<?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: Sloppy Journalism?</title>
	<atom:link href="http://groundviews.org/2008/04/06/sloppy-journalism/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://groundviews.org/2008/04/06/sloppy-journalism/</link>
	<description>Groundviews is an award winning Sri Lankan citizen journalism initiative</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Thu, 24 May 2012 14:16:32 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1</generator>
	<item>
		<title>By: David Blacker</title>
		<link>http://groundviews.org/2008/04/06/sloppy-journalism/#comment-777</link>
		<dc:creator>David Blacker</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 09 Apr 2008 06:44:42 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.groundviews.org/2008/04/06/sloppy-journalism/#comment-777</guid>
		<description>Sam, I think the term &#039;hard news&#039; refers to the bare and basic facts, as opposed to &#039;in depth&#039; news which looks further behind the story.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Sam, I think the term &#8216;hard news&#8217; refers to the bare and basic facts, as opposed to &#8216;in depth&#8217; news which looks further behind the story.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: indi</title>
		<link>http://groundviews.org/2008/04/06/sloppy-journalism/#comment-776</link>
		<dc:creator>indi</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 08 Apr 2008 18:00:37 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.groundviews.org/2008/04/06/sloppy-journalism/#comment-776</guid>
		<description>er, i didn&#039;t write that. What up Sam</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>er, i didn&#8217;t write that. What up Sam</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Raj</title>
		<link>http://groundviews.org/2008/04/06/sloppy-journalism/#comment-775</link>
		<dc:creator>Raj</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 08 Apr 2008 00:28:22 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.groundviews.org/2008/04/06/sloppy-journalism/#comment-775</guid>
		<description>Sam,

Its easy to confuse who is and isn&#039;t an MP in Sri Lankan politics since practically every member of the ruling coalition government is a minister of something.

Its a payoff of sorts and will be a part of SL politics as long as there are Singhalese politicians.

In fairness, I would suspect the salary cost of maintaining the bloated cabinet is infinitesimally small compared to allocated money squandered through their ministries.

Turning to the main topic of discussion, it is a HUGE stretch to call the coverage of the ethnic conflict in SL by most international news agencies, journalism.

What they are are reporters.  Here I am talking about people like Peter Apps, Krishna Francis, Ravi Neesman, Amal Jayasinghe, Paul Tighe, PK Balachandran, N Ram et al.

Their reporting consists primarily of logging on the MOD  website and then regurgitating what the Singhalese government has to say. If there is time before filing the report ;), they might place a call to Irashiah Illanthayrian for comment to appear balanced.

As we all know, a significant percentage of the articles are simply cut and paste.

IMO, the majority of Sri Lankans do not want to hear the truth. It would tear their lives apart and bring into question their entire belief system and culture.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Sam,</p>
<p>Its easy to confuse who is and isn&#8217;t an MP in Sri Lankan politics since practically every member of the ruling coalition government is a minister of something.</p>
<p>Its a payoff of sorts and will be a part of SL politics as long as there are Singhalese politicians.</p>
<p>In fairness, I would suspect the salary cost of maintaining the bloated cabinet is infinitesimally small compared to allocated money squandered through their ministries.</p>
<p>Turning to the main topic of discussion, it is a HUGE stretch to call the coverage of the ethnic conflict in SL by most international news agencies, journalism.</p>
<p>What they are are reporters.  Here I am talking about people like Peter Apps, Krishna Francis, Ravi Neesman, Amal Jayasinghe, Paul Tighe, PK Balachandran, N Ram et al.</p>
<p>Their reporting consists primarily of logging on the MOD  website and then regurgitating what the Singhalese government has to say. If there is time before filing the report <img src='http://groundviews.org/wp-includes/images/smilies/icon_wink.gif' alt=';)' class='wp-smiley' /> , they might place a call to Irashiah Illanthayrian for comment to appear balanced.</p>
<p>As we all know, a significant percentage of the articles are simply cut and paste.</p>
<p>IMO, the majority of Sri Lankans do not want to hear the truth. It would tear their lives apart and bring into question their entire belief system and culture.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: sam</title>
		<link>http://groundviews.org/2008/04/06/sloppy-journalism/#comment-774</link>
		<dc:creator>sam</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 07 Apr 2008 13:59:38 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.groundviews.org/2008/04/06/sloppy-journalism/#comment-774</guid>
		<description>I am going to add another 5 cents...

Last night when I wrote that post, I was probably responding to the fact that Reuters had not told the full picture. I will honestly say that I got muddled with the fact that the &#039;M&#039; is MPs could have stood for &#039;members&#039; or &#039;ministers&#039;. The article was focusing on Ministers and not Members. My apologies for being careless.

