<?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: Realtors: &#8220;WAAAAAAAAAHHHHHH&#8221; George Hearst III: &#8220;NONONOO SSSSHHH IT&#8217;S OKAY, it&#8217;s okay&#8230;here. Here&#8217;s a pacifier.&#8221; Kristi: &#8220;#oops.&#8221;</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.kevinmarshallonline.com/blog/2012/12/19/realtors-waaaaaaaaahhhhhh-george-hearst-iii-nononoo-sssshhh-its-okay-its-okay-here-heres-a-pacifier-kristi-oops/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.kevinmarshallonline.com/blog/2012/12/19/realtors-waaaaaaaaahhhhhh-george-hearst-iii-nononoo-sssshhh-its-okay-its-okay-here-heres-a-pacifier-kristi-oops/</link>
	<description>Musing &#38; misadventures of a writer, comedian, and local treasure</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Thu, 31 Jan 2013 04:17:00 -0500</lastBuildDate>
		<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
		<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>https://wordpress.org/?v=4.0.38</generator>
	<item>
		<title>By: Joe P.</title>
		<link>http://www.kevinmarshallonline.com/blog/2012/12/19/realtors-waaaaaaaaahhhhhh-george-hearst-iii-nononoo-sssshhh-its-okay-its-okay-here-heres-a-pacifier-kristi-oops/#comment-9640</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Joe P.]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 20 Dec 2012 18:58:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.kevinmarshallonline.com/blog/?p=11820#comment-9640</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[True, reportage on the Twitterverse is lazy and manufactured journalism -- much like writing about polls (&quot;the horserace&quot;) or politicians&#039; &quot;gotchas&quot; all through the election season,rather than real reportage on issues and substance. It&#039;s pervasive, unfortunately. I&#039;m also irked by the notion that reporting must always be &quot;balanced&quot;. There was a study released recently by two researchers at the (conservative!) Heritage Foundation that showed that the quantity of untrue assertions during the last campaign were far from &quot;balanced&quot; -- they were overwhelmingly Republican and by a substantial amount. (Yes, I said the Heritage Foundation. No joke.) Yet &quot;fact-check&quot; journalists always seems to feel the need to dig up a Democratic untruth for every Republican one in order to appear (to borrow a disreputable slogan) &quot;fair and balanced.&quot; It&#039;s not true that &quot;both sides&quot; are equally culpable always -- why do they feel obliged? It&#039;s like, why doesn&#039;t reportage on the topic of evolution simply report the science and not feel obliged to give voice to creationism? In this case, this was a lazy story on people&#039;s skepticism of realtors -- but why is there an obligation, real or implied, for &quot;balance&quot; in what is a &quot;some people go their own way&quot; story? When there are a legitimate two sides to a story, of course, it&#039;s good journalism to report them. but isn&#039;t it self-evident by the very existence of the realty industry that some people trust them? This story WAS &quot;the other side&quot; -- a &quot;duh&quot; one, to be sure, but what balance does it require? (SCIENCE SAYS THE EARTH IS ROUND --OTHERS DISAGREE&quot; being the imaginary headline.... some things just ARE and need no rebuttal.)]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>True, reportage on the Twitterverse is lazy and manufactured journalism &#8212; much like writing about polls (&#8220;the horserace&#8221;) or politicians&#8217; &#8220;gotchas&#8221; all through the election season,rather than real reportage on issues and substance. It&#8217;s pervasive, unfortunately. I&#8217;m also irked by the notion that reporting must always be &#8220;balanced&#8221;. There was a study released recently by two researchers at the (conservative!) Heritage Foundation that showed that the quantity of untrue assertions during the last campaign were far from &#8220;balanced&#8221; &#8212; they were overwhelmingly Republican and by a substantial amount. (Yes, I said the Heritage Foundation. No joke.) Yet &#8220;fact-check&#8221; journalists always seems to feel the need to dig up a Democratic untruth for every Republican one in order to appear (to borrow a disreputable slogan) &#8220;fair and balanced.&#8221; It&#8217;s not true that &#8220;both sides&#8221; are equally culpable always &#8212; why do they feel obliged? It&#8217;s like, why doesn&#8217;t reportage on the topic of evolution simply report the science and not feel obliged to give voice to creationism? In this case, this was a lazy story on people&#8217;s skepticism of realtors &#8212; but why is there an obligation, real or implied, for &#8220;balance&#8221; in what is a &#8220;some people go their own way&#8221; story? When there are a legitimate two sides to a story, of course, it&#8217;s good journalism to report them. but isn&#8217;t it self-evident by the very existence of the realty industry that some people trust them? This story WAS &#8220;the other side&#8221; &#8212; a &#8220;duh&#8221; one, to be sure, but what balance does it require? (SCIENCE SAYS THE EARTH IS ROUND &#8211;OTHERS DISAGREE&#8221; being the imaginary headline&#8230;. some things just ARE and need no rebuttal.)</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Roger Green</title>
		<link>http://www.kevinmarshallonline.com/blog/2012/12/19/realtors-waaaaaaaaahhhhhh-george-hearst-iii-nononoo-sssshhh-its-okay-its-okay-here-heres-a-pacifier-kristi-oops/#comment-9638</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Roger Green]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 19 Dec 2012 20:54:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.kevinmarshallonline.com/blog/?p=11820#comment-9638</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[I HATE that content that is &quot;created&quot; by a bunch of tweets or FB posts. LAZY journalism - not even journalism.  It&#039;s not just the TU, of course.]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I HATE that content that is &#8220;created&#8221; by a bunch of tweets or FB posts. LAZY journalism &#8211; not even journalism.  It&#8217;s not just the TU, of course.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
