<?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: Did London bombings turn citizen journalists into citizen paparazzi?</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.ojr.org/050712glaser/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.ojr.org/050712glaser/?utm_source=rss&#038;utm_medium=rss&#038;utm_campaign=050712glaser</link>
	<description>Focusing on the future of digital journalism</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Mon, 15 Apr 2013 13:43:27 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.5.1</generator>
	<item>
		<title>By: darko Buldioski</title>
		<link>http://www.ojr.org/050712glaser/#comment-286</link>
		<dc:creator>darko Buldioski</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 14 Jul 2005 01:07:54 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.ojr.org/?p=654#comment-286</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Citizens take photos of what they see, but not just what they see on the street, they take photos in way they see them in the news. My point is that if they every single day on TV, in newspapers and on internet are watching photos with blood or disaster photos it is logically to expect from them to make such photos. In fact they are not completely aware of what are they photographing, it is a reflection of how they are percept the media, or how the media would like to be seen  ]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Citizens take photos of what they see, but not just what they see on the street, they take photos in way they see them in the news. My point is that if they every single day on TV, in newspapers and on internet are watching photos with blood or disaster photos it is logically to expect from them to make such photos. In fact they are not completely aware of what are they photographing, it is a reflection of how they are percept the media, or how the media would like to be seen  </p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Jon Garfunkel</title>
		<link>http://www.ojr.org/050712glaser/#comment-285</link>
		<dc:creator>Jon Garfunkel</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 13 Jul 2005 21:50:42 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.ojr.org/?p=654#comment-285</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Mark, once again you really cover a story well and get the necessary quotes. And once again, you quote Jarvis... which is only good, because I hope people can see how poor his argument is. He leads the media-baiters school, which firmly believes that journalism is corrupted by professionalism, and thus anyone doing it for free has more noble intentions. I don&#039;t think that&#039;s necessarily true.

Xeni Jardin&#039;s input is much more valuable here. If blogs do one thing good, it&#039;s bringing people &lt;i&gt;up&lt;/I&gt; to journalistic conventions (rather than bringing everyone down to USENET-quality bosts). That&#039;s a positive step; I don&#039;t know how much it would translate yet into the activities of citizen phone-o-journalists, but it may guide the popular participatory media sites. Granted, BoingBoing itself was &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.gyford.com/phil/writing/2005/04/03/with_great_audie.php&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;criticized strongly&lt;/a&gt; back in April that it had strayed from its own standards that readers had come to expect.

Jon]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Mark, once again you really cover a story well and get the necessary quotes. And once again, you quote Jarvis&#8230; which is only good, because I hope people can see how poor his argument is. He leads the media-baiters school, which firmly believes that journalism is corrupted by professionalism, and thus anyone doing it for free has more noble intentions. I don&#8217;t think that&#8217;s necessarily true.</p>
<p>Xeni Jardin&#8217;s input is much more valuable here. If blogs do one thing good, it&#8217;s bringing people <i>up</i> to journalistic conventions (rather than bringing everyone down to USENET-quality bosts). That&#8217;s a positive step; I don&#8217;t know how much it would translate yet into the activities of citizen phone-o-journalists, but it may guide the popular participatory media sites. Granted, BoingBoing itself was <a href="http://www.gyford.com/phil/writing/2005/04/03/with_great_audie.php" rel="nofollow">criticized strongly</a> back in April that it had strayed from its own standards that readers had come to expect.</p>
<p>Jon</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Colin Daniels</title>
		<link>http://www.ojr.org/050712glaser/#comment-283</link>
		<dc:creator>Colin Daniels</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 13 Jul 2005 03:12:57 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.ojr.org/?p=654#comment-283</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[I agree with the point that Locke makes about citizen journalism still having a way to go before its full potential becomes apparent.

We need to remember that what took place in London last week was the first time that many of these ad-hoc citizen journalists had been given an opportunity to snap away at things other than mom, dad and spot and therefore a natural inclination to capture the most gruesome detail was a given.

As citizen journalism breaks more boundaries and plays an even greater role in collective culture, so too will certain social and ethical responsibilities which had previously only been adhered to by trained media practitioners.

The legacy of capturing gruesome scenes purely for sensationalism will soon begin to fall away as experience, training and accuracy become more entrenched principles in citizen journalists.

]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I agree with the point that Locke makes about citizen journalism still having a way to go before its full potential becomes apparent.</p>
<p>We need to remember that what took place in London last week was the first time that many of these ad-hoc citizen journalists had been given an opportunity to snap away at things other than mom, dad and spot and therefore a natural inclination to capture the most gruesome detail was a given.</p>
<p>As citizen journalism breaks more boundaries and plays an even greater role in collective culture, so too will certain social and ethical responsibilities which had previously only been adhered to by trained media practitioners.</p>
<p>The legacy of capturing gruesome scenes purely for sensationalism will soon begin to fall away as experience, training and accuracy become more entrenched principles in citizen journalists.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: bright young</title>
		<link>http://www.ojr.org/050712glaser/#comment-282</link>
		<dc:creator>bright young</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 13 Jul 2005 01:06:50 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.ojr.org/?p=654#comment-282</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[it&#039;s new these days after london bombings. i will try to study it.what sides should i consider in when i make my study on citizen journalists or citizen paparazzi?
thank you for your coming advice!]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>it&#8217;s new these days after london bombings. i will try to study it.what sides should i consider in when i make my study on citizen journalists or citizen paparazzi?<br />
thank you for your coming advice!</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>