<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8"?>
<rss version="2.0"
    xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
     xmlns:admin="http://webns.net/mvcb/"
     xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
     xmlns:rdf="http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#">
	<channel>
	<title>MetaFilter posts tagged with Salon and media</title>
	<link>http://www.metafilter.com/tags/Salon+media</link>
	<description>Posts tagged with 'Salon' and 'media' at MetaFilter.</description>
	<pubDate>Thu, 20 Apr 2006 12:58:04 -0800</pubDate> <lastBuildDate>Thu, 20 Apr 2006 12:58:04 -0800</lastBuildDate>

	<language>en-us</language>
	<docs>http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/tech/rss</docs>
	<ttl>60</ttl>
	<item>
		<title>Downgrading the Fourth Estate</title>
		<link>http://www.metafilter.com/51057/Downgrading%2Dthe%2DFourth%2DEstate</link>
		<description>&lt;a href="http://journalism.nyu.edu/pubzone/weblogs/pressthink/2006/04/20/mcl_rlbk.html"&gt;Rollback.&lt;/a&gt; Media critic Jay Rosen rises above the McClellan/&quot;shake-up&quot; foofaraw to put several pieces of the puzzle together and show how the Bush administration has significantly altered the long-standing relationship of the press to the White House. (More from Rosen &lt;a href=&quot;http://journalism.nyu.edu/pubzone/weblogs/pressthink/2005/07/16/rll_back.html&quot;&gt;here&lt;/a&gt;.) Another piece that fits: Donald Rumsfeld&apos;s &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.google.com/search?as_q=rumsfeld+AND+%22media+committees%22&amp;num=100&amp;hl=en&amp;btnG=Google+Search&amp;as_epq=&amp;as_oq=&amp;as_eq=&amp;lr=&amp;as_ft=i&amp;as_filetype=&amp;as_qdr=all&amp;as_occt=any&amp;as_dt=i&amp;as_sitesearch=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.defenselink.mil%2Ftranscripts&amp;as_rights=&amp;safe=off&quot;&gt;bold, frequent, and rarely-challenged assertions&lt;/a&gt; that the American press is being expertly &quot;manipulated&quot; by Al Qaeda &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.defenselink.mil/transcripts/2006/tr20060417-12843.html&quot;&gt;&quot;media committees&quot;&lt;/a&gt; in Iraq and Afghanistan.  </description>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">tag:metafilter.com,2006:site.51057</guid>
		<pubDate>Thu, 20 Apr 2006 12:58:04 -0800</pubDate>
		<category>Bush</category>
		<category>GOP</category>
		<category>journalism</category>
		<category>McClellan</category>
		<category>media</category>
		<category>politics</category>
		<category>press</category>
		<category>Republican</category>
		<category>Rosen</category>
		<category>Rumsfeld</category>
		<category>Salon</category>
		<category>WhiteHouse</category>
		<dc:creator>digaman</dc:creator>
	</item>
      <item>
		<title>Unger chews Isikoff a new one</title>
		<link>http://www.metafilter.com/34186/Unger%2Dchews%2DIsikoff%2Da%2Dnew%2Done</link>
		<description>&lt;a href="http://www.houseofbush.com/"&gt;The Newsweek-Fahrenheit wars&lt;/a&gt; - Michael Isikoff&apos;s &quot;seven errors, distortions and selective omissions of crucial information&quot; detailed by Craig Unger,    &quot;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.houseofbush.com/reviews.php&quot;&gt;House of Bush, House of Saud&lt;/a&gt;&quot; author (read excerpts of his book &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.salon.com/books/feature/2004/03/11/unger_1/index_np.html&quot;&gt;at Salon.com&lt;/a&gt;, for members or by a &quot;day pass&quot;) Isikoff has heavily cited Unger&apos;s book but, it seems, not bothered to read Unger&apos;s generously provided &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.houseofbush.com/files.php&quot;&gt;source files&lt;/a&gt;. &quot;Liberal&quot; PBS is not excluded, as credulous (or ignorant) &quot;On the Media&quot; host Bob Garfield&apos;s July 2 interview with Isikoff &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.wnyc.org/onthemedia/&quot;&gt;demonstrates&lt;/a&gt;.  What shall we call such &lt;a href=&quot;http://64.233.161.104/search?q=cache:eWcO0U__jIoJ:www.fair.org/views.html+PBS,+%22On+the+Media%22,Isikoff&amp;hl=en&amp;ie=UTF-8&quot;&gt;pervasive, ongoing and seemingly willful patterns&lt;/a&gt; of inaccuracy, distortion, and selective omission?  </description>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">tag:metafilter.com,2004:site.34186</guid>
		<pubDate>Wed, 07 Jul 2004 05:39:29 -0800</pubDate>
		<category>bias</category>
		<category>Bush</category>
		<category>CraigUnger</category>
		<category>GeorgeBush</category>
		<category>GWB</category>
		<category>HouseOfBushHouseOfSaud</category>
		<category>journalism</category>
		<category>media</category>
		<category>MichaelIsikoff</category>
		<category>politics</category>
		<category>Salon</category>
		<category>Saud</category>
		<category>SaudiArabia</category>
		<dc:creator>troutfishing</dc:creator>
	</item>
      <item>
		<title>The best PR ends up looking like news. You never know when a PR agency</title>
		<link>http://www.metafilter.com/30706/The%2Dbest%2DPR%2Dends%2Dup%2Dlooking%2Dlike%2Dnews%2DYou%2Dnever%2Dknow%2Dwhen%2Da%2DPR%2Dagency</link>
		<description>&lt;a href="http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2004/01/13/dean_media/"&gt;&quot;The Media vs. Howard Dean.&quot;&lt;/a&gt; Salon (subscription or Flash ad viewing required) observes that the media have been doing everything in their power to attach negative labels to US presidential candidate Howard Dean. Will the adage that &quot;there&apos;s no such thing as bad publicity&quot; prevail? Meanwhile, the Internet is increasing in relevance as a &lt;a href=&quot;http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&amp;u=/ap/20040111/ap_on_el_pr/media_politics&quot;&gt;news source&lt;/a&gt;, according to a recent survey. Which websites do you peruse for political coverage, if any?  </description>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">tag:metafilter.com,2004:site.30706</guid>
		<pubDate>Tue, 13 Jan 2004 10:03:56 -0800</pubDate>
		<category>brokenlink</category>
		<category>election</category>
		<category>HowardDean</category>
		<category>media</category>
		<category>politics</category>
		<category>publicity</category>
		<category>salon</category>
		<category>USA</category>
		<dc:creator>Eloquence</dc:creator>
	</item>
      <item>
		<title>Sony writes salon article</title>
		<link>http://www.metafilter.com/22033/Sony%2Dwrites%2Dsalon%2Darticle</link>
		<description>&lt;a href="http://www.salon.com/partner/sony/eco_odyssey/index.html"&gt;Sony writes &apos;article&apos; for Salon.&lt;/a&gt; In an effort to find new revenue streams, Salon has published an ad/article written by Sony Corp. &lt;a href=&quot;http://news.nationalgeographic.com/sonydigitallifestyles/&quot;&gt;National Geographic&lt;/a&gt; and &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.parentsoup.com/sony/pages/0,12988,531167_531169,00.html&quot;&gt;Parent Soup&lt;/a&gt; have also published ad/articles, though &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.adage.com/news.cms?newsId=35516&quot;&gt;the New York Times said no&lt;/a&gt;. While the articles do not directly reference Sony products, the feature people who do fascinating things with technology... technology which, it just so happens, is advertised conveniently right next to the technology featuring passage.

