<?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"
	>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: We Media</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.buzzmachine.com/2006/05/03/we-media/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.buzzmachine.com/2006/05/03/we-media/</link>
	<description>by Jeff Jarvis</description>
	<pubDate>Wed, 03 Dec 2008 07:35:04 +0000</pubDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.5.1</generator>
		<item>
		<title>By: Mentoring Worldwide &#187; Blog Archive &#187; Don&#8217;t speak! Point! (thanks to Ethan)</title>
		<link>http://www.buzzmachine.com/2006/05/03/we-media/#comment-66562</link>
		<dc:creator>Mentoring Worldwide &#187; Blog Archive &#187; Don&#8217;t speak! Point! (thanks to Ethan)</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 08 Jun 2006 18:26:24 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.buzzmachine.com/index.php/2006/05/03/we-media/#comment-66562</guid>
		<description>[...] Amongst the speakers Howard Rheingold and Paul Saffo put the politics back in the mix for which I was grateful. Amy Goodman was a revelation to me and a breath of fresh US air as we don&#8217;t get Democracy Now in the UK. Ethan Zuckerman (sharing a platform with Dan Gillmor and Hong Euan Tek) when asked in their session about citizens media by some bright spark whether Editors were still relevant. managed to summarise in one nifty line &#8221; Don&#8217;t speak. Point!&#8221; everything the WE MEDIA conference didn&#8217;t manage to say in two days. &#8220;Point to People and get out of the way!&#8221; the old days of advocay as speaking on &#8220;behalf of people&#8221; are so over. The way I see the role of the Mainstream Media in the debate about user-generated content and the blogosphere is to be a decent facilitator or moderator. It&#8217;s hard for an editor to change herself/himeself into a facilitator the skills come from different mindsets &#8230;but some are having a go. We talk about this a lot at the BBC where I work and now it&#8217;s time for the walk. [...]</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[...] Amongst the speakers Howard Rheingold and Paul Saffo put the politics back in the mix for which I was grateful. Amy Goodman was a revelation to me and a breath of fresh US air as we don&#8217;t get Democracy Now in the UK. Ethan Zuckerman (sharing a platform with Dan Gillmor and Hong Euan Tek) when asked in their session about citizens media by some bright spark whether Editors were still relevant. managed to summarise in one nifty line &#8221; Don&#8217;t speak. Point!&#8221; everything the WE MEDIA conference didn&#8217;t manage to say in two days. &#8220;Point to People and get out of the way!&#8221; the old days of advocay as speaking on &#8220;behalf of people&#8221; are so over. The way I see the role of the Mainstream Media in the debate about user-generated content and the blogosphere is to be a decent facilitator or moderator. It&#8217;s hard for an editor to change herself/himeself into a facilitator the skills come from different mindsets &#8230;but some are having a go. We talk about this a lot at the BBC where I work and now it&#8217;s time for the walk. [...]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: MediaBlog &#187; PopUp - een tussenbericht</title>
		<link>http://www.buzzmachine.com/2006/05/03/we-media/#comment-46095</link>
		<dc:creator>MediaBlog &#187; PopUp - een tussenbericht</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 11 May 2006 21:37:46 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.buzzmachine.com/index.php/2006/05/03/we-media/#comment-46095</guid>
		<description>[...] Laat ik er wat highlights uithalen. Rijp en groen. Heb Blogonomics gemist, maar zag dat Peter Olsthoorn in Netkwesties een goed overzichtverhaal heeft gemaakt, waarin hij nog maar eens opnieuw een boom opzet over de journalistieke kwaliteit van weblogs, een onderwerp dat ook al eerder op MediaBlog aan de orde kwam (hier en hier). Dat thema ook in een verhaal van De Nieuwe Reporter over de We Media-conferentie. En nog meer bij Jeff Jarvis van BuzzMachine (en nog meer. [...]</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[...] Laat ik er wat highlights uithalen. Rijp en groen. Heb Blogonomics gemist, maar zag dat Peter Olsthoorn in Netkwesties een goed overzichtverhaal heeft gemaakt, waarin hij nog maar eens opnieuw een boom opzet over de journalistieke kwaliteit van weblogs, een onderwerp dat ook al eerder op MediaBlog aan de orde kwam (hier en hier). Dat thema ook in een verhaal van De Nieuwe Reporter over de We Media-conferentie. En nog meer bij Jeff Jarvis van BuzzMachine (en nog meer. [...]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: eon &#187; WE media</title>
		<link>http://www.buzzmachine.com/2006/05/03/we-media/#comment-45948</link>
		<dc:creator>eon &#187; WE media</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 11 May 2006 15:24:15 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.buzzmachine.com/index.php/2006/05/03/we-media/#comment-45948</guid>
		<description>[...] *** &#8220;WE Media announces a survey on trust in various media in 10 countries. But the problem is, as David Schlesinger of Reuters said after it was presented, it is a mistake to concentrate on media. Itâ€™s absurd to say that you trust or donâ€™t trust an entire medium: Do you trust books? Do you trust British people?&#8221; right on [...]</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[...] *** &#8220;WE Media announces a survey on trust in various media in 10 countries. But the problem is, as David Schlesinger of Reuters said after it was presented, it is a mistake to concentrate on media. Itâ€™s absurd to say that you trust or donâ€™t trust an entire medium: Do you trust books? Do you trust British people?&#8221; right on [...]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: eon &#187; we media</title>
		<link>http://www.buzzmachine.com/2006/05/03/we-media/#comment-44649</link>
		<dc:creator>eon &#187; we media</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 07 May 2006 10:48:15 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.buzzmachine.com/index.php/2006/05/03/we-media/#comment-44649</guid>
		<description>[...] right on [...]</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[...] right on [...]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: The Big Cod</title>
		<link>http://www.buzzmachine.com/2006/05/03/we-media/#comment-44258</link>
		<dc:creator>The Big Cod</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 05 May 2006 15:04:21 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.buzzmachine.com/index.php/2006/05/03/we-media/#comment-44258</guid>
		<description>&lt;i&gt;The BBC, Reuters, Al Jazeera and Richard Dreyfusâ€¦.. howâ€™s that for an anti-American lovefest. Itâ€™s an assemblage of the least trusted media corporations on the planet.&lt;/i&gt;

