define('DISALLOW_FILE_EDIT', true);
define('DISALLOW_FILE_MODS', true);<?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: Web news profitable?  Not quite yet.	</title>
	<atom:link href="https://norunnyeggs.com/2008/12/web-news-profitable-not-quite-yet/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>https://norunnyeggs.com/2008/12/web-news-profitable-not-quite-yet/</link>
	<description>The repository of one hard-boiled egg from the south suburbs of Milwaukee, Wisconsin (and the occassional guest-blogger).  The ramblings within may or may not offend, shock and awe you, but they are what I (or my guest-bloggers) think.</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Tue, 23 Dec 2008 22:05:19 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>
	hourly	</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>
	1	</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>https://wordpress.org/?v=6.9</generator>
	<item>
		<title>
		By: steveegg		</title>
		<link>https://norunnyeggs.com/2008/12/web-news-profitable-not-quite-yet/comment-page-1/#comment-36795</link>

		<dc:creator><![CDATA[steveegg]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 23 Dec 2008 22:05:19 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">https://norunnyeggs.com/?p=4223#comment-36795</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[In reply to &lt;a href=&quot;https://norunnyeggs.com/2008/12/web-news-profitable-not-quite-yet/comment-page-1/#comment-36794&quot;&gt;dad29&lt;/a&gt;.

Actually, the New York Times tried it, and it flopped.  The Journal never expanded it beyond the expanded Packer coverage.  While most papers charge for archives retrieved through their own search system, most of those don&#039;t pull the free archives available through a Google/Yahoo search (or a blog link).  Even the WSJ scaled back what is behind the fee wall and made the entirety of the editorial page free (with the exception of the email-only Political Diary).

Maybe the Journal could get away with no DC bureau, but they are, as best as I can tell, the only Wisconsin news organization with a DC presence.  In fact, outside of the Madison market, the only entities that have a Madison bureau, at least as far as I can determine, are the Journal and the Green Bay Press-Gazette.]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>In reply to <a href="https://norunnyeggs.com/2008/12/web-news-profitable-not-quite-yet/comment-page-1/#comment-36794">dad29</a>.</p>
<p>Actually, the New York Times tried it, and it flopped.  The Journal never expanded it beyond the expanded Packer coverage.  While most papers charge for archives retrieved through their own search system, most of those don&#8217;t pull the free archives available through a Google/Yahoo search (or a blog link).  Even the WSJ scaled back what is behind the fee wall and made the entirety of the editorial page free (with the exception of the email-only Political Diary).</p>
<p>Maybe the Journal could get away with no DC bureau, but they are, as best as I can tell, the only Wisconsin news organization with a DC presence.  In fact, outside of the Madison market, the only entities that have a Madison bureau, at least as far as I can determine, are the Journal and the Green Bay Press-Gazette.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
		
			</item>
		<item>
		<title>
		By: dad29		</title>
		<link>https://norunnyeggs.com/2008/12/web-news-profitable-not-quite-yet/comment-page-1/#comment-36794</link>

		<dc:creator><![CDATA[dad29]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 23 Dec 2008 21:13:56 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">https://norunnyeggs.com/?p=4223#comment-36794</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[The point is that no one has TRIED fee-based except the WSJ.  I don&#039;t know if they have run a story about the results.

And there may be a better &quot;DC coverage&quot; idea than relying on AP/Reuters; one could, for example, see JS teaming with other WI papers (and electronic media players) to hire a shared reporter out there for WI issues.

Nobody&#039;s tried...]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>The point is that no one has TRIED fee-based except the WSJ.  I don&#8217;t know if they have run a story about the results.</p>
<p>And there may be a better &#8220;DC coverage&#8221; idea than relying on AP/Reuters; one could, for example, see JS teaming with other WI papers (and electronic media players) to hire a shared reporter out there for WI issues.</p>
<p>Nobody&#8217;s tried&#8230;</p>
]]></content:encoded>
		
			</item>
	</channel>
</rss>