<?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: Turbulent Times</title>
	<atom:link href="http://peacecorpsworldwide.org/media/2009/07/29/turbulent-times/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://peacecorpsworldwide.org/media/2009/07/29/turbulent-times/</link>
	<description>We Americans are a little schizoid when it comes to the media. Sometimes we love it (Watergate! The press saved the nation!); sometimes we hate it (the OJ trial!. The press is out of control!). But in the end, media matters. As Jefferson famously said, if he had a choice between government without newspapers or newspapers without government, he would opt for the later. We need the media to be our watchdog. We need it for information. We need it to entertain us and celebrate our accomplishments. Without the media—without the press—we would not function very well as a society.  But we need the press to behave itself and to act responsibly. So we as the consumers of media should understand how it operates. We should have a sense of the people who provide us our news. We should know when they make mistakes. We should note their victories. We need to watch it closely. In these columns I hope to help us all with this task. — Barry Hillenbrand </description>
	<pubDate>Tue, 21 May 2013 20:37:59 +0000</pubDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.7</generator>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
		<item>
		<title>By: JaniceFuhrman</title>
		<link>http://peacecorpsworldwide.org/media/2009/07/29/turbulent-times/comment-page-1/#comment-6</link>
		<dc:creator>JaniceFuhrman</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 04 Sep 2009 04:30:49 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://peacecorpsworldwide.org/media/?p=21#comment-6</guid>
		<description>You're right this is a bizarre incident that only gets more bizarre. The airline defnitely should have been named. Otherwise, what is the point of the story? The fact that Anjula was willing to tell them the name and they didn't print it is very strange. And the fact that they won't answer you, stranger still.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>You&#8217;re right this is a bizarre incident that only gets more bizarre. The airline defnitely should have been named. Otherwise, what is the point of the story? The fact that Anjula was willing to tell them the name and they didn&#8217;t print it is very strange. And the fact that they won&#8217;t answer you, stranger still.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: BHillenbrand</title>
		<link>http://peacecorpsworldwide.org/media/2009/07/29/turbulent-times/comment-page-1/#comment-5</link>
		<dc:creator>BHillenbrand</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 01 Sep 2009 21:38:03 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://peacecorpsworldwide.org/media/?p=21#comment-5</guid>
		<description>Thank you, Anjula,  for your comment. As a journalist who wrote for a magazine with very limited space, I understand the problem of cutting an interview to fit a small space. Inevitably the person interviewed is unhappy with the results because they understandably believe everything they say is important.  But editing the remarks was the Times' responsibility, not yours.  And I do not think they did a very good job of cutting. They missed the most important part: the name of the airline you were flying.  And that you were willing to name the airline and they were not, is amazing.  Why was the Times so cautious in this case? We will never know because they did not reply to enquires about the story.  Thanks again for commenting</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Thank you, Anjula,  for your comment. As a journalist who wrote for a magazine with very limited space, I understand the problem of cutting an interview to fit a small space. Inevitably the person interviewed is unhappy with the results because they understandably believe everything they say is important.  But editing the remarks was the Times&#8217; responsibility, not yours.  And I do not think they did a very good job of cutting. They missed the most important part: the name of the airline you were flying.  And that you were willing to name the airline and they were not, is amazing.  Why was the Times so cautious in this case? We will never know because they did not reply to enquires about the story.  Thanks again for commenting</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Anjula@desihits.com</title>
		<link>http://peacecorpsworldwide.org/media/2009/07/29/turbulent-times/comment-page-1/#comment-4</link>
		<dc:creator>Anjula@desihits.com</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 26 Aug 2009 14:40:26 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://peacecorpsworldwide.org/media/?p=21#comment-4</guid>
		<description>Hey there,

I appreciate your comments.  I didn't write this The NY Times did, I told them the story and they omitted much of the information I gave them as they have a word count. If they had not, you would have had all the answers to your comments/questions.   I wanted to mention the airline - was happy to, they wouldn't.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Hey there,</p>
<p>I appreciate your comments.  I didn&#8217;t write this The NY Times did, I told them the story and they omitted much of the information I gave them as they have a word count. If they had not, you would have had all the answers to your comments/questions.   I wanted to mention the airline - was happy to, they wouldn&#8217;t.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
