<?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: Duty to buy a newspaper?</title>
	<atom:link href="http://strange.corante.com/2007/10/14/duty-to-buy-a-newspaper/feed" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://strange.corante.com/2007/10/14/duty-to-buy-a-newspaper</link>
	<description>Picking out patterns in the chaos</description>
	<pubDate>Mon, 21 May 2012 12:28:48 +0000</pubDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.6.1</generator>
		<item>
		<title>By: Kevin Anderson</title>
		<link>http://strange.corante.com/2007/10/14/duty-to-buy-a-newspaper#comment-2738</link>
		<dc:creator>Kevin Anderson</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 16 Oct 2007 15:58:09 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://strange.corante.com/2007/10/14/duty-to-buy-a-newspaper#comment-2738</guid>
		<description>Roy,

Thanks for taking to comment here and also for the original post.

Although you say 'read' and not 'buy', I am going to stand by my reading of your post. You're talking about economically supporting the legacy business, which is to say buying a newspaper, unless some newspapers have adopted NPR-style pledge drives. I may be guilty of not making it clear that I was paraphrasing your point, but I didn't put 'buy' in quotes for a reason. It was my interpretation, not literally your words.

Let's address the substance of your point . I already read newspapers, just not on paper. But you mean paper newspapers, not just read newspaper journalism. That's means buying. Hence, reading and buying are synonymous in terms of your economic argument.

I am supporting the business model of the future of journalism - digital. The spirit and morale of journalists would be best improved by newspapers having a sensible, cohesive and realistic digital strategy. If newspapers had spent the last 10 years doing that, they wouldn't be in the shape they are now.
</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Roy,</p>
<p>Thanks for taking to comment here and also for the original post.</p>
<p>Although you say &#8216;read&#8217; and not &#8216;buy&#8217;, I am going to stand by my reading of your post. You&#8217;re talking about economically supporting the legacy business, which is to say buying a newspaper, unless some newspapers have adopted NPR-style pledge drives. I may be guilty of not making it clear that I was paraphrasing your point, but I didn&#8217;t put &#8216;buy&#8217; in quotes for a reason. It was my interpretation, not literally your words.</p>
<p>Let&#8217;s address the substance of your point . I already read newspapers, just not on paper. But you mean paper newspapers, not just read newspaper journalism. That&#8217;s means buying. Hence, reading and buying are synonymous in terms of your economic argument.</p>
<p>I am supporting the business model of the future of journalism - digital. The spirit and morale of journalists would be best improved by newspapers having a sensible, cohesive and realistic digital strategy. If newspapers had spent the last 10 years doing that, they wouldn&#8217;t be in the shape they are now.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Roy Peter Clark</title>
		<link>http://strange.corante.com/2007/10/14/duty-to-buy-a-newspaper#comment-2737</link>
		<dc:creator>Roy Peter Clark</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 16 Oct 2007 14:30:45 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://strange.corante.com/2007/10/14/duty-to-buy-a-newspaper#comment-2737</guid>
		<description>Hello, Kevin. Thanks for this good take on my "duty to read" essay. I'd like to point out that I never said that journalists had a "duty to buy."  A few extra dollars or pounds will never be able to prop up a struggling business.  My concern is with the spirit and morale of journalists -- and their connection to the institutions that still make most of the profits, and still invest most in good journalism in the public interest. You are indeed a wired news junkie. If it were possible to trace back the original sources of news from your electronic portals, how much the content would derive from -- depend upon -- the work of the legacy institutions?  Newspapers, news magazines, the BBC?  My dad used to berate me by saying, "Where do you think money comes from?  Do you think it grows on trees?"  In our time, money to build news capacity still comes from trees.  Cheers.
</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Hello, Kevin. Thanks for this good take on my &#8220;duty to read&#8221; essay. I&#8217;d like to point out that I never said that journalists had a &#8220;duty to buy.&#8221;  A few extra dollars or pounds will never be able to prop up a struggling business.  My concern is with the spirit and morale of journalists &#8212; and their connection to the institutions that still make most of the profits, and still invest most in good journalism in the public interest. You are indeed a wired news junkie. If it were possible to trace back the original sources of news from your electronic portals, how much the content would derive from &#8212; depend upon &#8212; the work of the legacy institutions?  Newspapers, news magazines, the BBC?  My dad used to berate me by saying, &#8220;Where do you think money comes from?  Do you think it grows on trees?&#8221;  In our time, money to build news capacity still comes from trees.  Cheers.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>

