<?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: A LETTER TO LOVE-STRICKEN FAIRFAX JOURNALISTS</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.bronwenclune.com/2008/09/01/a-letter-to-love-striken-fairfax-journalists/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.bronwenclune.com/2008/09/01/a-letter-to-love-striken-fairfax-journalists/</link>
	<description>There is life after control media</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Mon, 17 May 2010 07:44:57 +0800</lastBuildDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8.4</generator>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
		<item>
		<title>By: Bronwen</title>
		<link>http://www.bronwenclune.com/2008/09/01/a-letter-to-love-striken-fairfax-journalists/comment-page-1/#comment-162</link>
		<dc:creator>Bronwen</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 16 Sep 2008 05:16:17 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.bronwenclune.com/2008/09/01/a-letter-to-love-striken-fairfax-journalists/#comment-162</guid>
		<description>Nick, I think journalists need to start thinking of themselves as publishers, which was an important reason I wrote the post as I did. Following on from the discussion I had at the Future of Journalism event and the conversations I&#039;ve had since,  I&#039;m working a post on online models for journalism at the moment. Would love to have your thoughts on it.

Gregor, &quot;A new form of self-centred media&quot; is a pretty hollow description I think. A lot of fantastic content creators out there are writing for love not money. Traditional media companies are about making money for their owners. Did the Fairfax sackings not prove this for you?
I&#039;m not *wishing* established media away, just pointing out that the business models it&#039;s been created on have come undone and if we value journalism - be that by journalists, bloggers, citizen journalists or any other term to describe what are essentially content creators - then we better learn how to operate in this new medium pronto and start embracing the alternatives. Online news creation is a new skill with many challenges but it opens up a lot of amazing opportunities for us to achieve a better media. We just need some people willing to forge ahead and take some risks - and yes, that can mean being exposed to defamation - but has that ever been a good reason NOT to run an important defensible news story?

Bill, really don&#039;t have much to say to that one, except *sigh*</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Nick, I think journalists need to start thinking of themselves as publishers, which was an important reason I wrote the post as I did. Following on from the discussion I had at the Future of Journalism event and the conversations I&#8217;ve had since,  I&#8217;m working a post on online models for journalism at the moment. Would love to have your thoughts on it.</p>
<p>Gregor, &#8220;A new form of self-centred media&#8221; is a pretty hollow description I think. A lot of fantastic content creators out there are writing for love not money. Traditional media companies are about making money for their owners. Did the Fairfax sackings not prove this for you?<br />
I&#8217;m not *wishing* established media away, just pointing out that the business models it&#8217;s been created on have come undone and if we value journalism &#8211; be that by journalists, bloggers, citizen journalists or any other term to describe what are essentially content creators &#8211; then we better learn how to operate in this new medium pronto and start embracing the alternatives. Online news creation is a new skill with many challenges but it opens up a lot of amazing opportunities for us to achieve a better media. We just need some people willing to forge ahead and take some risks &#8211; and yes, that can mean being exposed to defamation &#8211; but has that ever been a good reason NOT to run an important defensible news story?</p>
<p>Bill, really don&#8217;t have much to say to that one, except *sigh*</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Bill Posters</title>
		<link>http://www.bronwenclune.com/2008/09/01/a-letter-to-love-striken-fairfax-journalists/comment-page-1/#comment-151</link>
		<dc:creator>Bill Posters</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 14 Sep 2008 09:30:04 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.bronwenclune.com/2008/09/01/a-letter-to-love-striken-fairfax-journalists/#comment-151</guid>
		<description>&quot;Just to be clear, I think The Age and SMH journalists have every RIGHT to fight for their jobs. I’m just pointing out another option.&quot;

Nah, you&#039;re just pissing on them from a great height.

