<?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: Vanity Fear</title>
	<atom:link href="http://pjmedia.com/eddriscoll/2009/02/26/vanity-fear/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://pjmedia.com/eddriscoll/2009/02/26/vanity-fear/</link>
	<description>Since 2002, News, Technology and Pop Culture, 24 Hours a Day, Live and in Stereo. Editor of the PJ Lifestyle Website.</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Wed, 15 Feb 2012 00:39:40 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.2.1</generator>
	<item>
		<title>By: David Thomson</title>
		<link>http://pjmedia.com/eddriscoll/2009/02/26/vanity-fear/#comment-869</link>
		<dc:creator>David Thomson</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 26 Feb 2009 16:26:49 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://pajamasmedia.com/eddriscoll/?p=15532#comment-869</guid>
		<description>&quot;...news companies haven’t figured out a way to monetize the Web&quot;

I don&#039;t understand why websites are rarely paid by advertisers for &quot;brand building&quot; ads.  Why the seeming strict adherence to being paid only for immediate sales?  I am just not getting it.  Alas, that may explain the reason why I&#039;m not paid a million dollars annually as some sort of advertising guru.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>&#8220;&#8230;news companies haven’t figured out a way to monetize the Web&#8221;</p>
<p>I don&#8217;t understand why websites are rarely paid by advertisers for &#8220;brand building&#8221; ads.  Why the seeming strict adherence to being paid only for immediate sales?  I am just not getting it.  Alas, that may explain the reason why I&#8217;m not paid a million dollars annually as some sort of advertising guru.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Thought for the day &#8212; WHAT WOULD TOTO WATCH?</title>
		<link>http://pjmedia.com/eddriscoll/2009/02/26/vanity-fear/#comment-868</link>
		<dc:creator>Thought for the day &#8212; WHAT WOULD TOTO WATCH?</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 26 Feb 2009 16:20:19 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://pajamasmedia.com/eddriscoll/?p=15532#comment-868</guid>
		<description>[...] February 26, 2009   “I’ve tried to think of another business in America that cares less about its customers than the news business and I can’t think of any … their ideology trumps even their business sense and their desperate need to survive.” - Bernard Goldberg. (hat tip: Ed Driscoll) [...]</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[...] February 26, 2009   “I’ve tried to think of another business in America that cares less about its customers than the news business and I can’t think of any … their ideology trumps even their business sense and their desperate need to survive.” &#8211; Bernard Goldberg. (hat tip: Ed Driscoll) [...]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Christian Toto</title>
		<link>http://pjmedia.com/eddriscoll/2009/02/26/vanity-fear/#comment-867</link>
		<dc:creator>Christian Toto</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 26 Feb 2009 16:05:04 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://pajamasmedia.com/eddriscoll/?p=15532#comment-867</guid>
		<description>I stopped subscribing to GQ, in part, because of its lefty bias. It&#039;s a men&#039;s magazine -- why must it inject liberal ideology into its content?

I did the same when Men&#039;s Health embraced Obama ... again, same rationale as listed above.

And you&#039;re gonna tell me I&#039;m alone in my actions?

How does it hurt, say, GQ, not to delve into ideology? Would a liberal man about town stop subscribing because the mag lacked a liberal bias? No. But a liberal might stop reading it if every other article was pro GOP/Rush/Hannity.

The same holds true in reverse.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I stopped subscribing to GQ, in part, because of its lefty bias. It&#8217;s a men&#8217;s magazine &#8212; why must it inject liberal ideology into its content?</p>
<p>I did the same when Men&#8217;s Health embraced Obama &#8230; again, same rationale as listed above.</p>
<p>And you&#8217;re gonna tell me I&#8217;m alone in my actions?</p>
<p>How does it hurt, say, GQ, not to delve into ideology? Would a liberal man about town stop subscribing because the mag lacked a liberal bias? No. But a liberal might stop reading it if every other article was pro GOP/Rush/Hannity.</p>
<p>The same holds true in reverse.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Vanity Fear &#124; Hazel Woods</title>
		<link>http://pjmedia.com/eddriscoll/2009/02/26/vanity-fear/#comment-866</link>
		<dc:creator>Vanity Fear &#124; Hazel Woods</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 26 Feb 2009 09:22:30 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://pajamasmedia.com/eddriscoll/?p=15532#comment-866</guid>
		<description>[...] the original: Vanity Fear &#124;   Tags: [...]</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[...] the original: Vanity Fear |   Tags: [...]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>

