<?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: Online Journalism China: shortcomings in the earthquake relief effort going unnoticed in the scramble to present a front of national unity</title>
	<atom:link href="http://blogs.journalism.co.uk/editors/2008/05/16/online-journalism-china-shortcomings-in-the-earthquake-relief-effort-going-unnoticed-in-the-scramble-to-present-a-front-of-national-unity/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://blogs.journalism.co.uk/editors/2008/05/16/online-journalism-china-shortcomings-in-the-earthquake-relief-effort-going-unnoticed-in-the-scramble-to-present-a-front-of-national-unity/</link>
	<description>Online journalism news</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Fri, 06 Nov 2009 16:28:58 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8.5</generator>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
		<item>
		<title>By: Dave Greeb</title>
		<link>http://blogs.journalism.co.uk/editors/2008/05/16/online-journalism-china-shortcomings-in-the-earthquake-relief-effort-going-unnoticed-in-the-scramble-to-present-a-front-of-national-unity/comment-page-1/#comment-53</link>
		<dc:creator>Dave Greeb</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 20 May 2008 05:21:46 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blogs.journalism.co.uk/editors/2008/05/16/online-journalism-china-shortcomings-in-the-earthquake-relief-effort-going-unnoticed-in-the-scramble-to-present-a-front-of-national-unity/#comment-53</guid>
		<description>Hi David, thanks for this. I did not mean to confuse the messages warning media off negative coverage. I did want to draw a parallel with Chang Ping&#039;s comments that if coverage was left unfettered, rumours like those that suggested the authorities had been warned of the quake before it struck would have been dispelled more quickly. It was wrong though, to assert the law had been directly used as a result of the earthquake, and I apologize for this.

All the best,

Dave</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Hi David, thanks for this. I did not mean to confuse the messages warning media off negative coverage. I did want to draw a parallel with Chang Ping&#8217;s comments that if coverage was left unfettered, rumours like those that suggested the authorities had been warned of the quake before it struck would have been dispelled more quickly. It was wrong though, to assert the law had been directly used as a result of the earthquake, and I apologize for this.</p>
<p>All the best,</p>
<p>Dave</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: David Bandurski</title>
		<link>http://blogs.journalism.co.uk/editors/2008/05/16/online-journalism-china-shortcomings-in-the-earthquake-relief-effort-going-unnoticed-in-the-scramble-to-present-a-front-of-national-unity/comment-page-1/#comment-50</link>
		<dc:creator>David Bandurski</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 17 May 2008 02:32:52 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blogs.journalism.co.uk/editors/2008/05/16/online-journalism-china-shortcomings-in-the-earthquake-relief-effort-going-unnoticed-in-the-scramble-to-present-a-front-of-national-unity/#comment-50</guid>
		<description>Dave,
Hi. I wanted to clarify your reference to this &quot;edict&quot; from propaganda authorities in China. Missives of this type -- &quot;edict&quot; is a bit dramatic -- are very common for news stories in China. They may be outright bans on certain stories, or they may direct coverage. Our point at the China Media Project was that remember that while coverage of the quake has so far been relatively open, there are still missives coming down (as we should expect). And we do know media have been told not to do coverage explicitly criticizing the government response. The missives say nothing, so far as we know, about &quot;malicious rumors&quot;. You&#039;re confusing, I think, a few different articles on our site. Chang Ping urged the leadership not to wield the charge of &quot;spreading rumors&quot; too lightly, not because it has emerged in this disaster, but because police have detained web users (for example) on these charges for previous incidents.
I hope you find this helpful.
Regards,
David
China Media Project</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Dave,<br />
Hi. I wanted to clarify your reference to this &#8220;edict&#8221; from propaganda authorities in China. Missives of this type &#8212; &#8220;edict&#8221; is a bit dramatic &#8212; are very common for news stories in China. They may be outright bans on certain stories, or they may direct coverage. Our point at the China Media Project was that remember that while coverage of the quake has so far been relatively open, there are still missives coming down (as we should expect). And we do know media have been told not to do coverage explicitly criticizing the government response. The missives say nothing, so far as we know, about &#8220;malicious rumors&#8221;. You&#8217;re confusing, I think, a few different articles on our site. Chang Ping urged the leadership not to wield the charge of &#8220;spreading rumors&#8221; too lightly, not because it has emerged in this disaster, but because police have detained web users (for example) on these charges for previous incidents.<br />
I hope you find this helpful.<br />
Regards,<br />
David<br />
China Media Project</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