Yes, this would be to conflate the tiny community of bloggers who go on about &lt;i&gt;"moonbats"&lt;/i&gt; and &lt;i&gt;"fisking"&lt;/i&gt; with "the planet".</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><i>The BBC, Reuters, Al Jazeera and Richard Dreyfusâ€¦.. howâ€™s that for an anti-American lovefest. Itâ€™s an assemblage of the least trusted media corporations on the planet.</i></p>
<p>Yes, this would be to conflate the tiny community of bloggers who go on about <i>&#8220;moonbats&#8221;</i> and <i>&#8220;fisking&#8221;</i> with &#8220;the planet&#8221;.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: bit torrent</title>
		<link>http://www.buzzmachine.com/2006/05/03/we-media/#comment-44087</link>
		<dc:creator>bit torrent</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 04 May 2006 22:41:48 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.buzzmachine.com/index.php/2006/05/03/we-media/#comment-44087</guid>
		<description>&#62; The BBC, Reuters, Al Jazeera and Richard Dreyfusâ€¦..
&#62; howâ€™s that for an anti-American lovefest.

&#62; Itâ€™s an assemblage of the least trusted media corporations 
&#62; on the planet.

Sorry Penny you are way out of order with that comment. The BBC is one of the most trusted news sources in the world. Many Americans turn to the Beeb too.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>&gt; The BBC, Reuters, Al Jazeera and Richard Dreyfusâ€¦..<br />
&gt; howâ€™s that for an anti-American lovefest.</p>
<p>&gt; Itâ€™s an assemblage of the least trusted media corporations<br />
&gt; on the planet.</p>
<p>Sorry Penny you are way out of order with that comment. The BBC is one of the most trusted news sources in the world. Many Americans turn to the Beeb too.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Will Pollard</title>
		<link>http://www.buzzmachine.com/2006/05/03/we-media/#comment-43930</link>
		<dc:creator>Will Pollard</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 04 May 2006 08:26:21 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.buzzmachine.com/index.php/2006/05/03/we-media/#comment-43930</guid>
		<description>Jeff,

"Transparency" that sounds good. So why is the al Jazeera memo subject to the Official Secrets Act? why is there not the same energy to get this published that there is to get the Davos tape?

