<?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/"
	xmlns:itunes="http://www.itunes.com/dtds/podcast-1.0.dtd"
xmlns:rawvoice="http://www.rawvoice.com/rawvoiceRssModule/"

	>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Today In Shitty Online Journalism Ethics: Don&#8217;t Do What The Wall Street Journal Just Did</title>
	<atom:link href="http://beijingcream.com/2012/03/today-in-shitty-online-journalism-ethics-dont-do-what-the-wall-street-journal-just-did/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://beijingcream.com/2012/03/today-in-shitty-online-journalism-ethics-dont-do-what-the-wall-street-journal-just-did/</link>
	<description>A Dollop of China</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Tue, 22 Jan 2019 17:42:34 +0000</lastBuildDate>
		<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
		<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	
	<item>
		<title>By: darandy</title>
		<link>http://beijingcream.com/2012/03/today-in-shitty-online-journalism-ethics-dont-do-what-the-wall-street-journal-just-did/#comment-243352</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[darandy]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 03 Jan 2014 22:17:33 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://beijingcream.com/?p=1258#comment-243352</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Folks, I just don&#039;t think this qualifies as &quot;shitty ethics&quot; in the context of China journalism. It&#039;s not like citing The Onion as your source (Nov. 2012, People&#039;s Daily for eg) or self censoring journalists from writing on important political topics (Nov. 2013 Bloomberg for eg: http://www.nytimes.com/2013/11/09/world/asia/bloomberg-news-is-said-to-curb-articles-that-might-anger-china.html?_r=0). 

Moreover, I think it does a disservice to this blog to call out another individual journalist when from the above article I don&#039;t see how we readers can even be sure that the WSJ journalist named was responsible. How can we be sure this wasn&#039;t his editor or his webmaster?

It&#039;s important to hold publications and individuals accountable, but it&#039;s equally important not to overstate the case or needlessly sling mud. Clearly, &quot;realtime&quot; means different things to big papers than to blogs, that&#039;s why we read bogs. This one has some good stories, posted in real time. I&#039;d like to read less nitpicking the big boys and more interesting and unique blogging. Thanks very much]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Folks, I just don&#8217;t think this qualifies as &#8220;shitty ethics&#8221; in the context of China journalism. It&#8217;s not like citing The Onion as your source (Nov. 2012, People&#8217;s Daily for eg) or self censoring journalists from writing on important political topics (Nov. 2013 Bloomberg for eg: <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2013/11/09/world/asia/bloomberg-news-is-said-to-curb-articles-that-might-anger-china.html?_r=0" rel="nofollow">http://www.nytimes.com/2013/11/09/world/asia/bloomberg-news-is-said-to-curb-articles-that-might-anger-china.html?_r=0</a>). </p>
<p>Moreover, I think it does a disservice to this blog to call out another individual journalist when from the above article I don&#8217;t see how we readers can even be sure that the WSJ journalist named was responsible. How can we be sure this wasn&#8217;t his editor or his webmaster?</p>
<p>It&#8217;s important to hold publications and individuals accountable, but it&#8217;s equally important not to overstate the case or needlessly sling mud. Clearly, &#8220;realtime&#8221; means different things to big papers than to blogs, that&#8217;s why we read bogs. This one has some good stories, posted in real time. I&#8217;d like to read less nitpicking the big boys and more interesting and unique blogging. Thanks very much</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: sascha</title>
		<link>http://beijingcream.com/2012/03/today-in-shitty-online-journalism-ethics-dont-do-what-the-wall-street-journal-just-did/#comment-11451</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[sascha]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 08 Jun 2012 03:45:34 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://beijingcream.com/?p=1258#comment-11451</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[ewww.]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>ewww.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: jtdj</title>
		<link>http://beijingcream.com/2012/03/today-in-shitty-online-journalism-ethics-dont-do-what-the-wall-street-journal-just-did/#comment-368</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[jtdj]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 08 Mar 2012 01:27:12 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://beijingcream.com/?p=1258#comment-368</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Yes! sharp eyes Beijingcream! I hate WSJ&#039;s Lag Time Report.  you just won yourself a reader.]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Yes! sharp eyes Beijingcream! I hate WSJ&#8217;s Lag Time Report.  you just won yourself a reader.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Jonathan Lethem</title>
		<link>http://beijingcream.com/2012/03/today-in-shitty-online-journalism-ethics-dont-do-what-the-wall-street-journal-just-did/#comment-280</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Jonathan Lethem]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 06 Mar 2012 11:15:06 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://beijingcream.com/?p=1258#comment-280</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[what an absolute crock of shit. real time report? Please.]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>what an absolute crock of shit. real time report? Please.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
