<?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: Watch Your Mouth down for a week</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.newssniffer.co.uk/blog/2007/10/10/watch-your-mouth-down-for-a-week/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.newssniffer.co.uk/blog/2007/10/10/watch-your-mouth-down-for-a-week/</link>
	<description>Monitoring the corporate media</description>
	<pubDate>Thu, 20 Nov 2008 10:23:48 +0000</pubDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.6.2</generator>
		<item>
		<title>By: Anon.</title>
		<link>http://www.newssniffer.co.uk/blog/2007/10/10/watch-your-mouth-down-for-a-week/#comment-9785</link>
		<dc:creator>Anon.</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 26 Mar 2008 03:42:40 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.newssniffer.co.uk/blog/2007/10/10/watch-your-mouth-down-for-a-week/#comment-9785</guid>
		<description>Excellent and commendable work. BBC differs from other MSM, which are proprietor owned, and where it's harder for dissident voices to be heard. BBC is a bloated, public funded satrapy where, if you read between the lines, you can sometimes glean the truth, or some of it, oozing out.

Your 'comments censored' paradigm is flawed, in that you rely only on comments published and then redacted. Comments which never make it run to around one quarter to one third on most stories, judging by the 'awaiting moderation' dialogue box.

Best regards and good sniffing.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Excellent and commendable work. BBC differs from other MSM, which are proprietor owned, and where it&#8217;s harder for dissident voices to be heard. BBC is a bloated, public funded satrapy where, if you read between the lines, you can sometimes glean the truth, or some of it, oozing out.</p>
<p>Your &#8216;comments censored&#8217; paradigm is flawed, in that you rely only on comments published and then redacted. Comments which never make it run to around one quarter to one third on most stories, judging by the &#8216;awaiting moderation&#8217; dialogue box.</p>
<p>Best regards and good sniffing.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Steve G</title>
		<link>http://www.newssniffer.co.uk/blog/2007/10/10/watch-your-mouth-down-for-a-week/#comment-7212</link>
		<dc:creator>Steve G</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 09 Jan 2008 16:31:26 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.newssniffer.co.uk/blog/2007/10/10/watch-your-mouth-down-for-a-week/#comment-7212</guid>
		<description>It looks like you're not catching all the removed comments you think you are.  I know of a couple of personal comments removed from the haggling HYS thread in December that didn't get caught by news sniffer (they got published, then removed a couple of hours later).  Could there be something you missed in the last fix?</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>It looks like you&#8217;re not catching all the removed comments you think you are.  I know of a couple of personal comments removed from the haggling HYS thread in December that didn&#8217;t get caught by news sniffer (they got published, then removed a couple of hours later).  Could there be something you missed in the last fix?</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