Bertrand Pecquerie surely has a good point in saying that the policy to target journalists is where the story should be, not whether someone has made a statement outside what US media consider normal.

I have put similar points in stories for OhmyNews.

http://english.ohmynews.com/articleview/article_view.asp?article_class=3&#38;no=289490&#38;rel_no=1 

http://english.ohmynews.com/articleview/article_view.asp?article_class=4&#38;no=289490&#38;rel_no=2 

Will</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Jeff,</p>
<p>&#8220;Transparency&#8221; that sounds good. So why is the al Jazeera memo subject to the Official Secrets Act? why is there not the same energy to get this published that there is to get the Davos tape?</p>
<p>Bertrand Pecquerie surely has a good point in saying that the policy to target journalists is where the story should be, not whether someone has made a statement outside what US media consider normal.</p>
<p>I have put similar points in stories for OhmyNews.</p>
<p><a href="http://english.ohmynews.com/articleview/article_view.asp?article_class=3&amp;no=289490&amp;rel_no=1" rel="nofollow">http://english.ohmynews.com/articleview/article_view.asp?article_class=3&amp;no=289490&amp;rel_no=1</a> </p>
<p><a href="http://english.ohmynews.com/articleview/article_view.asp?article_class=4&amp;no=289490&amp;rel_no=2" rel="nofollow">http://english.ohmynews.com/articleview/article_view.asp?article_class=4&amp;no=289490&amp;rel_no=2</a> </p>
<p>Will</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Jochen</title>
		<link>http://www.buzzmachine.com/2006/05/03/we-media/#comment-43923</link>
		<dc:creator>Jochen</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 04 May 2006 07:54:55 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.buzzmachine.com/index.php/2006/05/03/we-media/#comment-43923</guid>
		<description>Very good summary of what happened yesterday at a pretty lame, not at all inspiring forum.
But the thing that I'm still missing is the consideration of the wider audience, the public, the people in the street.
The discussion in the room represents only ~5% of the population. And yes, bloggers like to think they represent the people, but I think they are in no way different than the people on the panel. Just thinking about themselves as the we and the people on the street. ignoring that we're all only representing a minority. Not because of the digital divide, but of either the time divide or the interest divide (or maybe even intellectual divide).

