<?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 for gatewatching</title>
	<atom:link href="http://gatewatching.org/comments/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://gatewatching.org</link>
	<description>researching citizen journalism</description>
	<pubDate>Thu, 11 Mar 2010 22:27:44 +0000</pubDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.7</generator>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
		<item>
		<title>Comment on The Australian Women&#8217;s Weekly as political media. by Kevin Rudd and Tony Abbott the week before parliament resumes</title>
		<link>http://gatewatching.org/2010/01/31/the-australian-womens-weekly-as-political-media/comment-page-1/#comment-4529</link>
		<dc:creator>Kevin Rudd and Tony Abbott the week before parliament resumes</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 01 Feb 2010 12:50:13 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://gatewatching.org/?p=268#comment-4529</guid>
		<description>[...] fascinating observation by Andrew Elder in his blog, and subsequent comments, point out that the weekly has a trans-demoghraphic readership of [...]</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[...] fascinating observation by Andrew Elder in his blog, and subsequent comments, point out that the weekly has a trans-demoghraphic readership of [...]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>Comment on The Australian Women&#8217;s Weekly as political media. by Helen Said</title>
		<link>http://gatewatching.org/2010/01/31/the-australian-womens-weekly-as-political-media/comment-page-1/#comment-4527</link>
		<dc:creator>Helen Said</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 31 Jan 2010 11:21:39 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://gatewatching.org/?p=268#comment-4527</guid>
		<description>AWW is an Australian institution, longer-standing, more mature and authoritative than other women's mags, under-rated because it is a "women's" mag. It depicts far more "real women" in terms of lifestyle and dress sizes, has far more in depth stories than NI or WD. Many baby boomers grew up with the weekly-version Weekly on the rack under the laminex coffee table (those were the days when families could afford magazines!) Used to cop flak for stereotyped romance sories, but I recall past editor Ita Buttrose once commenting many years ago that AWW had done more to bring the ideas of women's lib to ordinary women than any radical movement or publication.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>AWW is an Australian institution, longer-standing, more mature and authoritative than other women&#8217;s mags, under-rated because it is a &#8220;women&#8217;s&#8221; mag. It depicts far more &#8220;real women&#8221; in terms of lifestyle and dress sizes, has far more in depth stories than NI or WD. Many baby boomers grew up with the weekly-version Weekly on the rack under the laminex coffee table (those were the days when families could afford magazines!) Used to cop flak for stereotyped romance sories, but I recall past editor Ita Buttrose once commenting many years ago that AWW had done more to bring the ideas of women&#8217;s lib to ordinary women than any radical movement or publication.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>Comment on The Australian Women&#8217;s Weekly as political media. by Rachel @ Musings of An Inappropriate Woman</title>
		<link>http://gatewatching.org/2010/01/31/the-australian-womens-weekly-as-political-media/comment-page-1/#comment-4526</link>
		<dc:creator>Rachel @ Musings of An Inappropriate Woman</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 31 Jan 2010 07:33:18 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://gatewatching.org/?p=268#comment-4526</guid>
		<description>Good post, Jason - magazines like AWW are often overlooked as a site of big-P Politics. As someone who writes for women's media myself, I find it an excellent venue to discuss small-p politics, and to challenge common misconceptions about, as John puts it, "the world as is" (or the world as we'd like it to be, for that matter). 

