<?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"
	>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Paul Bradshaw: making journalism pay</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.andydickinson.net/2008/01/28/paul-bradshaw-making-journalism-pay/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.andydickinson.net/2008/01/28/paul-bradshaw-making-journalism-pay/</link>
	<description>online journalism, newspaper video and digital media</description>
	<pubDate>Mon, 06 Oct 2008 13:51:53 +0000</pubDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.6.2</generator>
		<item>
		<title>By: Andy</title>
		<link>http://www.andydickinson.net/2008/01/28/paul-bradshaw-making-journalism-pay/#comment-3059</link>
		<dc:creator>Andy</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 29 Jan 2008 09:58:15 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.andydickinson.net/2008/01/28/paul-bradshaw-making-journalism-pay/#comment-3059</guid>
		<description>It does have a 'down' feel but I like to think thats more heads-down there's lots to be done.

I agree it's about users but I'm not sure that something as easy as good, relevent content is all the answer.  The idea that news is a service not content is a valid one. 

If you look at the success of things like Facebook then it would be hard to say it was the content that made that site. The facility it offered was the selling point. Likewise, with something like youtube it isnt the content as much as the sites capacity to put that content in front of you in an easy way.

If news sites can show that they service a requirment for content as well as provide content then they may be on the right road.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>It does have a &#8216;down&#8217; feel but I like to think thats more heads-down there&#8217;s lots to be done.</p>
<p>I agree it&#8217;s about users but I&#8217;m not sure that something as easy as good, relevent content is all the answer.  The idea that news is a service not content is a valid one. </p>
<p>If you look at the success of things like Facebook then it would be hard to say it was the content that made that site. The facility it offered was the selling point. Likewise, with something like youtube it isnt the content as much as the sites capacity to put that content in front of you in an easy way.</p>
<p>If news sites can show that they service a requirment for content as well as provide content then they may be on the right road.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: JohnofScribbleSheet</title>
		<link>http://www.andydickinson.net/2008/01/28/paul-bradshaw-making-journalism-pay/#comment-3058</link>
		<dc:creator>JohnofScribbleSheet</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 29 Jan 2008 09:52:33 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.andydickinson.net/2008/01/28/paul-bradshaw-making-journalism-pay/#comment-3058</guid>
		<description>It was a great article, if not somewhat melancholy. At the end of the day, it all depends on users/traffic. and Users/traffic will end up at places with good relevent content. Thats what news agencies should focus on.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>It was a great article, if not somewhat melancholy. At the end of the day, it all depends on users/traffic. and Users/traffic will end up at places with good relevent content. Thats what news agencies should focus on.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
