<?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/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: THE FIRST HARRIS INTERACTIVE/INNOVATION NEWSPAPER READERSHIP SURVEY</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.innovationsinnewspapers.com/index.php/2007/06/06/the-first-harris-inteactiveinnovation-newspapers-readership-survey/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.innovationsinnewspapers.com/index.php/2007/06/06/the-first-harris-inteactiveinnovation-newspapers-readership-survey/</link>
	<description>BY JUAN ANTONIO GINER, PRESIDENT AND FOUNDER OF INNOVATION INTERNATIONAL MEDIA CONSULTING GROUP. LONDON.</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Mon, 30 Jan 2012 03:37:05 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1</generator>
	<item>
		<title>By: Juan Antonio Giner</title>
		<link>http://www.innovationsinnewspapers.com/index.php/2007/06/06/the-first-harris-inteactiveinnovation-newspapers-readership-survey/comment-page-1/#comment-933</link>
		<dc:creator>Juan Antonio Giner</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 06 Jun 2007 20:40:41 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.innovationsinnewspapers.com/index.php/2007/06/06/the-first-harris-inteactiveinnovation-newspapers-readership-survey/#comment-933</guid>
		<description>Thanks Luis.

I agree with you.

Today The Wall Street Journal has ha great quote that goes in the same direction:

&quot;Don&#039;t believe the man who tells you there are two sides to every question. There is only one side to the truth.&quot;

William Peter Hamilton, one of the first men to hold the job of editorial page editor of The Wall Street Journal.

Yes, our readers value our credibility, but also our views.

The old objectivity is dead.

The new one needs &quot;Viewspapers&quot; and &quot;JourAnalysts&quot;·</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Thanks Luis.</p>
<p>I agree with you.</p>
<p>Today The Wall Street Journal has ha great quote that goes in the same direction:</p>
<p>&#8220;Don&#8217;t believe the man who tells you there are two sides to every question. There is only one side to the truth.&#8221;</p>
<p>William Peter Hamilton, one of the first men to hold the job of editorial page editor of The Wall Street Journal.</p>
<p>Yes, our readers value our credibility, but also our views.</p>
<p>The old objectivity is dead.</p>
<p>The new one needs &#8220;Viewspapers&#8221; and &#8220;JourAnalysts&#8221;·</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Luis Argandoña</title>
		<link>http://www.innovationsinnewspapers.com/index.php/2007/06/06/the-first-harris-inteactiveinnovation-newspapers-readership-survey/comment-page-1/#comment-931</link>
		<dc:creator>Luis Argandoña</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 06 Jun 2007 20:26:35 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.innovationsinnewspapers.com/index.php/2007/06/06/the-first-harris-inteactiveinnovation-newspapers-readership-survey/#comment-931</guid>
		<description>Dear Juan Antonio

Congratulations for Innovations Report.

Now one comment about the poll.

“The poll results also suggest that newspapers can significantly upgrade their traditional print product by providing greater objectivity”, results says.

Intuitively, I find very tricky and potentially misleading this result about people demanding objectivity.

I think it is problematic and not easily workable for a newsroom. Usually its “specific” pursue makes newspapers insipid and dull.

Probably it is geographically-related, but anyway I agree with Will Bunch –quoted by Jeff Jarvis- when he says: 

“There’s a lot in there about what’s wrong with today’s media — the cult of objectivty that makes newspapers both boring AND easy to manipulate, and reporters bonding with the powerful folks we cover instead of the communities where we live”.  

Cheers and congrats again.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Dear Juan Antonio</p>
<p>Congratulations for Innovations Report.</p>
<p>Now one comment about the poll.</p>
<p>“The poll results also suggest that newspapers can significantly upgrade their traditional print product by providing greater objectivity”, results says.</p>
<p>Intuitively, I find very tricky and potentially misleading this result about people demanding objectivity.</p>
<p>I think it is problematic and not easily workable for a newsroom. Usually its “specific” pursue makes newspapers insipid and dull.</p>
<p>Probably it is geographically-related, but anyway I agree with Will Bunch –quoted by Jeff Jarvis- when he says: </p>
<p>“There’s a lot in there about what’s wrong with today’s media — the cult of objectivty that makes newspapers both boring AND easy to manipulate, and reporters bonding with the powerful folks we cover instead of the communities where we live”.  </p>
<p>Cheers and congrats again.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>

