<?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: Huff Post: How Google can help journalism</title>
	<atom:link href="http://daveleejblog.com/2009/01/huff-post-how-google-can-help-journalism/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://daveleejblog.com/2009/01/huff-post-how-google-can-help-journalism/</link>
	<description>Fresh ideas for online journalism</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Sat, 19 May 2012 18:37:40 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.9.1</generator>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
		<item>
		<title>By: Tommy Tonkins</title>
		<link>http://daveleejblog.com/2009/01/huff-post-how-google-can-help-journalism/comment-page-1/#comment-1428</link>
		<dc:creator>Tommy Tonkins</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 09 Jan 2009 16:22:52 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://daveleejblog.com/?p=635#comment-1428</guid>
		<description>Hi Dave,

I think, to a degree, what Dan Froomkin is saying is right; micro-local news through sophisticated websites should be what local newspapers are implementing.

Not only could it potentially revolutionise the way local news is consumed but, if it works, I think it has the ability to bring communities closer together and to pass some ownership back to the reader\viewer.

But if Google are now the only compnay that can save journalism then we&#039;re worse off than I thought!

In theory the idea works but do you think it would really be a good thing for journalism, and the quality of journalism, if a large proportion of the UK&#039;s local news was owned and run by Google?

Undoubtably there&#039;s going to have to be a change, probably sooner rather than later, in the way local news is produced and consumed and maybe you&#039;re right, maybe Google is the answer, but for me, that&#039;s a very scary thought.

All the best,

Tommy</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Hi Dave,</p>
<p>I think, to a degree, what Dan Froomkin is saying is right; micro-local news through sophisticated websites should be what local newspapers are implementing.</p>
<p>Not only could it potentially revolutionise the way local news is consumed but, if it works, I think it has the ability to bring communities closer together and to pass some ownership back to the reader\viewer.</p>
<p>But if Google are now the only compnay that can save journalism then we&#8217;re worse off than I thought!</p>
<p>In theory the idea works but do you think it would really be a good thing for journalism, and the quality of journalism, if a large proportion of the UK&#8217;s local news was owned and run by Google?</p>
<p>Undoubtably there&#8217;s going to have to be a change, probably sooner rather than later, in the way local news is produced and consumed and maybe you&#8217;re right, maybe Google is the answer, but for me, that&#8217;s a very scary thought.</p>
<p>All the best,</p>
<p>Tommy</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>

