<?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"
	>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Business Week Gets Blogging</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.annezelenka.com/2006/03/business-week-gets-blogging/feed" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.annezelenka.com/2006/03/business-week-gets-blogging</link>
	<description>a blog about the connected age</description>
	<pubDate>Mon, 13 Oct 2008 11:36:43 +0000</pubDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.5</generator>
		<item>
		<title>By: gingajoy</title>
		<link>http://www.annezelenka.com/2006/03/business-week-gets-blogging#comment-211</link>
		<dc:creator>gingajoy</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 07 Mar 2006 02:05:34 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.annezelenka.com/testbed/2006/03/business-week-gets-blogging#comment-211</guid>
		<description>thanks for this post, Anne.  Very interesting indeed (and I am in total agreement about that AM editor--ugh). i also wonder if this model can be transposed, and made easily available. i currently work with an international scholarly network community (www.h-net.org) and we are exploring precisely these possibilities (amid a lot of hair-pulling).  right now it is very similar to what you describe here,if you turn the clock back over a decade and replace blogging with listservs and other clunky pearl-scripted pieces.  because it is email driven, it is currently getting blacklisted by yahoo and aol for "spamming."  there is a lot of debate right now about how to push the organization forward technologically. we (my outfit) is pushing for purely online communications with a range of options about to receive updates (rss, email alerts, etc). but there is a lot of resistance (people like their email communications).  i really do think this could be a matter of life or death for the organization.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>thanks for this post, Anne.  Very interesting indeed (and I am in total agreement about that AM editor&#8211;ugh). i also wonder if this model can be transposed, and made easily available. i currently work with an international scholarly network community (www.h-net.org) and we are exploring precisely these possibilities (amid a lot of hair-pulling).  right now it is very similar to what you describe here,if you turn the clock back over a decade and replace blogging with listservs and other clunky pearl-scripted pieces.  because it is email driven, it is currently getting blacklisted by yahoo and aol for &#8220;spamming.&#8221;  there is a lot of debate right now about how to push the organization forward technologically. we (my outfit) is pushing for purely online communications with a range of options about to receive updates (rss, email alerts, etc). but there is a lot of resistance (people like their email communications).  i really do think this could be a matter of life or death for the organization.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Ed Kohler</title>
		<link>http://www.annezelenka.com/2006/03/business-week-gets-blogging#comment-210</link>
		<dc:creator>Ed Kohler</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 07 Mar 2006 00:39:49 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.annezelenka.com/testbed/2006/03/business-week-gets-blogging#comment-210</guid>
		<description>Great analysis. I've been impressed with their use and understanding of blogging as well. Why don't more journalists get that blogging is a 2-way conversation? Have they done the one-way thing for too long to change?</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Great analysis. I&#8217;ve been impressed with their use and understanding of blogging as well. Why don&#8217;t more journalists get that blogging is a 2-way conversation? Have they done the one-way thing for too long to change?</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
