<?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 newspapers and advertising</title>
	<link>http://www.metafilter.com/tags/newspapers+advertising</link>
	<description>Posts tagged with 'newspapers' and 'advertising' at MetaFilter.</description>
	<pubDate>Fri, 29 May 2009 09:03:12 -0800</pubDate> <lastBuildDate>Fri, 29 May 2009 09:03:12 -0800</lastBuildDate>

	<language>en-us</language>
	<docs>http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/tech/rss</docs>
	<ttl>60</ttl>
	<item>
		<title>WLTM</title>
		<link>http://www.metafilter.com/82034/WLTM</link>
		<description> &quot;Do you love me?  Will you answer this all absorbing question the next time we meet?  Will you utter that winsome &quot;Yes&quot; fraught with all the golden dreams of heavenly realms, or will you pronounce the dread &quot;No&quot; and consign my soul to darkness and despair?&quot;  &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.advertisingforlove.com/&quot;&gt;Advertising for Love&lt;/a&gt;, a collection of funny, strange, poignant and bizarre personal ads from nineteenth-century American newspapers.  </description>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">tag:metafilter.com,2009:site.82034</guid>
		<pubDate>Fri, 29 May 2009 09:03:12 -0800</pubDate>
		<category>advertising</category>
		<category>history</category>
		<category>newspapers</category>
		<category>personals</category>
		<dc:creator>verstegan</dc:creator>
	</item>
      <item>
		<title>Branding, Brainwashing and Corporate Logos</title>
		<link>http://www.metafilter.com/23450/Branding%2DBrainwashing%2Dand%2DCorporate%2DLogos</link>
		<description>&lt;a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/graphic/0,5812,891305,00.html"&gt;Brainwashed?  Moi?&lt;/a&gt; Does this make you uncomfortable too?  Imagine it was &lt;i&gt;The Wall Street Journal&lt;/i&gt;&apos;s or &lt;i&gt;The Daily Telegraph&lt;/i&gt;&apos;s logo stamped on your forehead instead of &lt;i&gt;The Guardian&lt;/i&gt;&apos;s. Or all three. We are what we read, but perhaps wide reading is a thing of the past.  Beneath the po-mo jokiness, crude branding seems to have reached the normally label-resistant Left.  This is particularly true in the case of &lt;i&gt;The Guardian&lt;/i&gt;, the indispensable journal of reference for British students and teachers.   How many of us nowadays make a point of reading at least two politically divergent newspapers?  </description>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">tag:metafilter.com,2003:site.23450</guid>
		<pubDate>Mon, 10 Feb 2003 09:42:15 -0800</pubDate>
		<category>advertising</category>
		<category>branding</category>
		<category>corporations</category>
		<category>newspapers</category>
		<dc:creator>MiguelCardoso</dc:creator>
	</item>
      <item>
		<title></title>
		<link>http://www.metafilter.com/6504/</link>
		<description>&lt;a href="http://www.marketwatch.com"&gt;Is this the future of web?&lt;/a&gt;  Is it me or are many Internet sites starting to mimmick newspapers?  &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.metafilter.com/comments.mefi/6492&quot;&gt;Large banner ads&lt;/a&gt;, aken to the full page spreads of newspapers and magazines.  Oversized headlines.  What next?  Have major sites abandoned the internet as a separate medium?  </description>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">tag:metafilter.com,2001:site.6504</guid>
		<pubDate>Thu, 22 Mar 2001 13:12:38 -0800</pubDate>
		<category>advertising</category>
		<category>bannerads</category>
		<category>internet</category>
		<category>newspapers</category>
		<dc:creator>igloo</dc:creator>
	</item>
      <item>
		<title></title>
		<link>http://www.metafilter.com/1898/</link>
		<description> Stupid new marketing word of the day: &quot;Advertorial&quot; (spotted on &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.nytimes.com/yr/mo/day/late/31cnd-clinton-summit.html&quot;&gt;this NY Times page&lt;/a&gt;). &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.metafilter.com/trash/advertorial.gif&quot;&gt;Here&apos;s a screenshot&lt;/a&gt; - what exactly are they trying to say? Do their advertisements now contain editorial copy that should help shoppers make a more informed decision, or are they just trying to fool us into thinking these advertisements have more credibility because they are &quot;editorialized&quot;? (disclaimer: I hate marketing BS)  </description>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">tag:metafilter.com,2000:site.1898</guid>
		<pubDate>Wed, 31 May 2000 10:12:44 -0800</pubDate>
		<category>advertising</category>
		<category>advertorial</category>
		<category>journalism</category>
		<category>newspapers</category>
		<category>newyorktimes</category>
		<dc:creator>mathowie</dc:creator>
	</item>
      
	</channel>
</rss>