I hope we get to more inspiring discussions today!</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Very good summary of what happened yesterday at a pretty lame, not at all inspiring forum.<br />
But the thing that I&#8217;m still missing is the consideration of the wider audience, the public, the people in the street.<br />
The discussion in the room represents only ~5% of the population. And yes, bloggers like to think they represent the people, but I think they are in no way different than the people on the panel. Just thinking about themselves as the we and the people on the street. ignoring that we&#8217;re all only representing a minority. Not because of the digital divide, but of either the time divide or the interest divide (or maybe even intellectual divide).</p>
<p>I hope we get to more inspiring discussions today!</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: sam</title>
		<link>http://www.buzzmachine.com/2006/05/03/we-media/#comment-43920</link>
		<dc:creator>sam</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 04 May 2006 07:47:20 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.buzzmachine.com/index.php/2006/05/03/we-media/#comment-43920</guid>
		<description>it goes without saying , that the area of trust attributed to the media has shrunk considerably . now-a-days , media has restricted it's political reporting , and , has entered into areas which were hitherto untouched . does'nyt this show , that over the years , the entire role and functioning of the media has changed , if not  radically , then , at least , partially.t</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>it goes without saying , that the area of trust attributed to the media has shrunk considerably . now-a-days , media has restricted it&#8217;s political reporting , and , has entered into areas which were hitherto untouched . does&#8217;nyt this show , that over the years , the entire role and functioning of the media has changed , if not  radically , then , at least , partially.t</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: g7uk &#187; The BBC, public participation and &#8216;user generated&#8217; content</title>
		<link>http://www.buzzmachine.com/2006/05/03/we-media/#comment-43865</link>
		<dc:creator>g7uk &#187; The BBC, public participation and &#8216;user generated&#8217; content</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 04 May 2006 03:02:54 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.buzzmachine.com/index.php/2006/05/03/we-media/#comment-43865</guid>
		<description>[...] I had to laugh today when one blogger at We Media revealed that the BBC hadn&#8217;t provided electrical sockets for people to plug their laptops into. They were sitting in one of the biggest studios at BBC Television Centre, surrounded by technology and electricity. But, once his laptop battery was flat, that would be the end of any blogging for him at this all-day event about &#8216;participatory media&#8217;. [...]</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[...] I had to laugh today when one blogger at We Media revealed that the BBC hadn&#8217;t provided electrical sockets for people to plug their laptops into. They were sitting in one of the biggest studios at BBC Television Centre, surrounded by technology and electricity. But, once his laptop battery was flat, that would be the end of any blogging for him at this all-day event about &#8216;participatory media&#8217;. [...]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: CaptiousNut</title>
		<link>http://www.buzzmachine.com/2006/05/03/we-media/#comment-43861</link>
		<dc:creator>CaptiousNut</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 04 May 2006 02:26:02 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.buzzmachine.com/index.php/2006/05/03/we-media/#comment-43861</guid>
		<description>Holy incoherence.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Holy incoherence.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: .M.</title>
		<link>http://www.buzzmachine.com/2006/05/03/we-media/#comment-43821</link>
		<dc:creator>.M.</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 03 May 2006 22:38:48 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.buzzmachine.com/index.php/2006/05/03/we-media/#comment-43821</guid>
		<description>Richard Dreyfuss and his screed, as you put it, may not have been welcome but I don't think it was either too long or irrelevent to the discussion. Most of the speakers today could have been discussing toasters for all the passion and credibility they conveyed. Play it safe guys! That'll solve it... I for one thought our "celebrity activist" did OK with a quietly hostile (and flat) crowd.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Richard Dreyfuss and his screed, as you put it, may not have been welcome but I don&#8217;t think it was either too long or irrelevent to the discussion. Most of the speakers today could have been discussing toasters for all the passion and credibility they conveyed. Play it safe guys! That&#8217;ll solve it&#8230; I for one thought our &#8220;celebrity activist&#8221; did OK with a quietly hostile (and flat) crowd.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: hugh macleod</title>
		<link>http://www.buzzmachine.com/2006/05/03/we-media/#comment-43804</link>
		<dc:creator>hugh macleod</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 03 May 2006 21:25:28 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.buzzmachine.com/index.php/2006/05/03/we-media/#comment-43804</guid>
		<description>I heard some of this on BBC World Service earlier today. Interesting to think it was broadcast around the world.

Sorry I missed you this time round,  Jeff. Next time =)</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I heard some of this on BBC World Service earlier today. Interesting to think it was broadcast around the world.</p>
<p>Sorry I missed you this time round,  Jeff. Next time =)</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Bobbie Johnson</title>
		<link>http://www.buzzmachine.com/2006/05/03/we-media/#comment-43796</link>
		<dc:creator>Bobbie Johnson</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 03 May 2006 20:29:48 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.buzzmachine.com/index.php/2006/05/03/we-media/#comment-43796</guid>
		<description>"Itâ€™s an assemblage of the least trusted media corporations on the planet."

Hopefully the "lemmings" here will challenge *this* egregious statement...

I couldn't give a flying whether particular contributors are Americans, non-Americans, pro-Americans or anti-American. It's got nothing to do with what's happening in 99% of the world, 99% of the time. And that's whether you're a journalist, a blogger or just a human being who's fed up of every single thing being politically hijacked by one moronic partisanista or another.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>&#8220;Itâ€™s an assemblage of the least trusted media corporations on the planet.&#8221;</p>
<p>Hopefully the &#8220;lemmings&#8221; here will challenge *this* egregious statement&#8230;</p>
<p>I couldn&#8217;t give a flying whether particular contributors are Americans, non-Americans, pro-Americans or anti-American. It&#8217;s got nothing to do with what&#8217;s happening in 99% of the world, 99% of the time. And that&#8217;s whether you&#8217;re a journalist, a blogger or just a human being who&#8217;s fed up of every single thing being politically hijacked by one moronic partisanista or another.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: penny</title>
		<link>http://www.buzzmachine.com/2006/05/03/we-media/#comment-43782</link>
		<dc:creator>penny</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 03 May 2006 19:30:58 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.buzzmachine.com/index.php/2006/05/03/we-media/#comment-43782</guid>
		<description>The BBC, Reuters, Al Jazeera and Richard Dreyfus.....how's that for an anti-American lovefest.

