<?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: YouTubeʼs bold foray into journalism</title>
	<atom:link href="http://techhaze.com/2009/11/youtube%CA%BCs-bold-foray-into-journalism/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://techhaze.com/2009/11/youtube%ca%bcs-bold-foray-into-journalism/</link>
	<description>From our screens to yours - Tech news and reviews</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Tue, 26 Apr 2011 06:32:48 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.0.1</generator>
	<item>
		<title>By: Mariano Calixte</title>
		<link>http://techhaze.com/2009/11/youtube%ca%bcs-bold-foray-into-journalism/comment-page-1/#comment-42</link>
		<dc:creator>Mariano Calixte</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 24 Nov 2009 23:18:16 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://techhaze.com/?p=410#comment-42</guid>
		<description>Yes, I agree. The Internet is changing things for the better, and those who don&#039;t evolve should simply die. Newspapers are having a hard time in capitalising thir websites (or so they say) so a helping inovative hand couldn&#039;t be bad.  
 
As to Murdoch, I hope he&#039;s aware that being on the right side of law (which I&#039;m not sure he will be) is not always better that being on the right side of innovation. 
 
As for &quot;journalism 2.0&quot; it&#039;s already more than on it&#039;s way. CNN and (correct me if i&#039;m wrong) BCC already show user content on classical TV, blogs have becoming a secondary news source of choice, Twitter is bringing the primary news source closer to the community, etc. It&#039;s unavoidable, the news agency&#039;s just need to find the right way to ride the wave. </description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Yes, I agree. The Internet is changing things for the better, and those who don&#039;t evolve should simply die. Newspapers are having a hard time in capitalising thir websites (or so they say) so a helping inovative hand couldn&#039;t be bad.  </p>
<p>As to Murdoch, I hope he&#039;s aware that being on the right side of law (which I&#039;m not sure he will be) is not always better that being on the right side of innovation. </p>
<p>As for &quot;journalism 2.0&quot; it&#039;s already more than on it&#039;s way. CNN and (correct me if i&#039;m wrong) BCC already show user content on classical TV, blogs have becoming a secondary news source of choice, Twitter is bringing the primary news source closer to the community, etc. It&#039;s unavoidable, the news agency&#039;s just need to find the right way to ride the wave.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Steve Kim</title>
		<link>http://techhaze.com/2009/11/youtube%ca%bcs-bold-foray-into-journalism/comment-page-1/#comment-40</link>
		<dc:creator>Steve Kim</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 24 Nov 2009 15:31:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://techhaze.com/?p=410#comment-40</guid>
		<description>Yeah, it&#039;s really a win-win strategy for both Google and the news organizations. The former provides free platform - which can cost a lot if you try to set it up independently - and the latter can boast this new feature and try to increase reader participation. And in the end, Google gets to capitalize on all the videos that will be flooding in through these new media partners. There is no set definition for Web 2.0 or anything else in that matter, but if journalism is to go to the next stage - perhaps Journalism 2.0 - this certainly will make the field become more two-way (user input, video submission, etc). Now, as far as Murdoch is concerned... godspeed.  </description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Yeah, it&#039;s really a win-win strategy for both Google and the news organizations. The former provides free platform &#8211; which can cost a lot if you try to set it up independently &#8211; and the latter can boast this new feature and try to increase reader participation. And in the end, Google gets to capitalize on all the videos that will be flooding in through these new media partners. There is no set definition for Web 2.0 or anything else in that matter, but if journalism is to go to the next stage &#8211; perhaps Journalism 2.0 &#8211; this certainly will make the field become more two-way (user input, video submission, etc). Now, as far as Murdoch is concerned&#8230; godspeed.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Mariano Calixte</title>
		<link>http://techhaze.com/2009/11/youtube%ca%bcs-bold-foray-into-journalism/comment-page-1/#comment-38</link>
		<dc:creator>Mariano Calixte</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 23 Nov 2009 12:50:44 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://techhaze.com/?p=410#comment-38</guid>
		<description>Big companies are seeming to bet more and more in the &quot;community&quot; . It&#039;s a good plan. You look like a good guy plus you get free videos that you can monetize. Maybe that&#039;s the only way to go if the Internet is to remain THE platform for free content. 
This looks enormously like an anti-Murdoch strategy from Google. Trying to get news sites on their side? </description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Big companies are seeming to bet more and more in the &quot;community&quot; . It&#39;s a good plan. You look like a good guy plus you get free videos that you can monetize. Maybe that&#39;s the only way to go if the Internet is to remain THE platform for free content.<br />
This looks enormously like an anti-Murdoch strategy from Google. Trying to get news sites on their side?</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>