Is this sort of thing ever ethical? If so, what sort of disclosures are necessary. Clearly the ad/articles are intended to appear to be regular content.  </description>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">tag:metafilter.com,2002:site.22033</guid>
		<pubDate>Mon, 02 Dec 2002 22:54:25 -0800</pubDate>
		<category>advertising</category>
		<category>Advertorial</category>
		<category>disclosure</category>
		<category>integrity</category>
		<category>journalism</category>
		<category>media</category>
		<category>NationalGeographic</category>
		<category>ParentSoup</category>
		<category>Salon</category>
		<category>Sony</category>
		<dc:creator>4easypayments</dc:creator>
	</item>
      <item>
		<title></title>
		<link>http://www.metafilter.com/3220/</link>
		<description>&lt;a href="http://www.salon.com/people/feature/2000/09/12/gopstars/index.html"&gt;Where Are The Hollywood Conservative?&lt;/a&gt; Does a liberal cabal of Hollywood executives destroy the careers of conservative performers?  Or, is the conservative philosophy (opposed to change, antiquated morals...) just too boring for artists and performers?  </description>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">tag:metafilter.com,2000:site.3220</guid>
		<pubDate>Tue, 12 Sep 2000 08:12:14 -0800</pubDate>
		<category>actors</category>
		<category>artists</category>
		<category>CampaignContributions</category>
		<category>celebrities</category>
		<category>conservative</category>
		<category>contributors</category>
		<category>donors</category>
		<category>Election2000</category>
		<category>GOP</category>
		<category>Hollywood</category>
		<category>media</category>
		<category>performers</category>
		<category>politics</category>
		<category>republicans</category>
		<category>right-wing</category>
		<category>Salon</category>
		<category>spokespeople</category>
		<category>stars</category>
		<category>supporters</category>
		<category>USpolitics</category>
		<dc:creator>Doug</dc:creator>
	</item>
      
	</channel>
</rss>