Nasty.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>&#8220;Just to be clear, I think The Age and SMH journalists have every RIGHT to fight for their jobs. I’m just pointing out another option.&#8221;</p>
<p>Nah, you&#8217;re just pissing on them from a great height.</p>
<p>Nasty.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: gregor</title>
		<link>http://www.bronwenclune.com/2008/09/01/a-letter-to-love-striken-fairfax-journalists/comment-page-1/#comment-145</link>
		<dc:creator>gregor</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 09 Sep 2008 23:37:51 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.bronwenclune.com/2008/09/01/a-letter-to-love-striken-fairfax-journalists/#comment-145</guid>
		<description>One of the annoying elements of these posts is the persistence of the rush to define the end of established media. Typically these posts exhibit a form of narcissism that in itself is a better reason for established media to fail than the existence of any new media. The likelihood that communities will prefer a new form of self-centred media over an old one is in my opinion one of the more fragile planks of this debate. (Which, I might add, seems to go on. And on.)
By the way, it&#039;s unlikely that any blogger could pay the bills when Joe Corporate bungs on a multi-million dollar law suit over some perfectly defensible &quot;independent&quot; reporting. That is the fact of life about established media and a very good reason to not wish it away.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>One of the annoying elements of these posts is the persistence of the rush to define the end of established media. Typically these posts exhibit a form of narcissism that in itself is a better reason for established media to fail than the existence of any new media. The likelihood that communities will prefer a new form of self-centred media over an old one is in my opinion one of the more fragile planks of this debate. (Which, I might add, seems to go on. And on.)<br />
By the way, it&#8217;s unlikely that any blogger could pay the bills when Joe Corporate bungs on a multi-million dollar law suit over some perfectly defensible &#8220;independent&#8221; reporting. That is the fact of life about established media and a very good reason to not wish it away.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Nick Miller</title>
		<link>http://www.bronwenclune.com/2008/09/01/a-letter-to-love-striken-fairfax-journalists/comment-page-1/#comment-144</link>
		<dc:creator>Nick Miller</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 08 Sep 2008 06:14:31 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.bronwenclune.com/2008/09/01/a-letter-to-love-striken-fairfax-journalists/#comment-144</guid>
		<description>The myth being perpetuated here that MSM is &#039;suddenly realising it&#039;s doomed&#039; is just silly. Fairfax and News Ltd have been hacking into newsfloor numbers for years. Just because we hit a small crisis point doesn&#039;t mean we didn&#039;t notice the gradual slide that preceded it. I&#039;ve been having these conversations with colleagues for years.
I think the central issue should be restated: that there&#039;s a disconnect between problem and action in Fairfax&#039;s case.
Problem: classified advertising is moving from print to online. In its new online incarnation it no longer subsidises journalism. Therefore, there is less money in the pot to pay for good quality general news reporting - which demands more resources than your standard churnalism, specialist industry/interest group publication or part-time blog.
Action: Fairfax is making a heap of journalists redundant from its print operations.
If a business is struggling to make ends meet it has two ways to counter the problem: cut costs or increase revenue.
The first option holds long term dangers, but is the easiest. And they&#039;ve gone for it, without any ideas or vision as to how the second option might have been be approached. 
