<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8" ?>
<rss version="2.0">
	<channel>
		<title>gdp's Comments</title>
		<language>en-us</language>
		<link>https://www.intensedebate.com/users/722278</link>
		<description>Comments by donmishell</description>
<item>
<title>Big Government : Objective Journalism: Michael Gerson Defends a Profession That No Longer Exists</title>
<link>http://biggovernment.com/jjmnolte/2009/11/28/objective-journalism-michael-gerson-defends-a-profession-that-no-longer-exists/#IDComment45142085</link>
<description>Let&amp;#039;s look at print journalisim.  I am an old man.  As far back as I can remember, newspapers were owned by people who had a lot of money and bought a newspaper (or a chain of newspapers) to reinforce a particular point of view on politics, socieital norms,  etc.  Some of these newspapers were liberal, some were conservative and so forth.  Now we have bloggers, and to be a blogger one does not have to be wealthy.  But it seems to me that no one becomes a blogger unless they have a point of view which they wish to put forth. So really, what&amp;#039;s the difference?  I think the only difference is that aside from the investment of time, it doen&amp;#039;t cost anything to be a blogger.  And on the other side of the equation, readers find it easy to deal with an compter and save the money of buying a newspaper or magazine. My wife was looking over my shoulder as I wrote the above, and said to me, &amp;quot;I thought there was integrity in the old MSM jouralism.&amp;quot;  To which I replied, &amp;quot;Maybe in the sports section.&amp;quot; </description>
<pubDate>Sun, 29 Nov 2009 13:31:47 +0000</pubDate>
<guid>http://biggovernment.com/jjmnolte/2009/11/28/objective-journalism-michael-gerson-defends-a-profession-that-no-longer-exists/#IDComment45142085</guid>
</item>	</channel>
</rss>