However, I think the comments my problematic post attracted raises some interesting questions. Most of the comments were quite reactionary. It would have been interesting to explore such issues as why MPs (ie. members of parliament) are not considered leaders. Also, it would have been interesting to ask if Reuters has a responsibility to mention that there were two Members of Parliament who met with similar fates...

And the story could have had bigger impact: Four Parliamentarians Killed in Four Months! But of course, I now know that Reuters aren&#039;t in to sensationalising stories. So, apologies  to them for even considering they may have been.

Someone mentioned &#039;hard news&#039;. I really don&#039;t know what hard news is. Is it news that makes the journalist  hard, or the audience  hard? I hope I don&#039;t get accused of using gendered language! Maybe its news that&#039;s hard to get. But I seriously don&#039;t know what hard news is. Of course, wikipedia will probably define it - but I still don&#039;t know what it means. Perhaps it just means big news. Or edgy news. Or news that&#039;s going to have a hard impact on the audience as well as the journalist.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I am going to add another 5 cents&#8230;</p>
<p>Last night when I wrote that post, I was probably responding to the fact that Reuters had not told the full picture. I will honestly say that I got muddled with the fact that the &#8216;M&#8217; is MPs could have stood for &#8216;members&#8217; or &#8216;ministers&#8217;. The article was focusing on Ministers and not Members. My apologies for being careless.</p>
<p>However, I think the comments my problematic post attracted raises some interesting questions. Most of the comments were quite reactionary. It would have been interesting to explore such issues as why MPs (ie. members of parliament) are not considered leaders. Also, it would have been interesting to ask if Reuters has a responsibility to mention that there were two Members of Parliament who met with similar fates&#8230;</p>
<p>And the story could have had bigger impact: Four Parliamentarians Killed in Four Months! But of course, I now know that Reuters aren&#8217;t in to sensationalising stories. So, apologies  to them for even considering they may have been.</p>
<p>Someone mentioned &#8216;hard news&#8217;. I really don&#8217;t know what hard news is. Is it news that makes the journalist  hard, or the audience  hard? I hope I don&#8217;t get accused of using gendered language! Maybe its news that&#8217;s hard to get. But I seriously don&#8217;t know what hard news is. Of course, wikipedia will probably define it &#8211; but I still don&#8217;t know what it means. Perhaps it just means big news. Or edgy news. Or news that&#8217;s going to have a hard impact on the audience as well as the journalist.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Perumal</title>
		<link>http://groundviews.org/2008/04/06/sloppy-journalism/#comment-773</link>
		<dc:creator>Perumal</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 07 Apr 2008 13:36:08 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.groundviews.org/2008/04/06/sloppy-journalism/#comment-773</guid>
		<description>The war is not yet understood by most commentators here. The government kills the LTTE combatants and LTTE leaders. This is the objective of their war. The counter objective of LTTE is to kill government ministers or the leadership and the soldiers.

The Reuters report tries to bring out that in this war, the leadership of the government is getting killed. Two of them since January. The implication is that the government is losing the war.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>The war is not yet understood by most commentators here. The government kills the LTTE combatants and LTTE leaders. This is the objective of their war. The counter objective of LTTE is to kill government ministers or the leadership and the soldiers.</p>
<p>The Reuters report tries to bring out that in this war, the leadership of the government is getting killed. Two of them since January. The implication is that the government is losing the war.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Castedeus</title>
		<link>http://groundviews.org/2008/04/06/sloppy-journalism/#comment-772</link>
		<dc:creator>Castedeus</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 07 Apr 2008 10:23:15 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.groundviews.org/2008/04/06/sloppy-journalism/#comment-772</guid>
		<description>To add my two cents to the multitude of comments voicing the same, nothing wrong in principle: the two others mentioned were not ministers. I don&#039;t think your quote reflects agendas as its an accurate report.