Online news &#039;pioneers&#039; should ask themselves if they are actually journalists, or rather publishers (there&#039;s a grey area, but is your job essentially finding the news, or publishing news that someone else found?). 
I think that, with this distinction in mind, you&#039;re encouraging print journalists to get out there and become digital publishers. We&#039;ll end up with a million news sources with nothing in them. 
I don&#039;t want to be a publisher. I haven&#039;t been trained to be a publisher, I don&#039;t think I&#039;d be good at it. I&#039;m good at journalism. 
Are you saying that the only solution is to employ and publish myself? That journalism as a pure profession is doomed? If so, I worry that a hybrid journalist/publisher means worse journalism and worse publishing. If not, what&#039;s the online model that proves it has a future?
Cameron: I&#039;m not going to respond because you didn&#039;t make any good points, and even your mediocre points were aggressively overstated.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>The myth being perpetuated here that MSM is &#8217;suddenly realising it&#8217;s doomed&#8217; is just silly. Fairfax and News Ltd have been hacking into newsfloor numbers for years. Just because we hit a small crisis point doesn&#8217;t mean we didn&#8217;t notice the gradual slide that preceded it. I&#8217;ve been having these conversations with colleagues for years.<br />
I think the central issue should be restated: that there&#8217;s a disconnect between problem and action in Fairfax&#8217;s case.<br />
Problem: classified advertising is moving from print to online. In its new online incarnation it no longer subsidises journalism. Therefore, there is less money in the pot to pay for good quality general news reporting &#8211; which demands more resources than your standard churnalism, specialist industry/interest group publication or part-time blog.<br />
Action: Fairfax is making a heap of journalists redundant from its print operations.<br />
If a business is struggling to make ends meet it has two ways to counter the problem: cut costs or increase revenue.<br />
The first option holds long term dangers, but is the easiest. And they&#8217;ve gone for it, without any ideas or vision as to how the second option might have been be approached.<br />
Online news &#8216;pioneers&#8217; should ask themselves if they are actually journalists, or rather publishers (there&#8217;s a grey area, but is your job essentially finding the news, or publishing news that someone else found?).<br />
I think that, with this distinction in mind, you&#8217;re encouraging print journalists to get out there and become digital publishers. We&#8217;ll end up with a million news sources with nothing in them.<br />
I don&#8217;t want to be a publisher. I haven&#8217;t been trained to be a publisher, I don&#8217;t think I&#8217;d be good at it. I&#8217;m good at journalism.<br />
Are you saying that the only solution is to employ and publish myself? That journalism as a pure profession is doomed? If so, I worry that a hybrid journalist/publisher means worse journalism and worse publishing. If not, what&#8217;s the online model that proves it has a future?<br />
Cameron: I&#8217;m not going to respond because you didn&#8217;t make any good points, and even your mediocre points were aggressively overstated.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Cameron Reilly</title>
		<link>http://www.bronwenclune.com/2008/09/01/a-letter-to-love-striken-fairfax-journalists/comment-page-1/#comment-143</link>
		<dc:creator>Cameron Reilly</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 06 Sep 2008 14:05:19 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.bronwenclune.com/2008/09/01/a-letter-to-love-striken-fairfax-journalists/#comment-143</guid>
		<description>Nice post, Bron. 

