<?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:georss="http://www.georss.org/georss" xmlns:geo="http://www.w3.org/2003/01/geo/wgs84_pos#" xmlns:media="http://search.yahoo.com/mrss/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: London, YouTube Torched</title>
	<atom:link href="http://trippenbach.com/2008/04/06/london-youtube-torched/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://trippenbach.com/2008/04/06/london-youtube-torched/</link>
	<description>Journalism, game design and social media meet at last.</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Tue, 13 Jul 2010 08:28:49 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.com/</generator>
	<item>
		<title>By: Strangepants</title>
		<link>http://trippenbach.com/2008/04/06/london-youtube-torched/#comment-73</link>
		<dc:creator>Strangepants</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 15 Apr 2008 00:47:45 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://trippenbach.wordpress.com/?p=72#comment-73</guid>
		<description>... and when you put it that way, I agree wholeheartedly with you :)

Often editorial verification processes are too slow and unnecessarily slow down publication ... even if &#039;publication&#039; is just linking to existing information on the net.  Perhaps BBC should consider expanding their &#039;Related Internet Links&#039; sidebar on stories to be a little more wide ranging - a quick search of blogs, photo sites and YouTube?</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>&#8230; and when you put it that way, I agree wholeheartedly with you <img src='http://s.wordpress.com/wp-includes/images/smilies/icon_smile.gif' alt=':)' class='wp-smiley' /> </p>
<p>Often editorial verification processes are too slow and unnecessarily slow down publication &#8230; even if &#8216;publication&#8217; is just linking to existing information on the net.  Perhaps BBC should consider expanding their &#8216;Related Internet Links&#8217; sidebar on stories to be a little more wide ranging &#8211; a quick search of blogs, photo sites and YouTube?</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: rustedangel</title>
		<link>http://trippenbach.com/2008/04/06/london-youtube-torched/#comment-71</link>
		<dc:creator>rustedangel</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 08 Apr 2008 16:46:27 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://trippenbach.wordpress.com/?p=72#comment-71</guid>
		<description>The other problem with &quot;web 2.0 bullshitters&quot; is that they can complain anonymously on other people&#039;s boards. I have no truck with Sp pointing out inconsitencies, or Tripp clarifying the point, but what is the purpose of comments like Kitione&#039;s?

My original impression was that services like Qik, the phenomenon of live internet news, and &quot;web 2.0&quot; in general was that it could be used as an up-to-the-second communications tool. The idea of a news stoty breaking on cell phones before Fox get their paws on it is what the internet ought to be all about. Well... that, and pornography and MMO grindfests, apparently.

I suppose it is extreme optimism to assume that humans will use the web for actual interaction. Trolls are everywhere, and I know that whinging while anonymous is natural to some people, but let&#039;s do skip it here. I like this blog. Go troll myspace or something.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>The other problem with &#8220;web 2.0 bullshitters&#8221; is that they can complain anonymously on other people&#8217;s boards. I have no truck with Sp pointing out inconsitencies, or Tripp clarifying the point, but what is the purpose of comments like Kitione&#8217;s?</p>
<p>My original impression was that services like Qik, the phenomenon of live internet news, and &#8220;web 2.0&#8243; in general was that it could be used as an up-to-the-second communications tool. The idea of a news stoty breaking on cell phones before Fox get their paws on it is what the internet ought to be all about. Well&#8230; that, and pornography and MMO grindfests, apparently.</p>
<p>I suppose it is extreme optimism to assume that humans will use the web for actual interaction. Trolls are everywhere, and I know that whinging while anonymous is natural to some people, but let&#8217;s do skip it here. I like this blog. Go troll myspace or something.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: trippenbach</title>
		<link>http://trippenbach.com/2008/04/06/london-youtube-torched/#comment-70</link>
		<dc:creator>trippenbach</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 08 Apr 2008 10:47:55 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://trippenbach.wordpress.com/?p=72#comment-70</guid>
		<description>Wow, harsh. But true. The BBC does put things on YouTube. Thank you for pointing out this oversight - I should have been more specific. Go to the &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.youtube.com/BBC&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;BBC YouTube channel&lt;/a&gt; and you&#039;ll see that it&#039;s mainly a playground for comedy and drama clips - a very good vehicle for that kind of content, I&#039;d say. But to my knowledge BBC News doesn&#039;t have a mechanism in place to put news on YouTube &lt;i&gt;while it&#039;s still news&lt;/i&gt;, like our man niefisch did. If anyone knows otherwise, let me know. 

