<?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: Internet freedom prevails over Guardian gag order</title>
	<atom:link href="http://blogs.reuters.com/great-debate-uk/2009/10/13/internet-freedom-prevails-over-guardian-gag-order/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://blogs.reuters.com/great-debate-uk/2009/10/13/internet-freedom-prevails-over-guardian-gag-order/</link>
	<description></description>
	<lastBuildDate>Fri, 17 May 2013 23:26:08 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.4.2</generator>
	<item>
		<title>By: Ian Kemmish</title>
		<link>http://blogs.reuters.com/great-debate-uk/2009/10/13/internet-freedom-prevails-over-guardian-gag-order/comment-page-1/#comment-7510</link>
		<dc:creator>Ian Kemmish</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 18 Oct 2009 10:18:38 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blogs.reuters.com/great-debate-uk/?p=3669#comment-7510</guid>
		<description>Citiboy - well, naturally Ian Hislop wouldn&#039;t be funny if he was impartial; that&#039;s the essence of satire.  And if you wave an environmental story anywhere near the Guardian&#039;s op-ed team the results are pretty much a foregone conclusion.  My point was merely that, having already established that the lawyers were not being exactly bright, they were also demonstrating normal human nature.

Yes, in an ideal journalistic world, I&#039;d like to see someone of the stature of John Simpson ferreting about on the ground gathering real evidence, and not taking either side&#039;s word for granted.  But those days appear to be behind us, and social media are a poor substitute.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Citiboy &#8211; well, naturally Ian Hislop wouldn&#8217;t be funny if he was impartial; that&#8217;s the essence of satire.  And if you wave an environmental story anywhere near the Guardian&#8217;s op-ed team the results are pretty much a foregone conclusion.  My point was merely that, having already established that the lawyers were not being exactly bright, they were also demonstrating normal human nature.</p>
<p>Yes, in an ideal journalistic world, I&#8217;d like to see someone of the stature of John Simpson ferreting about on the ground gathering real evidence, and not taking either side&#8217;s word for granted.  But those days appear to be behind us, and social media are a poor substitute.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Citiboy</title>
		<link>http://blogs.reuters.com/great-debate-uk/2009/10/13/internet-freedom-prevails-over-guardian-gag-order/comment-page-1/#comment-7444</link>
		<dc:creator>Citiboy</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 15 Oct 2009 07:48:13 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blogs.reuters.com/great-debate-uk/?p=3669#comment-7444</guid>
		<description>Good point about Hansard, Ian. But what do you mean by your comment that &quot;At least one of which has a record of partiality in the reporting of the Trafigura affair&quot;. 
If you mean the Guardian and Private Eye don&#039;t just publish the line put out by the company&#039;s spin doctors then, that&#039;s a good thing - right? Or perhaps you would prefer that we only ever get to hear the spin?</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Good point about Hansard, Ian. But what do you mean by your comment that &#8220;At least one of which has a record of partiality in the reporting of the Trafigura affair&#8221;.<br />
If you mean the Guardian and Private Eye don&#8217;t just publish the line put out by the company&#8217;s spin doctors then, that&#8217;s a good thing &#8211; right? Or perhaps you would prefer that we only ever get to hear the spin?</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Glenn</title>
		<link>http://blogs.reuters.com/great-debate-uk/2009/10/13/internet-freedom-prevails-over-guardian-gag-order/comment-page-1/#comment-7441</link>
		<dc:creator>Glenn</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 15 Oct 2009 04:20:44 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blogs.reuters.com/great-debate-uk/?p=3669#comment-7441</guid>
		<description>and yet you seem afraid to even mention what the question had been.. ?</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>and yet you seem afraid to even mention what the question had been.. ?</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Ian Lowe</title>
		<link>http://blogs.reuters.com/great-debate-uk/2009/10/13/internet-freedom-prevails-over-guardian-gag-order/comment-page-1/#comment-7418</link>
		<dc:creator>Ian Lowe</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 14 Oct 2009 06:44:34 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blogs.reuters.com/great-debate-uk/?p=3669#comment-7418</guid>
		<description>People who use social media are too lazy and/or stupid?

What an absolutely moronic thing to say - as even a moments casual interaction will show, social media users represent a cross section of the populace: and that cross section will include people that are significantly more active and intelligent than your good self!

in this instance, Twitter and the blogosphere have acted like a fire alarm, calling attention to Carter Ruck&#039;s obnoxious conduct - the real work now begins in writing to MPs, lobbying parliament and no doubt directly confronting Carter Ruck.

Social Media are a tool - and an exceptionally useful tool at that - for people to empower their lives. 

Your participation is not required.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>People who use social media are too lazy and/or stupid?</p>
<p>What an absolutely moronic thing to say &#8211; as even a moments casual interaction will show, social media users represent a cross section of the populace: and that cross section will include people that are significantly more active and intelligent than your good self!</p>
<p>in this instance, Twitter and the blogosphere have acted like a fire alarm, calling attention to Carter Ruck&#8217;s obnoxious conduct &#8211; the real work now begins in writing to MPs, lobbying parliament and no doubt directly confronting Carter Ruck.</p>
<p>Social Media are a tool &#8211; and an exceptionally useful tool at that &#8211; for people to empower their lives. </p>
<p>Your participation is not required.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Orgizmo</title>
		<link>http://blogs.reuters.com/great-debate-uk/2009/10/13/internet-freedom-prevails-over-guardian-gag-order/comment-page-1/#comment-7404</link>
		<dc:creator>Orgizmo</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 13 Oct 2009 17:56:09 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blogs.reuters.com/great-debate-uk/?p=3669#comment-7404</guid>
		<description>You gotta love the internet, it&#039;s like a tv with billions of channels and a book had a love child.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>You gotta love the internet, it&#8217;s like a tv with billions of channels and a book had a love child.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Ian Kemmish</title>
		<link>http://blogs.reuters.com/great-debate-uk/2009/10/13/internet-freedom-prevails-over-guardian-gag-order/comment-page-1/#comment-7403</link>
		<dc:creator>Ian Kemmish</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 13 Oct 2009 17:16:37 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blogs.reuters.com/great-debate-uk/?p=3669#comment-7403</guid>
		<description>All this proves is that people who use social media are too lazy and/or stupid to go and find a copy of Hansard for themselves.  The content of a tabled question is not, and to the best of my knowledge never has been, secret.  The lawyers seeking the injunction were certainly every bit as as stupid as the people trying to defeat it without going through the courts, but the injunction itself wasn&#039;t really that important - it did after all reportedly only name two publications.  At least one of which has a record of partiality in the reporting of the Trafigura affair.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>All this proves is that people who use social media are too lazy and/or stupid to go and find a copy of Hansard for themselves.  The content of a tabled question is not, and to the best of my knowledge never has been, secret.  The lawyers seeking the injunction were certainly every bit as as stupid as the people trying to defeat it without going through the courts, but the injunction itself wasn&#8217;t really that important &#8211; it did after all reportedly only name two publications.  At least one of which has a record of partiality in the reporting of the Trafigura affair.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
