<?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: Microsoft and News Corp. are pursuing yesterday&#039;s solution to today&#039;s challenges</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.ojr.org/microsoft-and-news-corp-are-pursuing-yesterdays-solution-to-todays-challenges/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.ojr.org/microsoft-and-news-corp-are-pursuing-yesterdays-solution-to-todays-challenges/?utm_source=rss&#038;utm_medium=rss&#038;utm_campaign=microsoft-and-news-corp-are-pursuing-yesterdays-solution-to-todays-challenges</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: Adam Smith</title>
		<link>http://www.ojr.org/microsoft-and-news-corp-are-pursuing-yesterdays-solution-to-todays-challenges/#comment-2140</link>
		<dc:creator>Adam Smith</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 27 Nov 2009 04:18:59 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.ojr.org/?p=1799#comment-2140</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Bing already ignores the existence of blogspot blogs in its search results, alienating a large proportion of active web users. But if Bing were to host exclusive content, it would need to be content that the public wants access to. Sadly, another news network isn&#039;t going to cut it.

Microsoft would be wiser jumping into bed with Google (as Apple have) especially when the majority of web users have PCs rather than Macs.]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Bing already ignores the existence of blogspot blogs in its search results, alienating a large proportion of active web users. But if Bing were to host exclusive content, it would need to be content that the public wants access to. Sadly, another news network isn&#8217;t going to cut it.</p>
<p>Microsoft would be wiser jumping into bed with Google (as Apple have) especially when the majority of web users have PCs rather than Macs.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Allen Wilson</title>
		<link>http://www.ojr.org/microsoft-and-news-corp-are-pursuing-yesterdays-solution-to-todays-challenges/#comment-2139</link>
		<dc:creator>Allen Wilson</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 25 Nov 2009 11:54:34 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.ojr.org/?p=1799#comment-2139</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[The Southeastern Conference, when it attempted to ban most media from covering its games early this season, conveniently forgot that the media was responsible for the fame of its schools and athletes in the first place. Without the bulk of the media covering those games for the last century, they wouldn&#039;t have possessed the clout to sign yahoo and espn to lucrative deals and thereby ban other media outlets.  Similarly, google and other sites are still profitting from the traffic they receive by users accessing content acquired from news sources. Especially with such a plethora of news outlets, people have little reason to stay loyal with one news outlet, though we journalist may long for the day when that happens. In the meantime, google is unduly reaping the financial traffic those media outlets bring to their mega search engine sites and applications, etc.. Google in turn would dispute that, arguing that their visitors will in turn go to the source of the news, i.e. Los Angeles Times, NY Times, etc. But in this age of the uniformed reader, the trend shows those site visitors reading just enough to stay on the search engine site without spending significant time on the news site.  Let us therefore laud News corp. (though their content can hardly be considered news) for demanding money for content.]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>The Southeastern Conference, when it attempted to ban most media from covering its games early this season, conveniently forgot that the media was responsible for the fame of its schools and athletes in the first place. Without the bulk of the media covering those games for the last century, they wouldn&#8217;t have possessed the clout to sign yahoo and espn to lucrative deals and thereby ban other media outlets.  Similarly, google and other sites are still profitting from the traffic they receive by users accessing content acquired from news sources. Especially with such a plethora of news outlets, people have little reason to stay loyal with one news outlet, though we journalist may long for the day when that happens. In the meantime, google is unduly reaping the financial traffic those media outlets bring to their mega search engine sites and applications, etc.. Google in turn would dispute that, arguing that their visitors will in turn go to the source of the news, i.e. Los Angeles Times, NY Times, etc. But in this age of the uniformed reader, the trend shows those site visitors reading just enough to stay on the search engine site without spending significant time on the news site.  Let us therefore laud News corp. (though their content can hardly be considered news) for demanding money for content.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: hasmat ullah</title>
		<link>http://www.ojr.org/microsoft-and-news-corp-are-pursuing-yesterdays-solution-to-todays-challenges/#comment-2138</link>
		<dc:creator>hasmat ullah</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 25 Nov 2009 02:37:59 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.ojr.org/?p=1799#comment-2138</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[This latest action would enhance the aggressive marketing strategies of microsoft. But in this time of free information current, this step is one step backward indeed.]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>This latest action would enhance the aggressive marketing strategies of microsoft. But in this time of free information current, this step is one step backward indeed.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>