They &lt;i&gt;do&lt;/i&gt; encourage the public to send in their pictures and video, but distribution is still by TV - not on YouTube. But people are going to YouTube to find this information, sometimes instead of tuning in to the TV broadcast. So the point remains: an ordinary dude with a camera phone can broadcast footage as fast as the big guys. Sometimes that guy&#039;s footage is newsworthy. And the audience is searching for it, not necessarily waiting for the TV broadcast. So as it stands, the big guys need a mechanism to sort the wheat from the chaff when it comes to citizen-produced media, and to get it out where the people are watching.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Wow, harsh. But true. The BBC does put things on YouTube. Thank you for pointing out this oversight &#8211; I should have been more specific. Go to the <a href="http://www.youtube.com/BBC" rel="nofollow">BBC YouTube channel</a> and you&#8217;ll see that it&#8217;s mainly a playground for comedy and drama clips &#8211; a very good vehicle for that kind of content, I&#8217;d say. But to my knowledge BBC News doesn&#8217;t have a mechanism in place to put news on YouTube <i>while it&#8217;s still news</i>, like our man niefisch did. If anyone knows otherwise, let me know. </p>
<p>They <i>do</i> encourage the public to send in their pictures and video, but distribution is still by TV &#8211; not on YouTube. But people are going to YouTube to find this information, sometimes instead of tuning in to the TV broadcast. So the point remains: an ordinary dude with a camera phone can broadcast footage as fast as the big guys. Sometimes that guy&#8217;s footage is newsworthy. And the audience is searching for it, not necessarily waiting for the TV broadcast. So as it stands, the big guys need a mechanism to sort the wheat from the chaff when it comes to citizen-produced media, and to get it out where the people are watching.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Strangepants</title>
		<link>http://trippenbach.com/2008/04/06/london-youtube-torched/#comment-68</link>
		<dc:creator>Strangepants</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 08 Apr 2008 01:58:05 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://trippenbach.wordpress.com/?p=72#comment-68</guid>
		<description>You said: &quot;The BBC, you see, doesn’t put things on YouTube. Private individuals, on the other hand, do.&quot;

Nonsense! They have a dedicated channel on YouTube: http://www.youtube.com/BBC

Your otherwise interesting article about citizen journalism tainted by your neglect to check the facts before you proceeded to join a popular sport of bashing the traditional media.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>You said: &#8220;The BBC, you see, doesn’t put things on YouTube. Private individuals, on the other hand, do.&#8221;</p>
<p>Nonsense! They have a dedicated channel on YouTube: <a href="http://www.youtube.com/BBC" rel="nofollow">http://www.youtube.com/BBC</a></p>
<p>Your otherwise interesting article about citizen journalism tainted by your neglect to check the facts before you proceeded to join a popular sport of bashing the traditional media.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: &#160; CJ and the olympic torch.&#160;by&#160;andydickinson.net</title>
		<link>http://trippenbach.com/2008/04/06/london-youtube-torched/#comment-67</link>
		<dc:creator>&#160; CJ and the olympic torch.&#160;by&#160;andydickinson.net</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 06 Apr 2008 21:24:28 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://trippenbach.wordpress.com/?p=72#comment-67</guid>
		<description>[...] on and things to post about. But to get the juices flowing I wanted to point to a great pick off by Phil Trippenbach about &#8216;CJ&#8217; coverage of the Olympic torch going through [...]</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[...] on and things to post about. But to get the juices flowing I wanted to point to a great pick off by Phil Trippenbach about &#8216;CJ&#8217; coverage of the Olympic torch going through [...]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