It&#039;s not like the journalists shouldn&#039;t have seen this coming ages ago. For years people like yourself and myself, not to mention Bill Gates, Warren Buffett and Rupert Murdoch, have been predicting that the economics of running a large traditional news org were changing and that journos should start thinking about their future. 

Some of the local journos, like Mark Jones at the AFR, saw the writing on the wall and forged a career change. Okay, I&#039;m not suggesting they all decide to become priests, but you get the idea. 

Most just stuck their heads in the sand, told us we were full of shit, that &quot;the brand&quot; would save them and now they are whining about their situation like every other employee who doesn&#039;t pay attention and thinks daddy is going to look after them.

You have to wonder how good they are as investigative journalists if they couldn&#039;t even see what was happening under their noses. 

Nick, I&#039;m as big a fan of true investigative journalism as anyone. And I hope someone out there has the deep pockets to keep investing in it. But I don&#039;t remember seeing many Australian journalists going out on strike over the last 20 years as the quality of journalism in this country reached ever-deeper lows. I don&#039;t remember reading too many stories in the AGE or SMH about how tabloidy our news was becoming, either. 

It&#039;s too late to fight for an industry when you&#039;ve let it decompose for 20 years around you. 

Here&#039;s the big news - this is just the beginning. If you think this situation is bad, wait five years.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Nice post, Bron. </p>
<p>It&#8217;s not like the journalists shouldn&#8217;t have seen this coming ages ago. For years people like yourself and myself, not to mention Bill Gates, Warren Buffett and Rupert Murdoch, have been predicting that the economics of running a large traditional news org were changing and that journos should start thinking about their future. </p>
<p>Some of the local journos, like Mark Jones at the AFR, saw the writing on the wall and forged a career change. Okay, I&#8217;m not suggesting they all decide to become priests, but you get the idea. </p>
<p>Most just stuck their heads in the sand, told us we were full of shit, that &#8220;the brand&#8221; would save them and now they are whining about their situation like every other employee who doesn&#8217;t pay attention and thinks daddy is going to look after them.</p>
<p>You have to wonder how good they are as investigative journalists if they couldn&#8217;t even see what was happening under their noses. </p>
<p>Nick, I&#8217;m as big a fan of true investigative journalism as anyone. And I hope someone out there has the deep pockets to keep investing in it. But I don&#8217;t remember seeing many Australian journalists going out on strike over the last 20 years as the quality of journalism in this country reached ever-deeper lows. I don&#8217;t remember reading too many stories in the AGE or SMH about how tabloidy our news was becoming, either. </p>
<p>It&#8217;s too late to fight for an industry when you&#8217;ve let it decompose for 20 years around you. </p>
<p>Here&#8217;s the big news &#8211; this is just the beginning. If you think this situation is bad, wait five years.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: David L Morris</title>
		<link>http://www.bronwenclune.com/2008/09/01/a-letter-to-love-striken-fairfax-journalists/comment-page-1/#comment-142</link>
		<dc:creator>David L Morris</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 02 Sep 2008 12:17:52 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.bronwenclune.com/2008/09/01/a-letter-to-love-striken-fairfax-journalists/#comment-142</guid>
		<description>Hi Bronwen,  I checked out that link which I hadn&#039;t seen before.  &quot;...Looking for a government handout to perpetuate a quaint but outdated way of life is the last resort of the desperate. It should be avoided at all costs...&quot;, is I think a particularly American view. They seem to assume the worse aspects of my suggestion by default.  After all, the closest they have to the ABC is NPR and that is funded mostly from private donations.  Here, in the UK and in Canada we already have government Radio, TV and Web media.  And if newspapers die, and Television stations do one national news service out Sydney - they will be all that is left for the journalistic written word.

And, for the USA, perhaps it is already too late.  One gets the impression, from this distance, that balanced journalism has gone, that it is all opinion or channels pushing specific interests, mad shock jocks and ratings chasing tabloids; while the slow reasoned voice of NPR gently unwinds some long winded tale about nothing at all in some country backwater.

I wonder what evolve for journalism and new media.  Is balanced journalism a thing of the past, or is it something that never existed anyway?</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Hi Bronwen,  I checked out that link which I hadn&#8217;t seen before.  &#8220;&#8230;Looking for a government handout to perpetuate a quaint but outdated way of life is the last resort of the desperate. It should be avoided at all costs&#8230;&#8221;, is I think a particularly American view. They seem to assume the worse aspects of my suggestion by default.  After all, the closest they have to the ABC is NPR and that is funded mostly from private donations.  Here, in the UK and in Canada we already have government Radio, TV and Web media.  And if newspapers die, and Television stations do one national news service out Sydney &#8211; they will be all that is left for the journalistic written word.</p>
<p>And, for the USA, perhaps it is already too late.  One gets the impression, from this distance, that balanced journalism has gone, that it is all opinion or channels pushing specific interests, mad shock jocks and ratings chasing tabloids; while the slow reasoned voice of NPR gently unwinds some long winded tale about nothing at all in some country backwater.</p>
<p>I wonder what evolve for journalism and new media.  Is balanced journalism a thing of the past, or is it something that never existed anyway?</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Bronwen</title>
		<link>http://www.bronwenclune.com/2008/09/01/a-letter-to-love-striken-fairfax-journalists/comment-page-1/#comment-141</link>
		<dc:creator>Bronwen</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 02 Sep 2008 09:11:42 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.bronwenclune.com/2008/09/01/a-letter-to-love-striken-fairfax-journalists/#comment-141</guid>
		<description>Well Nick, I&#039;ll stand by what I said in the tone I said it if this is the result. I must remember to be more snarky in future ;-) Really, I think this is a great conversation that I don&#039;t see happening elsewhere (if it is, let me know!) 

So we both believe in the value of a good and informed media, but the way I see it, there&#039;s no looking back, like it or not, the horses have bolted and there&#039;s no getting them back in the barn.

 I think we have no alternative but to start looking at other options. One thing you can&#039;t deny is that Fairfax as it exists will not survive in the future diversified market. Maybe a leaner new organisation that aims less for quantity and more for quality will evolve. I think it will give it the best chance of surviving. But, for reasons I&#039;ve pointed out, I have some grave doubts about this happening and I&#039;m not willing put my faith in it. 

