<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:wfw="http://wellformedweb.org/CommentAPI/"
	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:slash="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/slash/"
	>

<channel>
	<title>Skatterbrainz World &#187; Media</title>
	<atom:link href="http://skatterbrainz.com/tag/media/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://skatterbrainz.com</link>
	<description>God almighty. If you’re reading this, you might as well jump off a bridge. I typically discuss software technology and business and legal implications of technology and marketing (or the failures thereof). Sound interesting? You need help. Seriously.</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Fri, 20 May 2011 03:01:49 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<language>en</language>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.2.1</generator>
		<item>
		<title>Local News Sucks&#8230;.</title>
		<link>http://skatterbrainz.com/2009/11/02/local-news-sucks/</link>
		<comments>http://skatterbrainz.com/2009/11/02/local-news-sucks/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Tue, 03 Nov 2009 04:56:15 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Staff on CrAck</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[news]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[socially dysfunctional]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Media]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://skatterbrainz.com/?p=673</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[All through game 5 of the World Series, the local Fox station FOX 43, kept teasing about urgent news of a major beef recall. Apparently it isn&#8217;t that urgent of a recall. Before fox 43 decided to give the urgent news of a major beef recall, they told us of: 1. Election Day weather. 2. [...]]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>All through game 5 of the World Series, the local Fox station FOX 43, kept teasing about urgent news of a major beef recall. Apparently it isn&#8217;t that urgent of a recall.</p>
<p>Before fox 43 decided to give the urgent news of a major beef recall, they told us of:</p>
<p>1. Election Day weather.<br />
2. Last Minute campaigning by the candidates <br />
3. WHat polling places are doing to alleviate the spread of the flu<br />
4. Pedestrian signs on Shore Drive<br />
5. A whole bunch of commercials<br />
6. How the light rail construction is impacting small businesses near the construction<br />
And then the urgent news of the Beef recall&#8230;
</p>
<p>And people wonder why I don&#8217;t watch the crap known as the local news&#8230;.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://skatterbrainz.com/2009/11/02/local-news-sucks/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Election Coverage Slanted, Say It Isn&#8217;t So&#8230;</title>
		<link>http://skatterbrainz.com/2008/11/10/election-coverage-slanted-say-it-isnt-so/</link>
		<comments>http://skatterbrainz.com/2008/11/10/election-coverage-slanted-say-it-isnt-so/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Tue, 11 Nov 2008 04:27:39 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Staff on CrAck</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[news]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[newsworthy]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Media]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://skatterbrainz.com/?p=236</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Nearly a week after the election, the Washington post have come clean that their coverage was tilted towards President Elect Obama. Now they are only talking raw numbers, and not the actual slant of the articles written.  You have to go here to see how those stories were slated negatively against McCain, something like 57% negative to 14% positive, [...]]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Nearly a week after the election, the Washington post have <a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/11/07/AR2008110702895.html" target="_blank">come clean</a> that their coverage was tilted towards President Elect Obama. Now they are only talking raw numbers, and not the actual slant of the articles written. </p>
<p>You have to go <a href="http://www.journalism.org/node/13307" target="_blank">here</a> to see how those stories were slated negatively against McCain, something like 57% negative to 14% positive, where Obama numbers were 29% negative and 36% positive.</p>
<p>The other thing I thought was interesting is that it seems that the Washington Post doesn&#8217;t think they are a left leaning newspaper, which is about as stupid as believing that Fox News is &#8220;Fair and Balanced&#8221; </p>
<p>I guess that is the Washington Post&#8217;s new tag line could be &#8220;Fair and Balanced about Obama&#8221;</p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://skatterbrainz.com/2008/11/10/election-coverage-slanted-say-it-isnt-so/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
	</channel>
</rss>

