<?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: Media 2015: Same as it ever was. But different.</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.scholarsandrogues.com/2008/03/24/media-2015-same-as-it-ever-was-but-different/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.scholarsandrogues.com/2008/03/24/media-2015-same-as-it-ever-was-but-different/</link>
	<description>Think - it ain&#039;t illegal yet...</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Sun, 21 Mar 2010 05:07:38 -0600</lastBuildDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.9.2</generator>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
		<item>
		<title>By: pookapooka</title>
		<link>http://www.scholarsandrogues.com/2008/03/24/media-2015-same-as-it-ever-was-but-different/comment-page-1/#comment-28011</link>
		<dc:creator>pookapooka</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 26 Mar 2008 18:34:15 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.scholarsandrogues.com/2008/03/24/media-2015-same-as-it-ever-was-but-different/#comment-28011</guid>
		<description>See my commentary re: New York Times.  As for the teevee corps, they, along with those lovely enabling prostitutes in our elected government whose votes they casually buy, have completely eradicated the now-laughable principle of honest public service as the essential part of their privilege (another so-quaint term) of licensing (yet another) what is supposed to be a public utility.

Good riddance to all these greedy monsters, whose only motivation to keep their hearts beating is to serve the even greater greed of their traitorous oligarch owners.  Ta ta, lemmings, have a nice jump.  Electronic irrelevance, a tabloiditude a la National Enquirer,  awaits you at the bottom of the cliff.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>See my commentary re: New York Times.  As for the teevee corps, they, along with those lovely enabling prostitutes in our elected government whose votes they casually buy, have completely eradicated the now-laughable principle of honest public service as the essential part of their privilege (another so-quaint term) of licensing (yet another) what is supposed to be a public utility.</p>
<p>Good riddance to all these greedy monsters, whose only motivation to keep their hearts beating is to serve the even greater greed of their traitorous oligarch owners.  Ta ta, lemmings, have a nice jump.  Electronic irrelevance, a tabloiditude a la National Enquirer,  awaits you at the bottom of the cliff.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: JS O'Brien</title>
		<link>http://www.scholarsandrogues.com/2008/03/24/media-2015-same-as-it-ever-was-but-different/comment-page-1/#comment-27849</link>
		<dc:creator>JS O'Brien</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 26 Mar 2008 00:46:38 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.scholarsandrogues.com/2008/03/24/media-2015-same-as-it-ever-was-but-different/#comment-27849</guid>
		<description>Just a few questions:

1.  How will the Web absorb all this new advertising?  If everyone wants a banner, won&#039;t the cost/return ratio decline?  Won&#039;t that tend to drive advertising money elsewhere?

2.  If you get your on-line connectivity on a cable, what&#039;s the difference between getting moving pictures over the Net and moving pictures without a modem?  It&#039;s all digital, right?

3.  If the networks fight back by making better programs, won&#039;t that tend to increase TV viewership?  Couldn&#039;t that reverse a trend?

4.  If advertising on the Net is all about great moving pictures, won&#039;t that open up whole new avenues of creativity for creative people?</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Just a few questions:</p>
<p>1.  How will the Web absorb all this new advertising?  If everyone wants a banner, won&#8217;t the cost/return ratio decline?  Won&#8217;t that tend to drive advertising money elsewhere?</p>
<p>2.  If you get your on-line connectivity on a cable, what&#8217;s the difference between getting moving pictures over the Net and moving pictures without a modem?  It&#8217;s all digital, right?</p>
<p>3.  If the networks fight back by making better programs, won&#8217;t that tend to increase TV viewership?  Couldn&#8217;t that reverse a trend?</p>
<p>4.  If advertising on the Net is all about great moving pictures, won&#8217;t that open up whole new avenues of creativity for creative people?</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Russ Wellen</title>
		<link>http://www.scholarsandrogues.com/2008/03/24/media-2015-same-as-it-ever-was-but-different/comment-page-1/#comment-27797</link>
		<dc:creator>Russ Wellen</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 25 Mar 2008 18:24:30 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.scholarsandrogues.com/2008/03/24/media-2015-same-as-it-ever-was-but-different/#comment-27797</guid>
		<description>Enlightening. Whoever thought TV&#039;s star would dim so fast. It seems like only yesterday that its emergence was threatening the movie industry.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Enlightening. Whoever thought TV&#8217;s star would dim so fast. It seems like only yesterday that its emergence was threatening the movie industry.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Jon</title>
		<link>http://www.scholarsandrogues.com/2008/03/24/media-2015-same-as-it-ever-was-but-different/comment-page-1/#comment-27690</link>
		<dc:creator>Jon</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 25 Mar 2008 00:07:40 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.scholarsandrogues.com/2008/03/24/media-2015-same-as-it-ever-was-but-different/#comment-27690</guid>
		<description>Very different, indeed, if advertisers actually allow that interaction you mentioned. So far, it looks like they aren&#039;t looking in that direction. The current course of &quot;targeted advertising&quot; is a sham. Consumers need direct feedback to the online advertisers. Consumers should be able to choose not to be shown a particular ad, or class of ads. Free content exchanged for my attention is fine,if they would just quit pushing these singles ads at me.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Very different, indeed, if advertisers actually allow that interaction you mentioned. So far, it looks like they aren&#8217;t looking in that direction. The current course of &#8220;targeted advertising&#8221; is a sham. Consumers need direct feedback to the online advertisers. Consumers should be able to choose not to be shown a particular ad, or class of ads. Free content exchanged for my attention is fine,if they would just quit pushing these singles ads at me.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
