<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8"?>
<rss version="2.0"><channel><title>The Technology Liberation Front - Latest Comments in And the Prize for Best Reporting in a 19th Century Medium Goes to…</title><link>http://tlf.disqus.com/</link><description>The Technology Liberation Front is the tech policy blog dedicated to keeping politicians' hands off the 'net and everything else related to technology.</description><language>en</language><lastBuildDate>Thu, 10 Apr 2008 14:07:33 -0000</lastBuildDate><item><title>Re: And the Prize for Best Reporting in a 19th Century Medium Goes to…</title><link>http://techliberation.com/2008/04/09/and-the-prize-for-best-reporting-in-a-19th-century-medium-goes-to%e2%80%a6/#comment-1453834</link><description>True enough, at least in the short run.  If the rule didn't exist, I don't think think your average pajama-clad blogger would be walking away with armloads of Pulitzers.  But there are some online outlets that already can stand up to anything on  paper.  I cited CNET and &lt;a href="http://Salon.com"&gt;Salon.com&lt;/a&gt;, but there are more.  Remember, also, that online writing isn't necessarily by those with no print background -- some of the best are in fact by  print refugees like yourself.</description><dc:creator xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/">James Gattuso</dc:creator><pubDate>Thu, 10 Apr 2008 14:07:33 -0000</pubDate></item><item><title>Re: And the Prize for Best Reporting in a 19th Century Medium Goes to…</title><link>http://techliberation.com/2008/04/09/and-the-prize-for-best-reporting-in-a-19th-century-medium-goes-to%e2%80%a6/#comment-1453833</link><description>I'm sure the rule you cite (requiring a story to have appeared in print) will change eventually. But even if it does, I suspect the prizes will still mostly go to print journalists. Despite the fact that the electronic media are rapidly growing (in influence and audience size), I find that the quality of print journalism is still much better, especially as compared to the shoddy standards of "TV news" (which I consider somewhat of an oxymoron). Newspaper writing and editing are getting worse, but they're still better than the vast majority of what's cranked out by those with no print background. Of course, I'm terribly biased, because I was one of those print dinosaurs until I realized which way the winds were blowing about 16 years ago. :-)</description><dc:creator xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/">David McElroy</dc:creator><pubDate>Thu, 10 Apr 2008 07:07:37 -0000</pubDate></item><item><title>Re: And the Prize for Best Reporting in a 19th Century Medium Goes to…</title><link>http://techliberation.com/2008/04/09/and-the-prize-for-best-reporting-in-a-19th-century-medium-goes-to%e2%80%a6/#comment-1453832</link><description>Egads, you guys switched to WordPress? What's the world coming to?!</description><dc:creator xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/">MikeT</dc:creator><pubDate>Thu, 10 Apr 2008 01:08:23 -0000</pubDate></item><item><title>Re: And the Prize for Best Reporting in a 19th Century Medium Goes to…</title><link>http://techliberation.com/2008/04/09/and-the-prize-for-best-reporting-in-a-19th-century-medium-goes-to%e2%80%a6/#comment-1453831</link><description>No one can dispute the quality of the work for Pulitzers, but the prize's stature is destined to be diminished if id doesn't expand its purview beyond ink-on-paper entries.</description><dc:creator xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/">Drew Clark</dc:creator><pubDate>Thu, 10 Apr 2008 01:04:55 -0000</pubDate></item></channel></rss>