It's an assemblage of the least trusted media corporations on the planet.

Who cares what that crowd thinks, for God's sake.  Their unrelenting  anti-American biased reporting disqualifies them for intelligent considerations of trust.  And throwing in as cheesecake some lefty actor, whose career has long been over, as guest speaker doesn't bode well for restoring trust either.

&lt;i&gt;â€œFor 100 years after the Civil War,â€ he says, â€œit was perfectly acceptalbe in America to pull over to the side of the road and kill any black person you happened to see.â€ &lt;/i&gt;

Message to Dreyfus:  that hyperbole is crap and totally unsupported by facts.

Bet none of the journalism lemmings in the room challenged his egregious statement which is why bloggers will eventually trounce these fools as the years roll by.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>The BBC, Reuters, Al Jazeera and Richard Dreyfus&#8230;..how&#8217;s that for an anti-American lovefest.</p>
<p>It&#8217;s an assemblage of the least trusted media corporations on the planet.</p>
<p>Who cares what that crowd thinks, for God&#8217;s sake.  Their unrelenting  anti-American biased reporting disqualifies them for intelligent considerations of trust.  And throwing in as cheesecake some lefty actor, whose career has long been over, as guest speaker doesn&#8217;t bode well for restoring trust either.</p>
<p><i>â€œFor 100 years after the Civil War,â€ he says, â€œit was perfectly acceptalbe in America to pull over to the side of the road and kill any black person you happened to see.â€ </i></p>
<p>Message to Dreyfus:  that hyperbole is crap and totally unsupported by facts.</p>
<p>Bet none of the journalism lemmings in the room challenged his egregious statement which is why bloggers will eventually trounce these fools as the years roll by.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: bit torrent</title>
		<link>http://www.buzzmachine.com/2006/05/03/we-media/#comment-43760</link>
		<dc:creator>bit torrent</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 03 May 2006 17:09:13 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.buzzmachine.com/index.php/2006/05/03/we-media/#comment-43760</guid>
		<description>As most bloggers have day jobs, how are they meant to contribute to and take part in this event?</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>As most bloggers have day jobs, how are they meant to contribute to and take part in this event?</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Jack P Toerson</title>
		<link>http://www.buzzmachine.com/2006/05/03/we-media/#comment-43759</link>
		<dc:creator>Jack P Toerson</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 03 May 2006 17:05:37 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.buzzmachine.com/index.php/2006/05/03/we-media/#comment-43759</guid>
		<description>This is the best write up of We Media I have read.  I quite like the name.  Has connotations of "wee" as in small, not urine, and therefore petite. 

I would be very careful indeed surrounded by all of those "&lt;a href="http://www.mediacenterblog.org/events/06/wemedialondon/home/" rel="nofollow"&gt;digital assassins&lt;/a&gt;"; a phrase invented by someone that has a very hip collection of music on their iPod.  Probably.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>This is the best write up of We Media I have read.  I quite like the name.  Has connotations of &#8220;wee&#8221; as in small, not urine, and therefore petite. </p>
<p>I would be very careful indeed surrounded by all of those &#8220;<a href="http://www.mediacenterblog.org/events/06/wemedialondon/home/" rel="nofollow">digital assassins</a>&#8220;; a phrase invented by someone that has a very hip collection of music on their iPod.  Probably.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: button</title>
		<link>http://www.buzzmachine.com/2006/05/03/we-media/#comment-43749</link>
		<dc:creator>button</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 03 May 2006 16:24:35 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.buzzmachine.com/index.php/2006/05/03/we-media/#comment-43749</guid>
		<description>Interjection to Mr. George Brock of the Times:

You are making an erroneous presumption that, ipso facto, bloggers don't have journalism training and, thus, the two categories are mutually exclusive. 