On the wider issues, yes for sure, it would be great to delve in more depth... with you on that...... but then again, this is hard news... perhaps a feature could explore more.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>To add my two cents to the multitude of comments voicing the same, nothing wrong in principle: the two others mentioned were not ministers. I don&#8217;t think your quote reflects agendas as its an accurate report.</p>
<p>On the wider issues, yes for sure, it would be great to delve in more depth&#8230; with you on that&#8230;&#8230; but then again, this is hard news&#8230; perhaps a feature could explore more.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: ellalen</title>
		<link>http://groundviews.org/2008/04/06/sloppy-journalism/#comment-771</link>
		<dc:creator>ellalen</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 07 Apr 2008 07:32:57 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.groundviews.org/2008/04/06/sloppy-journalism/#comment-771</guid>
		<description>IsÂ´t that all goverment MP:s got the minister post? So they do only have ministers? Funny!</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>IsÂ´t that all goverment MP:s got the minister post? So they do only have ministers? Funny!</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: sam</title>
		<link>http://groundviews.org/2008/04/06/sloppy-journalism/#comment-770</link>
		<dc:creator>sam</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 07 Apr 2008 04:41:15 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.groundviews.org/2008/04/06/sloppy-journalism/#comment-770</guid>
		<description>Thanks for everyone else&#039;s corrections too... My mistake, but I did place a question-mark after &#039;sloppy journalism&#039; !! Sam.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Thanks for everyone else&#8217;s corrections too&#8230; My mistake, but I did place a question-mark after &#8216;sloppy journalism&#8217; !! Sam.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: sam</title>
		<link>http://groundviews.org/2008/04/06/sloppy-journalism/#comment-769</link>
		<dc:creator>sam</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 07 Apr 2008 04:32:39 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.groundviews.org/2008/04/06/sloppy-journalism/#comment-769</guid>
		<description>Ah, confusion over words!

Anyway, as I mentioned above, my point wasn&#039;t about that - it was about the greater issue about the lack of detailed analysis about Sri Lanka.

Good to know you are keeping watch Indi.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Ah, confusion over words!</p>
<p>Anyway, as I mentioned above, my point wasn&#8217;t about that &#8211; it was about the greater issue about the lack of detailed analysis about Sri Lanka.</p>
<p>Good to know you are keeping watch Indi.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: lankarising</title>
		<link>http://groundviews.org/2008/04/06/sloppy-journalism/#comment-768</link>
		<dc:creator>lankarising</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 07 Apr 2008 04:26:22 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.groundviews.org/2008/04/06/sloppy-journalism/#comment-768</guid>
		<description>&quot;second minister to be killed since January&quot; - This news in Reuter is spot on right. What is big fuzz? MP&#039;s and ministers are not the same</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>&#8220;second minister to be killed since January&#8221; &#8211; This news in Reuter is spot on right. What is big fuzz? MP&#8217;s and ministers are not the same</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: indi</title>
		<link>http://groundviews.org/2008/04/06/sloppy-journalism/#comment-767</link>
		<dc:creator>indi</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 07 Apr 2008 02:51:39 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.groundviews.org/2008/04/06/sloppy-journalism/#comment-767</guid>
		<description>i don`t see anything wrong with the reuters article. it clearly says the word &quot;minister&quot;. those the tamil politicians are just MP`s.  dude, sam, you better read the article carefully before criticizing it. better read it again when you get home after you walk.
[Edited out]</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>i don`t see anything wrong with the reuters article. it clearly says the word &#8220;minister&#8221;. those the tamil politicians are just MP`s.  dude, sam, you better read the article carefully before criticizing it. better read it again when you get home after you walk.<br />
[Edited out]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: SRILANKAN</title>
		<link>http://groundviews.org/2008/04/06/sloppy-journalism/#comment-766</link>
		<dc:creator>SRILANKAN</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 07 Apr 2008 01:54:19 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.groundviews.org/2008/04/06/sloppy-journalism/#comment-766</guid>
		<description>[Edited out] What we need to do is eliminate all killings but one objective is to get there we need to distroy LTTE to the end. Thats the only way my friends.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[Edited out] What we need to do is eliminate all killings but one objective is to get there we need to distroy LTTE to the end. Thats the only way my friends.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: sittingnut</title>
		<link>http://groundviews.org/2008/04/06/sloppy-journalism/#comment-765</link>
		<dc:creator>sittingnut</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 06 Apr 2008 23:37:48 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.groundviews.org/2008/04/06/sloppy-journalism/#comment-765</guid>
		<description>&quot;groundviews&quot; still doesn&#039;t get it, it seems, members of parliament are not necessarily ministers even when we have 105+ ministers. there are 225mps so  there are 115+  plain mps without a ministerial portfolios.

so in fact  reuters got the main detail that the blog post cite as instance of &quot;sloppy journalism&quot;  right here. that there is sloppy journalism is a fact but not here. here it is a case of sloppy blog poster undermining his own argument by making mistakes.