I believe that all the things you list: time, money, opportunity, logistical support, etc - can be made available outside of mainstream media. Crikey is an early example of a news type organisation which offers this to writers.  Stephen Mayne is trying to do it again with The Mayne Report. Cameron Reilly&#039;s TPN is trying to do it with podcasting. For myself you don&#039;t need to convince me of how hard it is Nick - I&#039;m well aware of it, but I think the risk is worth it if not essential! I&#039;ll keep doing my bit to try and evolve a model that can support new media.  Have I done it?  Not by a long shot, but I intend to keep learning and evolving to try and find a way to offer an online alternative that incorporates the opportunities being hyper-connected offers us and which mainstream media largely ignores. Everyday I see a reason to keep going. 

I  have avoided making this a debate about the Norg and more about a broader challenge for mainstream journalist, so I&#039;ll respond to that in another post. My vision for Norg is pretty broad and open, because it is essentially controlled by its audience. 

On your last thought about the market taking care of journalism, yes I  do think that will happen. We may see many niche publications that don&#039;t make the millions that Fairfax does, but are still sustainable for their publishers.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Well Nick, I&#8217;ll stand by what I said in the tone I said it if this is the result. I must remember to be more snarky in future <img src='http://www.bronwenclune.com/wp-includes/images/smilies/icon_wink.gif' alt=';-)' class='wp-smiley' />  Really, I think this is a great conversation that I don&#8217;t see happening elsewhere (if it is, let me know!) </p>
<p>So we both believe in the value of a good and informed media, but the way I see it, there&#8217;s no looking back, like it or not, the horses have bolted and there&#8217;s no getting them back in the barn.</p>
<p> I think we have no alternative but to start looking at other options. One thing you can&#8217;t deny is that Fairfax as it exists will not survive in the future diversified market. Maybe a leaner new organisation that aims less for quantity and more for quality will evolve. I think it will give it the best chance of surviving. But, for reasons I&#8217;ve pointed out, I have some grave doubts about this happening and I&#8217;m not willing put my faith in it. </p>
<p>I believe that all the things you list: time, money, opportunity, logistical support, etc &#8211; can be made available outside of mainstream media. Crikey is an early example of a news type organisation which offers this to writers.  Stephen Mayne is trying to do it again with The Mayne Report. Cameron Reilly&#8217;s TPN is trying to do it with podcasting. For myself you don&#8217;t need to convince me of how hard it is Nick &#8211; I&#8217;m well aware of it, but I think the risk is worth it if not essential! I&#8217;ll keep doing my bit to try and evolve a model that can support new media.  Have I done it?  Not by a long shot, but I intend to keep learning and evolving to try and find a way to offer an online alternative that incorporates the opportunities being hyper-connected offers us and which mainstream media largely ignores. Everyday I see a reason to keep going. </p>
<p>I  have avoided making this a debate about the Norg and more about a broader challenge for mainstream journalist, so I&#8217;ll respond to that in another post. My vision for Norg is pretty broad and open, because it is essentially controlled by its audience. </p>
<p>On your last thought about the market taking care of journalism, yes I  do think that will happen. We may see many niche publications that don&#8217;t make the millions that Fairfax does, but are still sustainable for their publishers.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Nick Miller</title>
		<link>http://www.bronwenclune.com/2008/09/01/a-letter-to-love-striken-fairfax-journalists/comment-page-1/#comment-140</link>
		<dc:creator>Nick Miller</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 02 Sep 2008 08:05:38 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.bronwenclune.com/2008/09/01/a-letter-to-love-striken-fairfax-journalists/#comment-140</guid>
		<description>(one other thought)
You say the &#039;market will take care of&#039; funding journalism once we all make the brave leap to digital. That&#039;s a pretty bold assumption. How can you know that? What if the market throws its hands up at the bewildering plethora of online blogs and communities, and severs the link between journalism and advertising? What then?</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>(one other thought)<br />
You say the &#8216;market will take care of&#8217; funding journalism once we all make the brave leap to digital. That&#8217;s a pretty bold assumption. How can you know that? What if the market throws its hands up at the bewildering plethora of online blogs and communities, and severs the link between journalism and advertising? What then?</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Nick Miller</title>