I attended seminars for years at the Columbia U J-School as a student journalist. In my generation most females were confined to the pink collar section of the newspaper: the Society page and then maybe some Entertainment.

That barrier may be gone now to some degree, but you are trying to erect it all over again.

You are still trying to preserve Journalism as a "Just-Us Club." Now, with the Internet, you will not be able to continue to accomplish this.

I say this mainly to bear witness for all the women (and diverse minorities) who have been locked out of practicing Journalism by the Mainstream Media.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Interjection to Mr. George Brock of the Times:</p>
<p>You are making an erroneous presumption that, ipso facto, bloggers don&#8217;t have journalism training and, thus, the two categories are mutually exclusive. </p>
<p>I attended seminars for years at the Columbia U J-School as a student journalist. In my generation most females were confined to the pink collar section of the newspaper: the Society page and then maybe some Entertainment.</p>
<p>That barrier may be gone now to some degree, but you are trying to erect it all over again.</p>
<p>You are still trying to preserve Journalism as a &#8220;Just-Us Club.&#8221; Now, with the Internet, you will not be able to continue to accomplish this.</p>
<p>I say this mainly to bear witness for all the women (and diverse minorities) who have been locked out of practicing Journalism by the Mainstream Media.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: bit torrent</title>
		<link>http://www.buzzmachine.com/2006/05/03/we-media/#comment-43747</link>
		<dc:creator>bit torrent</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 03 May 2006 16:20:43 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.buzzmachine.com/index.php/2006/05/03/we-media/#comment-43747</guid>
		<description>I have been watching this on the live feed for the last 15 minutes. Just seems to be the usual BBC stuff: pre-planned vox-pops in the director's gallery, a BBC reporter talking at us from Iraq, very convenient that the first caller was from Iraq! That obviously wasn't set-up...

I heard that the BBC was offering UK bloggers Â£50 to attend as so few had signed up for this. 

You're there Jeff, how genuine does this event feel?</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I have been watching this on the live feed for the last 15 minutes. Just seems to be the usual BBC stuff: pre-planned vox-pops in the director&#8217;s gallery, a BBC reporter talking at us from Iraq, very convenient that the first caller was from Iraq! That obviously wasn&#8217;t set-up&#8230;</p>
<p>I heard that the BBC was offering UK bloggers Â£50 to attend as so few had signed up for this. </p>
<p>You&#8217;re there Jeff, how genuine does this event feel?</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Taylor Walsh</title>
		<link>http://www.buzzmachine.com/2006/05/03/we-media/#comment-43745</link>
		<dc:creator>Taylor Walsh</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 03 May 2006 16:16:24 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.buzzmachine.com/index.php/2006/05/03/we-media/#comment-43745</guid>
		<description>Thank you Jeff.  On this:

         "Thompson says that 'media is going to be configured and shaped by individuals and communities around them, by them' â€” no longer by the big media. Amen.

        "He is saying that the BBC must take its content and let and help people create with it. Amen, again. But, of course, they also need to enable those people to create and promote and support them. Weâ€™re all in this together."