calm down and think clearly before writing</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>&#8220;groundviews&#8221; still doesn&#8217;t get it, it seems, members of parliament are not necessarily ministers even when we have 105+ ministers. there are 225mps so  there are 115+  plain mps without a ministerial portfolios.</p>
<p>so in fact  reuters got the main detail that the blog post cite as instance of &#8220;sloppy journalism&#8221;  right here. that there is sloppy journalism is a fact but not here. here it is a case of sloppy blog poster undermining his own argument by making mistakes.</p>
<p>calm down and think clearly before writing</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: groundviews</title>
		<link>http://groundviews.org/2008/04/06/sloppy-journalism/#comment-764</link>
		<dc:creator>groundviews</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 06 Apr 2008 19:10:25 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.groundviews.org/2008/04/06/sloppy-journalism/#comment-764</guid>
		<description>Both Maheshwaran and Siwaneshan were Members of Parliament. Siwaneshan was the TNA MP for the Jaffna District. Maheshwaran as noted in the post was an MP of the UNP when he was killed.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Both Maheshwaran and Siwaneshan were Members of Parliament. Siwaneshan was the TNA MP for the Jaffna District. Maheshwaran as noted in the post was an MP of the UNP when he was killed.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: sittingnut</title>
		<link>http://groundviews.org/2008/04/06/sloppy-journalism/#comment-763</link>
		<dc:creator>sittingnut</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 06 Apr 2008 18:19:26 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.groundviews.org/2008/04/06/sloppy-journalism/#comment-763</guid>
		<description>it seems my first comment got lost for good.
*well here is the first part. above comment is merely the second part and should be read after this comment*
-

errr... ministers and mps are two different things. but then again details like that are not valid by the standards of  this blog i suppose.

anyway i agree that reuters and other agencies( reuters in particular)  coverage is sloppy (and biased towards terrorists. may be you may not agree to that ) when it comes sri lanka coverage. i have written about that in detail (with evidence) before elsewhere.

journalists should have only two valid motives .
1. be objective
2. cater to their market ( such a commercial motive is not a &quot;bad&quot; thing btw as some socialists think )

foreign news agencies have generally failed on the first score. but going &quot;down and dirty&quot;, whatever that means, is not the answer ( esp if that means expressing subjective opinions and taking sides ), adhering to objective journalistic standards will be. for instance they should check for substantiated facts before reporting and and not indulge repeatedly is such racist mistakes as equating ltte terrorists with tamils.

that agencies are neglectful of sri lanka and post third rate reporters here is due to to the second motive. it is the same motive that led international media to almost completely neglect the plight of sri lankan migrants in lebanon ( largest group by far of expatriates in that country ) when israel invaded in 2006 while giving acres of news coverage to scores ( as opposed to thousands) of western expatriates there. and that is reality.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>it seems my first comment got lost for good.<br />
*well here is the first part. above comment is merely the second part and should be read after this comment*<br />
-</p>
<p>errr&#8230; ministers and mps are two different things. but then again details like that are not valid by the standards of  this blog i suppose.</p>
<p>anyway i agree that reuters and other agencies( reuters in particular)  coverage is sloppy (and biased towards terrorists. may be you may not agree to that ) when it comes sri lanka coverage. i have written about that in detail (with evidence) before elsewhere.</p>
<p>journalists should have only two valid motives .<br />
1. be objective<br />
2. cater to their market ( such a commercial motive is not a &#8220;bad&#8221; thing btw as some socialists think )</p>
<p>foreign news agencies have generally failed on the first score. but going &#8220;down and dirty&#8221;, whatever that means, is not the answer ( esp if that means expressing subjective opinions and taking sides ), adhering to objective journalistic standards will be. for instance they should check for substantiated facts before reporting and and not indulge repeatedly is such racist mistakes as equating ltte terrorists with tamils.</p>
<p>that agencies are neglectful of sri lanka and post third rate reporters here is due to to the second motive. it is the same motive that led international media to almost completely neglect the plight of sri lankan migrants in lebanon ( largest group by far of expatriates in that country ) when israel invaded in 2006 while giving acres of news coverage to scores ( as opposed to thousands) of western expatriates there. and that is reality.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Salami</title>
		<link>http://groundviews.org/2008/04/06/sloppy-journalism/#comment-762</link>
		<dc:creator>Salami</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 06 Apr 2008 18:19:20 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.groundviews.org/2008/04/06/sloppy-journalism/#comment-762</guid>
		<description>It says 2nd minister.. I dont see what&#039;s wrong with that. Maheshwaran or Siwaneshan were not ministers... So Reuters got it absolutely right..  Jeraj was the 2nd minister to be killed..  He&#039;s also the 4th Parliamentarian to be killed..

Are you suggesting that Maheshawaran and Siwaneshan were ministers too?