It strikes me as a shame that work done in that arena is often looked upon as being a bit of an intellectual graveyard. For all its stylistic differences, I find the work I do for women's mags can often be just as -if not more - adventurous and critically challenging as the work I do more serious media.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Good post, Jason - magazines like AWW are often overlooked as a site of big-P Politics. As someone who writes for women&#8217;s media myself, I find it an excellent venue to discuss small-p politics, and to challenge common misconceptions about, as John puts it, &#8220;the world as is&#8221; (or the world as we&#8217;d like it to be, for that matter). </p>
<p>It strikes me as a shame that work done in that arena is often looked upon as being a bit of an intellectual graveyard. For all its stylistic differences, I find the work I do for women&#8217;s mags can often be just as -if not more - adventurous and critically challenging as the work I do more serious media.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>Comment on The Australian Women&#8217;s Weekly as political media. by John Passant</title>
		<link>http://gatewatching.org/2010/01/31/the-australian-womens-weekly-as-political-media/comment-page-1/#comment-4525</link>
		<dc:creator>John Passant</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 31 Jan 2010 06:46:15 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://gatewatching.org/?p=268#comment-4525</guid>
		<description>It's a good question Jason. My tentative answer is that for socialists like me I am looking for that small audience that wants to change the world and challenges the oppression of women. AWW reinforces the world as is; it doesn't challenge it.  On the other hand I do read The Australian and the AFR, so I wonder why the difference in treatment.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>It&#8217;s a good question Jason. My tentative answer is that for socialists like me I am looking for that small audience that wants to change the world and challenges the oppression of women. AWW reinforces the world as is; it doesn&#8217;t challenge it.  On the other hand I do read The Australian and the AFR, so I wonder why the difference in treatment.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>Comment on Jason by Best Blog Posts 2009 &#8211; Calling for Nominations &#8211; The Content Makers</title>
		<link>http://gatewatching.org/jason/comment-page-1/#comment-4510</link>
		<dc:creator>Best Blog Posts 2009 &#8211; Calling for Nominations &#8211; The Content Makers</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 14 Jan 2010 19:28:31 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://gatewatching.org/?page_id=15#comment-4510</guid>
		<description>[...] of Club Troppo, Helen ’skepticlawyer’ Dale (nee Demindenko and Darville), media studies academic Jason Wilson,(whose Gatewatching blog has been referenced here a few times) Mark Bahnisch of Larvatus Prodeo and [...]</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[...] of Club Troppo, Helen ’skepticlawyer’ Dale (nee Demindenko and Darville), media studies academic Jason Wilson,(whose Gatewatching blog has been referenced here a few times) Mark Bahnisch of Larvatus Prodeo and [...]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>Comment on Jason, Joe Hockey, and Twitter in Parliament by haydn washington</title>
		<link>http://gatewatching.org/2009/09/10/jason-joe-hockey-and-twitter-in-parliament/comment-page-1/#comment-4239</link>
		<dc:creator>haydn washington</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 29 Nov 2009 08:34:45 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://gatewatching.org/2009/09/10/jason-joe-hockey-and-twitter-in-parliament/#comment-4239</guid>
		<description>Stand up for climate change action. There are some defining issues where a person must stand up and be counted. Climate change is one. The future is relying on your integrity on this key issue!</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Stand up for climate change action. There are some defining issues where a person must stand up and be counted. Climate change is one. The future is relying on your integrity on this key issue!</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>Comment on Jason, Joe Hockey, and Twitter in Parliament by paul brady</title>
		<link>http://gatewatching.org/2009/09/10/jason-joe-hockey-and-twitter-in-parliament/comment-page-1/#comment-4238</link>
		<dc:creator>paul brady</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 29 Nov 2009 08:10:38 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://gatewatching.org/2009/09/10/jason-joe-hockey-and-twitter-in-parliament/#comment-4238</guid>
		<description>Don't do it =-support malcolm, rebels can't be allowed to succeed</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Don&#8217;t do it =-support malcolm, rebels can&#8217;t be allowed to succeed</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>Comment on Major Contributions to the Online News Debate in Australia by Snurb</title>
		<link>http://gatewatching.org/2009/11/18/major-contributions-to-the-online-news-debate-in-australia/comment-page-1/#comment-4207</link>
		<dc:creator>Snurb</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 18 Nov 2009 23:37:51 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://gatewatching.org/2009/11/18/major-contributions-to-the-online-news-debate-in-australia/#comment-4207</guid>
		<description>Thanks Fergus, and yes, absolutely - there seems to be a strange assumed automatism in some of the commentary I've seen about Mark Scott's statements, by which more user participation unavoidably means less involvement by professional journalists. In reality, the two of them are complementary - unless the embrace of UGC is used as an excuse to shed staff at the same time, as has been the case in some underperforming commercial news organisations.

There's nothing in Mark Scott's statements that suggests that this will be the case at the ABC - indeed, the opposite appears to be true, since it seems that initiatives like ABC Open will create jobs rather than kill them off. Commentators in commercial news organisations who suspect the opposite tell us more about the climate in their own companies than they provide insights about what's happening at the ABC, I think.