Sulzburger wants the NY Times to be a convenor.   In the end, so long as "journalism" is something anyone can do and is no longer a profession,  time will dissipate the value of content that the BBC or NYT put into the hands of the people, since that content will be supplanted by creations from the blogrolls.  At which time BBC = MySpace.       I'm trying to convince myself that's not the real end-game, but I keep ending up there.   Troubling.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Thank you Jeff.  On this:</p>
<p>         &#8220;Thompson says that &#8216;media is going to be configured and shaped by individuals and communities around them, by them&#8217; â€” no longer by the big media. Amen.</p>
<p>        &#8220;He is saying that the BBC must take its content and let and help people create with it. Amen, again. But, of course, they also need to enable those people to create and promote and support them. Weâ€™re all in this together.&#8221;</p>
<p>Sulzburger wants the NY Times to be a convenor.   In the end, so long as &#8220;journalism&#8221; is something anyone can do and is no longer a profession,  time will dissipate the value of content that the BBC or NYT put into the hands of the people, since that content will be supplanted by creations from the blogrolls.  At which time BBC = MySpace.       I&#8217;m trying to convince myself that&#8217;s not the real end-game, but I keep ending up there.   Troubling.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Ravo</title>
		<link>http://www.buzzmachine.com/2006/05/03/we-media/#comment-43742</link>
		<dc:creator>Ravo</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 03 May 2006 15:40:07 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.buzzmachine.com/index.php/2006/05/03/we-media/#comment-43742</guid>
		<description>Media is news packaged so that you can only "HEAR" it one way.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Media is news packaged so that you can only &#8220;HEAR&#8221; it one way.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: ZF</title>
		<link>http://www.buzzmachine.com/2006/05/03/we-media/#comment-43717</link>
		<dc:creator>ZF</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 03 May 2006 12:59:58 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.buzzmachine.com/index.php/2006/05/03/we-media/#comment-43717</guid>
		<description>These days my impression is that at every conference session I attend the speaker from Google is someone (presumably a recent hire) who while articulate and smart doesn't seem to understand even the basics of Google's own business. On the planet I live on this isn't a good sign.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>These days my impression is that at every conference session I attend the speaker from Google is someone (presumably a recent hire) who while articulate and smart doesn&#8217;t seem to understand even the basics of Google&#8217;s own business. On the planet I live on this isn&#8217;t a good sign.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: sam</title>
		<link>http://www.buzzmachine.com/2006/05/03/we-media/#comment-43709</link>
		<dc:creator>sam</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 03 May 2006 12:10:22 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.buzzmachine.com/index.php/2006/05/03/we-media/#comment-43709</guid>
		<description>your blog was intellectually stimulating , as it brought out all sides of the debate , and , mentioned quotes from eminent speakers , who are all experts in their fields. personally , i think , i would trust the media to an only partial extent. certain parts of the media can be biased , but , the whole cannot be without credibility.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>your blog was intellectually stimulating , as it brought out all sides of the debate , and , mentioned quotes from eminent speakers , who are all experts in their fields. personally , i think , i would trust the media to an only partial extent. certain parts of the media can be biased , but , the whole cannot be without credibility.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Jackie Danicki &#187; Jeff Jarvis, Marc Canter, and stupid apologies</title>
		<link>http://www.buzzmachine.com/2006/05/03/we-media/#comment-43693</link>
		<dc:creator>Jackie Danicki &#187; Jeff Jarvis, Marc Canter, and stupid apologies</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 03 May 2006 10:38:07 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.buzzmachine.com/index.php/2006/05/03/we-media/#comment-43693</guid>
		<description>[...] Jeff Jarvis is at We Media in London, where he&#8217;s been getting disapproving looks for making an American cultural reference. Jeff says he&#8217;s not going to apologise for his ethnicity. Interesting, since just last night at Mashup, Marc Canter loudly and enthusiastically issued his regrets to the whole room: &#8220;I apologise for being American!&#8221; He&#8217;d just taken issue with being described as such by the moderator, and also shouted, &#8220;I&#8217;m a citizen of the world!&#8221; Sadly, I don&#8217;t think he was joking. [...]</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[...] Jeff Jarvis is at We Media in London, where he&#8217;s been getting disapproving looks for making an American cultural reference. Jeff says he&#8217;s not going to apologise for his ethnicity. Interesting, since just last night at Mashup, Marc Canter loudly and enthusiastically issued his regrets to the whole room: &#8220;I apologise for being American!&#8221; He&#8217;d just taken issue with being described as such by the moderator, and also shouted, &#8220;I&#8217;m a citizen of the world!&#8221; Sadly, I don&#8217;t think he was joking. [...]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Jackie Danicki</title>
		<link>http://www.buzzmachine.com/2006/05/03/we-media/#comment-43691</link>
		<dc:creator>Jackie Danicki</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 03 May 2006 10:31:55 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.buzzmachine.com/index.php/2006/05/03/we-media/#comment-43691</guid>
		<description>Jeff, Marc Canter enthusiastically apologised for being an American last night at the Mashup event - just one reason I hightailed it out of there so quickly.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Jeff, Marc Canter enthusiastically apologised for being an American last night at the Mashup event - just one reason I hightailed it out of there so quickly.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
