<?xml version="1.0"?>
<!-- RSS generated by OPML Editor version 0.72 on 5/5/2007; 7:23:05 PM Pacific -->
<rss version="2.0">
	<channel>
		<title>Scripting News</title>
		<link>http://www.scripting.com/</link>
		<description>It's even worse than it appears.</description>
		<language>en-us</language>
		<copyright>Copyright 1997-2007 Dave Winer</copyright>
		<pubDate>Sat, 05 May 2007 07:00:00 GMT</pubDate>
		<lastBuildDate>Sun, 06 May 2007 02:23:05 GMT</lastBuildDate>
		<docs>http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/tech/rss</docs>
		<generator>OPML Editor version 0.72</generator>
		<managingEditor>dave@scripting.com</managingEditor>
		<webMaster>dave@scripting.com</webMaster>
		<item>
			<title>Today's links</title>
			<link>http://www.scripting.com/stories/2007/05/05/todaysLinks.html</link>
			<description>
				&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.flickr.com/groups/24flickr/&quot;&gt;24 hours&lt;/a&gt; of Flickr.&lt;/p&gt;
				&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.geeknewscentral.com/archives/007014.html&quot;&gt;Todd Cochrane&lt;/a&gt; on good and bad re-syndication practices. This is bound to be controversial, even so it's good to ground this perennial discussion with specifics. &lt;/p&gt;
				</description>
			<pubDate>Sun, 06 May 2007 02:03:33 GMT</pubDate>
			<guid>http://www.scripting.com/stories/2007/05/05/todaysLinks.html</guid>
			</item>
		<item>
			<title>I don't believe in 'gotcha'</title>
			<link>http://www.scripting.com/stories/2007/05/05/iDontBelieveInGotcha.html</link>
			<description>
				&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.flickr.com/photos/scriptingnews/485781471/&quot;&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://images.scripting.com/archiveScriptingCom/2007/05/05/berkeleyPath.jpg&quot; width=&quot;85&quot; height=&quot;133&quot; border=&quot;0&quot; align=&quot;right&quot; hspace=&quot;15&quot; vspace=&quot;5&quot; alt=&quot;A picture named berkeleyPath.jpg&quot;&gt;&lt;/a&gt;I don't believe in the mythological &quot;gotcha&quot; moment reporters like to dream about, for a couple of reasons. &lt;/p&gt;
				&lt;p&gt;1. I've never seen it happen, in years of being interviewed, and knowing people who are often interviewed. I've never seen a reporter ask a question and get an answer that revealed something unusual that was actually understood by the reporter, and made its way into print in a form a reader could use. &lt;/p&gt;
				&lt;p&gt;2. I've seen really interesting juicy stories out there, ready to be reported, on the record, attributable, with dozens of supposedly ambitious and relentless fact-diggers swarming all around, and instead of going for the gusto, they cling to the safe tried-and-true nauseatingly boring and insignificant overtold bedtime stories.&lt;/p&gt;
				&lt;p&gt;In other words, if you fancy yourself a Woodward or Bernstein, stop boasting and go out and do some work and take some risks. Until then I don't see why you need to talk to someone for 25 minutes for a 12-second soundbite. I don't see who that serves. I don't think very much listening is happening in that process. I think if the subject spent the 25 minutes blogging instead, the world would be a much better place for it.&lt;/p&gt;
				&lt;p&gt;So here's a question for the reporters who may be listening. Did you learn anything in the discussion about &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.scripting.com/stories/2007/04/26/iDontDoInterviewsByEmail.html&quot;&gt;interviews&lt;/a&gt;, or did we just talk over each others' heads? &lt;/p&gt;
				</description>
			</item>
		<item>
			<title>What's wrong with this picture?</title>
			<link>http://www.scripting.com/stories/2007/05/05/whatsWrongWithThisPicture.html</link>
			<description>
				&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.nytimes.com/2007/05/04/business/media/04paper.html?ex=1335931200&amp;en=ce4f9aea2882595d&amp;ei=5090&amp;partner=rssuserland&amp;emc=rss&quot;&gt;The NY Times announced&lt;/a&gt; their new public editor, the person who, more than any other person on the Times staff, represents the interests of the readers of the Times.&lt;/p&gt;
				&lt;p&gt;I'm sure he's a fine person, great reporter, watchdog of politicians. But -- what the Times needs more than anything is a &lt;i&gt;reader&lt;/i&gt; to represent the readers. Someone to tell them, without a lifetime of training in the politics of newsrooms, what they're doing wrong. &lt;/p&gt;
				&lt;p&gt;More likely, they're getting someone who will tell them and us why the public is wrong. &lt;/p&gt;
				&lt;p&gt;As with everything else on this blog -- imho.&lt;/p&gt;
				</description>
			<pubDate>Sat, 05 May 2007 19:36:06 GMT</pubDate>
			<guid>http://www.scripting.com/stories/2007/05/05/whatsWrongWithThisPicture.html</guid>
			</item>
		</channel>
	</rss>
