<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><!-- generator="wordpress/2.2.2" -->
<rss version="2.0" 
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/">
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Media Bias?  Not Us?  The Mainstream Media Speaks Up</title>
	<link>http://www.kingfishmedia.com/thinktank/2008/06/13/media-bias-not-us-the-mainstream-media-speaks-up/</link>
	<description>King Fish Media Blog</description>
	<pubDate>Sat, 22 Nov 2008 09:11:43 +0000</pubDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.2.2</generator>

	<item>
		<title>By: Nicole</title>
		<link>http://www.kingfishmedia.com/thinktank/2008/06/13/media-bias-not-us-the-mainstream-media-speaks-up/#comment-210</link>
		<author>Nicole</author>
		<pubDate>Tue, 17 Jun 2008 14:22:18 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid>http://www.kingfishmedia.com/thinktank/2008/06/13/media-bias-not-us-the-mainstream-media-speaks-up/#comment-210</guid>
		<description>Could it be that the push for higher ratings (profits) and smaller news rooms are actually producing content that isn't filtered through as many people? Less employees and less time means that news rooms will, if they already don't, have less objectivity. This is partially the corporation's fault by limiting the journalists sounding board through limiting the number of employees on staff. The point is who has time to step back and see if there has been any bias during campaign coverage and correct it? They don't. If it is ignored and no fault is admitted they can keep trucking along and produce more content for the next day. Admitting media bias would take up precious time and resources that a waning news staff (no matter the medium) doesn't have time to address... which is the reason media bias is allowed in the first place. The sad part is that we can expect to see more of this in the future if people, like you Gordon, don't continue to point it out.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Could it be that the push for higher ratings (profits) and smaller news rooms are actually producing content that isn&#8217;t filtered through as many people? Less employees and less time means that news rooms will, if they already don&#8217;t, have less objectivity. This is partially the corporation&#8217;s fault by limiting the journalists sounding board through limiting the number of employees on staff. The point is who has time to step back and see if there has been any bias during campaign coverage and correct it? They don&#8217;t. If it is ignored and no fault is admitted they can keep trucking along and produce more content for the next day. Admitting media bias would take up precious time and resources that a waning news staff (no matter the medium) doesn&#8217;t have time to address&#8230; which is the reason media bias is allowed in the first place. The sad part is that we can expect to see more of this in the future if people, like you Gordon, don&#8217;t continue to point it out.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: dismissive</title>
		<link>http://www.kingfishmedia.com/thinktank/2008/06/13/media-bias-not-us-the-mainstream-media-speaks-up/#comment-202</link>
		<author>dismissive</author>
		<pubDate>Sun, 15 Jun 2008 15:23:57 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid>http://www.kingfishmedia.com/thinktank/2008/06/13/media-bias-not-us-the-mainstream-media-speaks-up/#comment-202</guid>
		<description>&lt;strong&gt;Media Bias? Not Us? The Mainstream Media Speaks Up&lt;/strong&gt;

Bookmarked your post over at Blog Bookmarker.com!</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><strong>Media Bias? Not Us? The Mainstream Media Speaks Up</strong></p>
<p>Bookmarked your post over at Blog Bookmarker.com!</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
