<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><!-- generator="wordpress/2.3.3" -->
<rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Disaster in Sichuan</title>
	<link>http://blogs.reuters.com/china/2008/05/21/disaster-in-sichuan/</link>
	<description>The Reuters Olympic Blog</description>
	<pubDate>Sun, 12 Oct 2008 23:59:33 +0000</pubDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.3.3</generator>
		<item>
		<title>By: John Lamb</title>
		<link>http://blogs.reuters.com/china/2008/05/21/disaster-in-sichuan/#comment-647</link>
		<dc:creator>John Lamb</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 25 Jun 2008 06:06:24 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid>http://blogs.reuters.com/china/2008/05/21/disaster-in-sichuan/#comment-647</guid>
		<description>"...and if the almost incessant criticism of China now ends, or at least abates for a while."

Mr. Blanchard seems to have reopened the floodgates with his poor reporting of the mosque being demolished.  Why is it only one side of the story ever come to light?  And it's always the side that seems to be sensualized.  

I am not the reporter here, so go and find out what the other 'real' reasons may be why that mosque was demolished.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>&#8220;&#8230;and if the almost incessant criticism of China now ends, or at least abates for a while.&#8221;</p>
<p>Mr. Blanchard seems to have reopened the floodgates with his poor reporting of the mosque being demolished.  Why is it only one side of the story ever come to light?  And it&#8217;s always the side that seems to be sensualized.  </p>
<p>I am not the reporter here, so go and find out what the other &#8216;real&#8217; reasons may be why that mosque was demolished.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
