<?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: A Question of Balance</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.sidfaiwu.com/blog/index.php/2008/06/a-question-of-balance/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.sidfaiwu.com/blog/index.php/2008/06/a-question-of-balance/</link>
	<description>Blog</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Fri, 10 May 2013 08:00:34 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.5.1</generator>
	<item>
		<title>By: sidfaiwu</title>
		<link>http://www.sidfaiwu.com/blog/index.php/2008/06/a-question-of-balance/comment-page-1/#comment-2933</link>
		<dc:creator>sidfaiwu</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 13 Jun 2008 20:21:11 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.sidfaiwu.com/blog/?p=395#comment-2933</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[I was aware when I asked this question last week that it&#039;s a difficult question.  It seems to place an additional burden on my readers.  Usually, you simply have to read the question, think for a while, and then respond.  This question seems to require research.  &quot;If a story is truly under-reported,&quot; one will likely tell one&#039;s self, &quot;I probably haven&#039;t heard of it.&quot;  Thus you believe you must do some research in addition to your usual thinking.

This need not be the case.  You can simply answer with a &#039;pet cause&#039; of your own.  If you care deeply about, say, &lt;a href = &quot;http://www.snopes.com/photos/military/throwpuppy.asp&quot; target = &quot;_blank&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;animal cruelty&lt;/a&gt;, you probably feel that it&#039;s both important and under-reported.  It could be a &lt;a href = &quot;http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/front/5819725.html&quot; target = &quot;_blank&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;recent globally significant statistic&lt;/a&gt; that most people don&#039;t know about, but you&#039;ve heard.  Remember, &#039;important&#039; is subjective to some extent.

My initial answer relied on expert opinion.  When it comes to reporting, I suppose an &#039;expert&#039; would be a journalist.  A recent &lt;a href = &quot;http://www.christinewicker.com/&quot; target = &quot;_blank&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;book&lt;/a&gt; and &lt;a href = &quot;http://www.huffingtonpost.com/christine-wicker/the-great-evangelical-dec_b_105009.html&quot; target = &quot;_blank&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;article&lt;/a&gt; by Christine Wicker gives an example of a trend in America largely ignored, even denied, by the media.  Based on her years as a religion reporter, she began to suspect that American evangelicalism is in decline, especially as a political force.

While interesting and important as the decline and fall of the Religious &#039;Right&#039; in America is, I thought of an even more important and less reported story.  This story will require some time to research and I&#039;d like to make a full post out of it.  I think I&#039;ll entitle it &quot;The Copernican Revolution of the Personal&quot;.  The basic idea is that Copernican/Galilean Revolution and the Theory of Evolution were only the beginning.]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I was aware when I asked this question last week that it&#8217;s a difficult question.  It seems to place an additional burden on my readers.  Usually, you simply have to read the question, think for a while, and then respond.  This question seems to require research.  &#8220;If a story is truly under-reported,&#8221; one will likely tell one&#8217;s self, &#8220;I probably haven&#8217;t heard of it.&#8221;  Thus you believe you must do some research in addition to your usual thinking.</p>
<p>This need not be the case.  You can simply answer with a &#8216;pet cause&#8217; of your own.  If you care deeply about, say, <a href = "http://www.snopes.com/photos/military/throwpuppy.asp" target = "_blank" rel="nofollow">animal cruelty</a>, you probably feel that it&#8217;s both important and under-reported.  It could be a <a href = "http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/front/5819725.html" target = "_blank" rel="nofollow">recent globally significant statistic</a> that most people don&#8217;t know about, but you&#8217;ve heard.  Remember, &#8216;important&#8217; is subjective to some extent.</p>
<p>My initial answer relied on expert opinion.  When it comes to reporting, I suppose an &#8216;expert&#8217; would be a journalist.  A recent <a href = "http://www.christinewicker.com/" target = "_blank" rel="nofollow">book</a> and <a href = "http://www.huffingtonpost.com/christine-wicker/the-great-evangelical-dec_b_105009.html" target = "_blank" rel="nofollow">article</a> by Christine Wicker gives an example of a trend in America largely ignored, even denied, by the media.  Based on her years as a religion reporter, she began to suspect that American evangelicalism is in decline, especially as a political force.</p>
<p>While interesting and important as the decline and fall of the Religious &#8216;Right&#8217; in America is, I thought of an even more important and less reported story.  This story will require some time to research and I&#8217;d like to make a full post out of it.  I think I&#8217;ll entitle it &#8220;The Copernican Revolution of the Personal&#8221;.  The basic idea is that Copernican/Galilean Revolution and the Theory of Evolution were only the beginning.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Snurp</title>
		<link>http://www.sidfaiwu.com/blog/index.php/2008/06/a-question-of-balance/comment-page-1/#comment-2662</link>
		<dc:creator>Snurp</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 07 Jun 2008 01:54:59 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.sidfaiwu.com/blog/?p=395#comment-2662</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[First, something related but not an answer to the question.  Why is the media so strange in its choice of what to cover?  Simple.  Go to Fox News or CNN.  Better, go to both and more.  Look under &quot;Most Read.&quot;

You probably see the problem.  News companies are businesses.  They sell a product.  Their goal is ratings.  Compare them to, say, NPR or PGS, who do not focus on selling and do not obsess over being competitive or having huge ratings.  Note the difference.

Now, a story that should get more coverage?  Here&#039;s one that I haven&#039;t seen in anything major, but I think it&#039;s something that, even if not a huge event in and of itself, is something that should be thought about: &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/front/5819725.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Link&lt;/a&gt;]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>First, something related but not an answer to the question.  Why is the media so strange in its choice of what to cover?  Simple.  Go to Fox News or CNN.  Better, go to both and more.  Look under &#8220;Most Read.&#8221;</p>
<p>You probably see the problem.  News companies are businesses.  They sell a product.  Their goal is ratings.  Compare them to, say, NPR or PGS, who do not focus on selling and do not obsess over being competitive or having huge ratings.  Note the difference.</p>
<p>Now, a story that should get more coverage?  Here&#8217;s one that I haven&#8217;t seen in anything major, but I think it&#8217;s something that, even if not a huge event in and of itself, is something that should be thought about: <a href="http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/front/5819725.html" rel="nofollow">Link</a></p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
