<?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: The Paper of (Correcting The) Record</title>
	<atom:link href="http://informedspeculation.com/2006/03/23/the-paper-of-correcting-the-record/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://informedspeculation.com/2006/03/23/the-paper-of-correcting-the-record/</link>
	<description>Refunds Cheerfully Given To All Who Disagree</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Sat, 07 Apr 2012 09:00:47 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.0</generator>
	<item>
		<title>By: Gwedd</title>
		<link>http://informedspeculation.com/2006/03/23/the-paper-of-correcting-the-record/comment-page-1/#comment-14659</link>
		<dc:creator>Gwedd</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 24 Mar 2006 01:00:09 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://decision08.net/2006/03/23/the-paper-of-correcting-the-record/#comment-14659</guid>
		<description>Comrades,

     Are you folks really really sure that Jason Blair isn&#039;t still working for the &quot;Paper of Record&quot;? I mean, he COULD be running things from a home office, you know?

     They keep losing subscribers and soon they will be the &quot;Pauper of Record&quot;.... after all, it&#039;s no great step to go from pandering to pan-handling.

     Respects,

       Gwedd</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Comrades,</p>
<p>     Are you folks really really sure that Jason Blair isn&#8217;t still working for the &#8220;Paper of Record&#8221;? I mean, he COULD be running things from a home office, you know?</p>
<p>     They keep losing subscribers and soon they will be the &#8220;Pauper of Record&#8221;&#8230;. after all, it&#8217;s no great step to go from pandering to pan-handling.</p>
<p>     Respects,</p>
<p>       Gwedd</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: dmac</title>
		<link>http://informedspeculation.com/2006/03/23/the-paper-of-correcting-the-record/comment-page-1/#comment-14655</link>
		<dc:creator>dmac</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 23 Mar 2006 22:05:02 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://decision08.net/2006/03/23/the-paper-of-correcting-the-record/#comment-14655</guid>
		<description>Keller must be wondering why he ever took the top job over there - must have been a lot easier to play columnist prior to this stuff.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Keller must be wondering why he ever took the top job over there &#8211; must have been a lot easier to play columnist prior to this stuff.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Fred</title>
		<link>http://informedspeculation.com/2006/03/23/the-paper-of-correcting-the-record/comment-page-1/#comment-14645</link>
		<dc:creator>Fred</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 23 Mar 2006 19:55:01 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://decision08.net/2006/03/23/the-paper-of-correcting-the-record/#comment-14645</guid>
		<description>Apparently, this is another example of a story being &quot;too good to check.&quot;</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Apparently, this is another example of a story being &#8220;too good to check.&#8221;</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: topsecretk9</title>
		<link>http://informedspeculation.com/2006/03/23/the-paper-of-correcting-the-record/comment-page-1/#comment-14643</link>
		<dc:creator>topsecretk9</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 23 Mar 2006 19:51:06 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://decision08.net/2006/03/23/the-paper-of-correcting-the-record/#comment-14643</guid>
		<description>Yeah, but this is so bad. I mean, even fitting the story line a background check should be, I would think, standard operating procedure for any paper. Yesterday they had a lengthy correction on their story OF ANOTHER NEWS ORG (McClatchy) that had so many facts wrong you wonder if the reporter even picked up a phone.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Yeah, but this is so bad. I mean, even fitting the story line a background check should be, I would think, standard operating procedure for any paper. Yesterday they had a lengthy correction on their story OF ANOTHER NEWS ORG (McClatchy) that had so many facts wrong you wonder if the reporter even picked up a phone.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>

