<?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: New York Times Gets Vulgar With &#8220;Douche&#8221;-Laden Trend Piece</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.mediaite.com/print/new-york-times-gets-vulgar-with-douche-laden-trend-piece/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.mediaite.com/print/new-york-times-gets-vulgar-with-douche-laden-trend-piece/</link>
	<description>Mediaite</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Mon, 22 Mar 2010 13:42:47 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=abc</generator>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
		<item>
		<title>By: Tim Graham</title>
		<link>http://www.mediaite.com/print/new-york-times-gets-vulgar-with-douche-laden-trend-piece/#comment-10278</link>
		<dc:creator>Tim Graham</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 19 Nov 2009 01:55:26 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.mediaite.com/?p=46280#comment-10278</guid>
		<description>NYT Picker suggests the NYT should do its own study of vulgarities onTV. Does this &quot;expert&quot; have any idea how much work that is, watching prime-time shows on ABC, CBS, NBC, Fox, and CW, seven days a week for months on end? You can&#039;t do it on Nexis, genius. 

By that standard -- bias means you can&#039;t do reliable counting -- he wouldn&#039;t trust GLAAD counting gay characters, the NAACP counting minority characters, and health czars who comb entertainment for smoking scenes. They all have agendas, too.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>NYT Picker suggests the NYT should do its own study of vulgarities onTV. Does this &#8220;expert&#8221; have any idea how much work that is, watching prime-time shows on ABC, CBS, NBC, Fox, and CW, seven days a week for months on end? You can&#8217;t do it on Nexis, genius. </p>
<p>By that standard &#8212; bias means you can&#8217;t do reliable counting &#8212; he wouldn&#8217;t trust GLAAD counting gay characters, the NAACP counting minority characters, and health czars who comb entertainment for smoking scenes. They all have agendas, too.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Magister</title>
		<link>http://www.mediaite.com/print/new-york-times-gets-vulgar-with-douche-laden-trend-piece/#comment-9893</link>
		<dc:creator>Magister</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 15 Nov 2009 08:57:33 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.mediaite.com/?p=46280#comment-9893</guid>
		<description>Unless they were to record every moment of television and retroactively search through using the closed captioning or unless they started preparing for this article months ago, it&#039;d be kind of difficult for the &lt;I&gt;Times&lt;/I&gt; to produce this story.

Sure, the PTC is motivated to inflate the numbers, but so is every special interest group on every subject and offhand, I can&#039;t think of anyone else who would have easy access to this kind of data.

Recently this site published a ranking of &quot;worst actors&quot; based on a website&#039;s list of &quot;worst films&quot; and Defamer linked to someone&#039;s ranking of &quot;critically-acclaimed&quot; actors based on another website&#039;s database of reviews. Both sets of numbers and their mathematic formulas were clearly skewed, but once you wrap your head around the idea that their source data was flawed, you just had to accept the analysis for what it was.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Unless they were to record every moment of television and retroactively search through using the closed captioning or unless they started preparing for this article months ago, it&#8217;d be kind of difficult for the <i>Times</i> to produce this story.</p>
<p>Sure, the PTC is motivated to inflate the numbers, but so is every special interest group on every subject and offhand, I can&#8217;t think of anyone else who would have easy access to this kind of data.</p>
<p>Recently this site published a ranking of &#8220;worst actors&#8221; based on a website&#8217;s list of &#8220;worst films&#8221; and Defamer linked to someone&#8217;s ranking of &#8220;critically-acclaimed&#8221; actors based on another website&#8217;s database of reviews. Both sets of numbers and their mathematic formulas were clearly skewed, but once you wrap your head around the idea that their source data was flawed, you just had to accept the analysis for what it was.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Rachel Sklar</title>
		<link>http://www.mediaite.com/print/new-york-times-gets-vulgar-with-douche-laden-trend-piece/#comment-9836</link>
		<dc:creator>Rachel Sklar</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 14 Nov 2009 17:34:23 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.mediaite.com/?p=46280#comment-9836</guid>
		<description>Funfact: First use of colloquial &quot;douchebag&quot; in a national newspaper, as far as I could tell, was the Toronto Star in 2006: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/eat-the-press/2006/08/14/toronto-star-des_e_27202.html  (I have been a student of the scholarly use of &quot;douche&quot; for quite some time.) Great piece Joe!</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Funfact: First use of colloquial &#8220;douchebag&#8221; in a national newspaper, as far as I could tell, was the Toronto Star in 2006: <a href="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/eat-the-press/2006/08/14/toronto-star-des_e_27202.html" rel="nofollow">http://www.huffingtonpost.com/eat-the-press/2006/08/14/toronto-star-des_e_27202.html</a>  (I have been a student of the scholarly use of &#8220;douche&#8221; for quite some time.) Great piece Joe!</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
