<?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:media="http://search.yahoo.com/mrss/"
	>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: The power-journalism nexus</title>
	<atom:link href="http://blogs.reuters.com/felix-salmon/2009/05/04/the-power-journalism-nexus/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://blogs.reuters.com/felix-salmon/2009/05/04/the-power-journalism-nexus/</link>
	<description>A slice of lime in the soda</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Tue, 18 Jun 2013 21:59:52 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.4.2</generator>
	<item>
		<title>By: Alexis Nicasio</title>
		<link>http://blogs.reuters.com/felix-salmon/2009/05/04/the-power-journalism-nexus/comment-page-1/#comment-1249</link>
		<dc:creator>Alexis Nicasio</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 05 May 2009 12:37:55 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blogs.reuters.com/felix-salmon/2009/05/04/the-power-journalism-nexus/#comment-1249</guid>
		<description>Even if we shift more towards journalistic capture, at least dismissing anonymice will move away from journalists using anonymous quotes to express their own views. That&#039;s what blogs are for with their incumbent greater audience skepticism. It will also make it easier to ask &#039;cui bono&#039; if anonymous quotes are used more sparely. Having higher standards for anonymous quoting may even help journalists themselves, if not to get quotes then to have a leg to stand on when they ask why someone has to be anonymous and the context of the leak. That helps to reduce manipulation of the media and can clue journalists in to what the bigger story might be, respectively.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Even if we shift more towards journalistic capture, at least dismissing anonymice will move away from journalists using anonymous quotes to express their own views. That&#8217;s what blogs are for with their incumbent greater audience skepticism. It will also make it easier to ask &#8216;cui bono&#8217; if anonymous quotes are used more sparely. Having higher standards for anonymous quoting may even help journalists themselves, if not to get quotes then to have a leg to stand on when they ask why someone has to be anonymous and the context of the leak. That helps to reduce manipulation of the media and can clue journalists in to what the bigger story might be, respectively.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