I may sound stupid stating the obvious... but There&#039;s a real difference between a minister and a parliamentarian.

Arnt you just mad that there&#039;s coverage for a pro-govt. MP who got killed by the LTTE?</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>It says 2nd minister.. I dont see what&#8217;s wrong with that. Maheshwaran or Siwaneshan were not ministers&#8230; So Reuters got it absolutely right..  Jeraj was the 2nd minister to be killed..  He&#8217;s also the 4th Parliamentarian to be killed..</p>
<p>Are you suggesting that Maheshawaran and Siwaneshan were ministers too?</p>
<p>I may sound stupid stating the obvious&#8230; but There&#8217;s a real difference between a minister and a parliamentarian.</p>
<p>Arnt you just mad that there&#8217;s coverage for a pro-govt. MP who got killed by the LTTE?</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: sittingnut</title>
		<link>http://groundviews.org/2008/04/06/sloppy-journalism/#comment-761</link>
		<dc:creator>sittingnut</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 06 Apr 2008 18:15:44 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.groundviews.org/2008/04/06/sloppy-journalism/#comment-761</guid>
		<description>my comment got posted by mistake before it was complete, i wanted to edit it but i cannot login for some reason
anyway here is rest of the comment
-
ppl should put away the notion that foreign agencies are there to cater to sri lankans or anyone who is seriously interested in sri lanka,. they are there to cater to specific demographic groups  in westerns countries who have only superficial interest in sri lanka hence the superficiality  of their news reports.

if you want to find what happens here( or anywhere for that matter ) you have to examine each report in detail.  ask questions like what are the sources are they substantiated ? what can motivate the cited sources? what motivated the reporters to report without sources ? was all sides given equitable space to put their case? if not why?what kind of words are used and what does they say about the reporters bias ? what does other reports on the same news say ? why the difference if any ? and what does history of this particular reporter&#039;s reports indicate?  answers to these questions can be found by anyone who has the will to search .

for those who do not bother they get the news they deserve ; rumors and propaganda ( even through ppl who call themselves journalists and work for supposedly reputed media groups )</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>my comment got posted by mistake before it was complete, i wanted to edit it but i cannot login for some reason<br />
anyway here is rest of the comment<br />
-<br />
ppl should put away the notion that foreign agencies are there to cater to sri lankans or anyone who is seriously interested in sri lanka,. they are there to cater to specific demographic groups  in westerns countries who have only superficial interest in sri lanka hence the superficiality  of their news reports.</p>
<p>if you want to find what happens here( or anywhere for that matter ) you have to examine each report in detail.  ask questions like what are the sources are they substantiated ? what can motivate the cited sources? what motivated the reporters to report without sources ? was all sides given equitable space to put their case? if not why?what kind of words are used and what does they say about the reporters bias ? what does other reports on the same news say ? why the difference if any ? and what does history of this particular reporter&#8217;s reports indicate?  answers to these questions can be found by anyone who has the will to search .</p>
<p>for those who do not bother they get the news they deserve ; rumors and propaganda ( even through ppl who call themselves journalists and work for supposedly reputed media groups )</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Karen Snyder</title>
		<link>http://groundviews.org/2008/04/06/sloppy-journalism/#comment-760</link>
		<dc:creator>Karen Snyder</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 06 Apr 2008 17:50:51 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.groundviews.org/2008/04/06/sloppy-journalism/#comment-760</guid>
		<description>Wow, that is misleading reporting by a popular newswire agency!!!

Two murdered Tamil MPs are not counted!!!</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Wow, that is misleading reporting by a popular newswire agency!!!</p>
<p>Two murdered Tamil MPs are not counted!!!</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
<div style="display: none;">

<a href="http://www.siyamiozkan.com.tr" title="gelibolu">canakkale</a>
<a href="http://www.mavideniz1.org" title="canakkale">canakkale</a>
<a href="http://www.mavi1.org" title="canakkale, web security, backlink">canakkale</a>
<a href="http://www.mavideniz.gen.tr" title="balikavi, troia, search">balik tutma</a>
<a href="http://www.17search17.com" title="search">search</a>
<a href="http://www.canakkaleruhu.org" title="canakkale">canakkale</a>
<a href="http://www.vergimevzuati.org" title="vergi mevzuati">vergi mevzuati</a>
<a href="http://www.finansaldenetci.com" title="bagimsiz denetim">bagimsiz denetim</a>
<a href="http://www.siyamiozkan.org" title="verg, sgk, mevzuat, denetim">vergi mevzuati</a>
<a href="http://www.fatmaozkan.org" title="ozurlu engelliler">ozurlu engelliler</a>
