<?xml version="1.0" encoding="ISO-8859-1" ?>




































































  <rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
    <channel>
      <title>Comments On: Reactions to the Town Hall meeting on journalism
    
      by Michael Miner</title>
      <link>http://www.chicagoreader.com/TheBlog/archives/2009/02/23/reactions-town-hall-meeting-journalism</link>
      <atom:link href="http://www.chicagoreader.com/chicago/Rss.xml?oid=975931&amp;id=comments" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />      <description>Comments On: Reactions to the Town Hall meeting on journalism
    
      by Michael Miner</description>
      <language>en-us</language>
      <copyright>Copyright 2009 Chicago Reader. All rights reserved. This RSS file is offered to individuals, Chicago Reader readers, and non-commercial organizations only. Any commercial websites wishing to use this RSS file, please contact Chicago Reader.</copyright>
      <webMaster>wil@desert.net (Chicago Reader Webmaster)</webMaster>
      <pubDate>Sat, 21 Nov 2009 00:00:01 -0600</pubDate>
      <lastBuildDate>Sat, 21 Nov 2009 23:00:00 -0600</lastBuildDate>
      <generator>Foundation</generator>
      <docs>http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/tech/rss</docs>
      
        
          <item>
    
    <title><![CDATA[Re: Reactions to the Town Hall meeting on journalism]]></title>
    
    
    <link><![CDATA[http://www.chicagoreader.com/TheBlog/archives/2009/02/23/reactions-town-hall-meeting-journalism/#969840]]></link>
    
    <guid isPermaLink="true"><![CDATA[http://www.chicagoreader.com/TheBlog/archives/2009/02/23/reactions-town-hall-meeting-journalism/#969840]]></guid>
    <author><![CDATA[sally duros]]></author>
    <description>
      
      <![CDATA[Alex Yablon, Reader intern:Hi Alex. Thanks for liking the L3C idea.  I like it too. That's why I wrote about it for the Huffington Post, and introduced the conversation to the newspaper world.. I  did speak to the L3Cs at the Townhall, but it's a new idea so I think most of the panel did not get it. Barb was cut off so I could speak to the idea I had introduced. Most of the discussion yesterday was tactical. As you say, the L3C idea cuts to the core of the problem: the robber barons have been running newsgathering organizations and they have sucked them dry. As an L3C, a newsgathering organization can make money AND meet its mission. Look to Huffington Post later this week for greater clarity on this company structure, which many on the panel mistook to be just another "nonprofit " model. This idea will not die as along as I am around to talk about it.
        
        <br />
        
          Posted by sally duros]]>
    </description>
    <pubDate>Mon, 23 Feb 2009 22:51:20 -0600</pubDate> 
    <source url="http://www.chicagoreader.com">Chicago Reader</source>
  </item>
        
          <item>
    
    <title><![CDATA[Re: Reactions to the Town Hall meeting on journalism]]></title>
    
    
    <link><![CDATA[http://www.chicagoreader.com/TheBlog/archives/2009/02/23/reactions-town-hall-meeting-journalism/#973469]]></link>
    
    <guid isPermaLink="true"><![CDATA[http://www.chicagoreader.com/TheBlog/archives/2009/02/23/reactions-town-hall-meeting-journalism/#973469]]></guid>
    <author><![CDATA[Hank Brockett]]></author>
    <description>
      
      <![CDATA[I agree with Chad Rubel about online ads - at smaller papers, businesses are just starting to learn how to read the monthly traffic and click-through reports. When they seek more traffic to their own web sites, coupons, etc., they will demand better ads. 
    
    The better return will result in higher prices and more logical placement on the site. Then Web sites might start raking in sufficient income.
        
        <br />
        
          Posted by Hank Brockett]]>
    </description>
    <pubDate>Mon, 23 Feb 2009 22:03:24 -0600</pubDate> 
    <source url="http://www.chicagoreader.com">Chicago Reader</source>
  </item>
        
          <item>
    
    <title><![CDATA[Re: Reactions to the Town Hall meeting on journalism]]></title>
    
    
    <link><![CDATA[http://www.chicagoreader.com/TheBlog/archives/2009/02/23/reactions-town-hall-meeting-journalism/#952791]]></link>
    
    <guid isPermaLink="true"><![CDATA[http://www.chicagoreader.com/TheBlog/archives/2009/02/23/reactions-town-hall-meeting-journalism/#952791]]></guid>
    <author><![CDATA[JoeBu]]></author>
    <description>
      
      <![CDATA[If "giving it away for free" (and I speak of the content from the publications; writing-for-pay, while related, is another issue), why did the Reader do so for three decades plus, and I assume, if not turn a profit, at least break even?
    
    Creative Loafing didn't change its business model, and yet it suffers a similar plight to that of the dailies. What changed?
    
    NOT the free content.
        
        <br />
        
          Posted by JoeBu]]>
    </description>
    <pubDate>Mon, 23 Feb 2009 20:11:19 -0600</pubDate> 
    <source url="http://www.chicagoreader.com">Chicago Reader</source>
  </item>
        
          <item>
    
    <title><![CDATA[Re: Reactions to the Town Hall meeting on journalism]]></title>
    
    
    <link><![CDATA[http://www.chicagoreader.com/TheBlog/archives/2009/02/23/reactions-town-hall-meeting-journalism/#949771]]></link>
    
    <guid isPermaLink="true"><![CDATA[http://www.chicagoreader.com/TheBlog/archives/2009/02/23/reactions-town-hall-meeting-journalism/#949771]]></guid>
    <author><![CDATA[laughing cow]]></author>
    <description>
      
      <![CDATA[I don't need to tell you smart people that simplifying one's understanding does not always help solve a complex problem. 
    
    One of your freelance writers says, "But sites like the Huffington Post also steal work by not paying their writers (which means that these aspiring - or despairing - writers are also part of the problem)."
    
    If I walk up to a lemonade stand and ask for a glass of lemonade, but preface this exchange by explaining I have no money to offer in return for this beverage, and the distributor gives it to me anyways, what we have is an agreement, not a robbery. 
    
    To the self-pitying freelances: If you must dumb it down for your own understanding by calling aggregation theft, go ahead. But in a public forum, let's try to keep it accordingly high-minded, please.
        
        <br />
        
          Posted by laughing cow]]>
    </description>
    <pubDate>Mon, 23 Feb 2009 17:50:26 -0600</pubDate> 
    <source url="http://www.chicagoreader.com">Chicago Reader</source>
  </item>
        
      
    </channel>
  </rss>




