependent on the consumer and last time I checked, that&#039;s us.  Thanks for the thought-provoking post!
      ]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>        Excellent articles, Joe.  It&#8217;s an interesting subject and people either come down firmly on one side or the other.  I guess if media editors (read bloggers or web site editors) don&#8217;t like the in-content ads then they don&#8217;t have to deal with them.  No one is forcing them to use them.  As readers or consumers we often forget a phrase I find myself saying more and more often recently- vote with your wallet.  Don&#8217;t patronize those sites and most importantly tell the site owner why.  Advertising is totally dependent on the consumer and last time I checked, that&#8217;s us.  Thanks for the thought-provoking post!</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Joe</title>
		<link>http://gigaom.com/2004/08/17/we_the_media_av/#comment-35507</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Joe]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 17 Aug 2004 14:44:12 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://jkontherun.wordpress.com/2004/08/17/we_the_media_av#comment-35507</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Very interesting read. There has been quite a bit of discussion recently on the effect of advertising on journalism in this new era of electronic publishing. Most of the controversy surrounds the use of so-called &quot;contextual advertising&quot; that attaches &quot;relevant  links&quot; to certain keywords. These links, instead of going from the original article to further sources of information, send viewers to advertiser pages.

Forbes.com has already adopted it in this form, and other blogs and e-dailies have been  adopting equally questionable forms of advertising. Some have even begun selling advertising within editorial comment, which, while not particularly original to this media, is nonetheless a slap in the face of ethical journalism.

A few links to current stories:

&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.themediadrop.com/archives/000872.php&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http://www.themediadrop.com/archives/000872.php&lt;/a&gt;
&lt;a href=&quot;http://calacanis.weblogsinc.com/entry/5292200332243965/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http://calacanis.weblogsinc.com/entry/5292200332243965/&lt;/a&gt;
&lt;a href=&quot;http://online.wsj.com/article/0,,SB109201079498686136,00.html?mod=mm%5Fhs%5Fadvertising&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http://online.wsj.com/article/0,,SB109201079498686136,00.html?mod=mm%5Fhs%5Fadvertising&lt;/a&gt; (subscription required)

Wired also posted a rather poorly done article on the subject recently, but the others above are far more interesting.]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Very interesting read. There has been quite a bit of discussion recently on the effect of advertising on journalism in this new era of electronic publishing. Most of the controversy surrounds the use of so-called &#8220;contextual advertising&#8221; that attaches &#8220;relevant  links&#8221; to certain keywords. These links, instead of going from the original article to further sources of information, send viewers to advertiser pages.</p>
<p>Forbes.com has already adopted it in this form, and other blogs and e-dailies have been  adopting equally questionable forms of advertising. Some have even begun selling advertising within editorial comment, which, while not particularly original to this media, is nonetheless a slap in the face of ethical journalism.</p>
<p>A few links to current stories:</p>
<p><a href="http://www.themediadrop.com/archives/000872.php" rel="nofollow">http://www.themediadrop.com/archives/000872.php</a><br />
<a href="http://calacanis.weblogsinc.com/entry/5292200332243965/" rel="nofollow">http://calacanis.weblogsinc.com/entry/5292200332243965/</a><br />
<a href="http://online.wsj.com/article/0,,SB109201079498686136,00.html?mod=mm%5Fhs%5Fadvertising" rel="nofollow"></a><a href="http://online.wsj.com/article/0" rel="nofollow">http://online.wsj.com/article/0</a>,,SB109201079498686136,00.html?mod=mm%5Fhs%5Fadvertising (subscription required)</p>
<p>Wired also posted a rather poorly done article on the subject recently, but the others above are far more interesting.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