Well done on following the ABC's new social media engagement guidelines with your disclosure statement, by the way. ;-) Would love to hear more from you about ABC Open as it evolves...</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Thanks Fergus, and yes, absolutely - there seems to be a strange assumed automatism in some of the commentary I&#8217;ve seen about Mark Scott&#8217;s statements, by which more user participation unavoidably means less involvement by professional journalists. In reality, the two of them are complementary - unless the embrace of UGC is used as an excuse to shed staff at the same time, as has been the case in some underperforming commercial news organisations.</p>
<p>There&#8217;s nothing in Mark Scott&#8217;s statements that suggests that this will be the case at the ABC - indeed, the opposite appears to be true, since it seems that initiatives like ABC Open will create jobs rather than kill them off. Commentators in commercial news organisations who suspect the opposite tell us more about the climate in their own companies than they provide insights about what&#8217;s happening at the ABC, I think.</p>
<p>Well done on following the ABC&#8217;s new social media engagement guidelines with your disclosure statement, by the way. <img src='http://gatewatching.org/wp-includes/images/smilies/icon_wink.gif' alt=';-)' class='wp-smiley' /> Would love to hear more from you about ABC Open as it evolves&#8230;</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>Comment on Major Contributions to the Online News Debate in Australia by Fergus Pitt</title>
		<link>http://gatewatching.org/2009/11/18/major-contributions-to-the-online-news-debate-in-australia/comment-page-1/#comment-4204</link>
		<dc:creator>Fergus Pitt</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 18 Nov 2009 10:59:58 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://gatewatching.org/2009/11/18/major-contributions-to-the-online-news-debate-in-australia/#comment-4204</guid>
		<description>It's also worth remembering that investigative journalism and participation (aka UGC) are not mutually exclusive. 

Indeed, as the world that media organisations seek to investigate becomes more complex it is less likely that the people working for those media organisations will have *all* the skills needed to uncover and understand the facts in a story. I'm thinking about forensic accounting and data mining, but there are doubtless other areas. Don't mistake that for suggesting that media organisation will not need to spend money on programs of work to investigate a story. What I am suggesting is that well-paid professionals who work for media organisations could play a role in organising people who aren't in the employ of the media organisation, and verifying the work that they do. 

This is only partially new - investigative programs and units have employed specialist analysts in the past - but the internet enables more connections, and perhaps network effects. 
- Some people have speculated that huge amounts of documents tabled in a court case might be filtered by a well organised crowd, with potentially significant sections referred to professionals.
- Another application might be asking large numbers of people to record rainfall, or other observed phenomena, to be centrally collated, analysed and, if warranted, investigated. 

At the moment this isn't happening on any big scale that I know of, but there are opportunities for imaginative applications of investigative  participation.


Disclosure: I work for the ABC, partially on ABC Open, but these are my views, not the ABC's.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>It&#8217;s also worth remembering that investigative journalism and participation (aka UGC) are not mutually exclusive. </p>
<p>Indeed, as the world that media organisations seek to investigate becomes more complex it is less likely that the people working for those media organisations will have *all* the skills needed to uncover and understand the facts in a story. I&#8217;m thinking about forensic accounting and data mining, but there are doubtless other areas. Don&#8217;t mistake that for suggesting that media organisation will not need to spend money on programs of work to investigate a story. What I am suggesting is that well-paid professionals who work for media organisations could play a role in organising people who aren&#8217;t in the employ of the media organisation, and verifying the work that they do. </p>
<p>This is only partially new - investigative programs and units have employed specialist analysts in the past - but the internet enables more connections, and perhaps network effects.<br />
- Some people have speculated that huge amounts of documents tabled in a court case might be filtered by a well organised crowd, with potentially significant sections referred to professionals.<br />
- Another application might be asking large numbers of people to record rainfall, or other observed phenomena, to be centrally collated, analysed and, if warranted, investigated. </p>
<p>At the moment this isn&#8217;t happening on any big scale that I know of, but there are opportunities for imaginative applications of investigative  participation.</p>
<p>Disclosure: I work for the ABC, partially on ABC Open, but these are my views, not the ABC&#8217;s.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>Comment on My Media 140 talk by Media140: Twitter and the Iranian election &#171; Woolly Days</title>
		<link>http://gatewatching.org/2009/11/04/my-media-140-talk/comment-page-1/#comment-4158</link>
		<dc:creator>Media140: Twitter and the Iranian election &#171; Woolly Days</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 11 Nov 2009 15:36:10 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://gatewatching.org/?p=258#comment-4158</guid>
		<description>[...] coverage of unfolding events after the disputed election began posting comments using the hashtag #cnnfail. The 24 hour broadcaster had pushed out the official Iranian line that Mahmoud Ahmadinejad had won [...]</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[...] coverage of unfolding events after the disputed election began posting comments using the hashtag #cnnfail. The 24 hour broadcaster had pushed out the official Iranian line that Mahmoud Ahmadinejad had won [...]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