		<link>http://www.bronwenclune.com/2008/09/01/a-letter-to-love-striken-fairfax-journalists/comment-page-1/#comment-139</link>
		<dc:creator>Nick Miller</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 02 Sep 2008 07:56:40 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.bronwenclune.com/2008/09/01/a-letter-to-love-striken-fairfax-journalists/#comment-139</guid>
		<description>Ok Bronwen, I accept your blog entry was meant to be a critique of large commercially-driven mainstream media. I defend my accusation of snarkiness with reference to your peppering it with words such as &#039;&#039;pathetic&#039;&#039; and &#039;&#039;forlorn&#039;&#039; and the question &#039;&#039;Where is your backbone, your fire, your passion for news?&#039;&#039; Your argument being that, by agreeing to stay at Fairfax we&#039;re displaying our lack of passion for news. Which I object to.
I am passionate for news. And at Fairfax I have found an organisation that backs my quest for good investigative journalism with all the resources that that requires. Time, money, opportunity, logistical support, etc. The luxury of being able to say &#039;&#039;I didn&#039;t file a thing today, but you should see what I&#039;m working on&#039;&#039;.
I don&#039;t see any online organisation in Australia that will support that kind of journalism - beyond simply giving it a place to be published. Therefore, I think it is the right thing to fight Fairfax in its attempt to reduce that support.
I suggest the Norg concept is just as likely to be an online evolutionary dead end as Fairfax&#039;s. We file for The Age online, too, after all. All you&#039;re offering is an alternative site on which to publish my journalism. Why should I bother, when the tools to publish myself are virtually free? If my story&#039;s good enough, it doesn&#039;t matter whether I&#039;m published on PerthNorg, theage.com.au or nickmiller.com.au. It will echo around the net anyway.
The medium isn&#039;t the issue. It&#039;s the search for commercial support for the often highly uncommercial occupation of journalism.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Ok Bronwen, I accept your blog entry was meant to be a critique of large commercially-driven mainstream media. I defend my accusation of snarkiness with reference to your peppering it with words such as &#8221;pathetic&#8221; and &#8221;forlorn&#8221; and the question &#8221;Where is your backbone, your fire, your passion for news?&#8221; Your argument being that, by agreeing to stay at Fairfax we&#8217;re displaying our lack of passion for news. Which I object to.<br />
I am passionate for news. And at Fairfax I have found an organisation that backs my quest for good investigative journalism with all the resources that that requires. Time, money, opportunity, logistical support, etc. The luxury of being able to say &#8221;I didn&#8217;t file a thing today, but you should see what I&#8217;m working on&#8221;.<br />
I don&#8217;t see any online organisation in Australia that will support that kind of journalism &#8211; beyond simply giving it a place to be published. Therefore, I think it is the right thing to fight Fairfax in its attempt to reduce that support.<br />
I suggest the Norg concept is just as likely to be an online evolutionary dead end as Fairfax&#8217;s. We file for The Age online, too, after all. All you&#8217;re offering is an alternative site on which to publish my journalism. Why should I bother, when the tools to publish myself are virtually free? If my story&#8217;s good enough, it doesn&#8217;t matter whether I&#8217;m published on PerthNorg, theage.com.au or nickmiller.com.au. It will echo around the net anyway.<br />
The medium isn&#8217;t the issue. It&#8217;s the search for commercial support for the often highly uncommercial occupation of journalism.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Bronwen</title>
		<link>http://www.bronwenclune.com/2008/09/01/a-letter-to-love-striken-fairfax-journalists/comment-page-1/#comment-138</link>
		<dc:creator>Bronwen</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 02 Sep 2008 06:56:56 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.bronwenclune.com/2008/09/01/a-letter-to-love-striken-fairfax-journalists/#comment-138</guid>
		<description>David,
Interesting point on government media, which I don&#039;t think would be ideal. There was quite an interesting post on Techcrunch about this earlier in the year.
Here&#039;s the link http://www.techcrunch.com/2008/01/24/if-real-journalism-fails-as-a-business-should-government-step-in/</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>David,<br />
Interesting point on government media, which I don&#8217;t think would be ideal. There was quite an interesting post on Techcrunch about this earlier in the year.<br />
Here&#8217;s the link <a href="http://www.techcrunch.com/2008/01/24/if-real-journalism-fails-as-a-business-should-government-step-in/" rel="nofollow">http://www.techcrunch.com/2008/01/24/if-real-journalism-fails-as-a-business-should-government-step-in/</a></p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
