<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:wfw="http://wellformedweb.org/CommentAPI/"
	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/"
	xmlns:slash="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/slash/"
	>

<channel>
	<title>Fagstein &#187; anonymous sources</title>
	<atom:link href="http://blog.fagstein.com/tag/anonymous-sources/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://blog.fagstein.com</link>
	<description>Can you think of a better name?</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Fri, 24 May 2013 16:00:31 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<language>en-US</language>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.5.1</generator>
		<item>
		<title>Telegraph&#8217;s scoops aren&#8217;t telling the whole story</title>
		<link>http://blog.fagstein.com/2009/06/01/telegraph-british-mp-scoops/</link>
		<comments>http://blog.fagstein.com/2009/06/01/telegraph-british-mp-scoops/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Mon, 01 Jun 2009 16:58:15 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Fagstein</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Media]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[anonymous sources]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[journalism ethics]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[London Daily Telegraph]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blog.fagstein.com/?p=5656</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[The New York Times this weekend explored the London Daily Telegraph's British-MPs-exploit-expense-accounts scoop (or, rather, scoops - they dished out the details bit by bit over several days, milking their investigation for all it was worth). It spreads the rumour that the Telegraph paid for the information (a faux pas, at least among the upper [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://blog.fagstein.com/2009/06/01/telegraph-british-mp-scoops/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>1</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Journalism died today</title>
		<link>http://blog.fagstein.com/2008/02/29/journalism-died-today/</link>
		<comments>http://blog.fagstein.com/2008/02/29/journalism-died-today/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Fri, 29 Feb 2008 20:49:12 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Fagstein</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Media]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Opinion]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[anonymous sources]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[court]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[freedom of the press]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Jean-Chrétien]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Law]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[National-Post]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Shawinigate]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blog.fagstein.com/2008/02/29/journalism-died-today/</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[OK, maybe I'm being a bit over-dramatic. But if you're considering leaking a document anonymously to the media, confident that you've been promised your name will be kept secret by the journalist, think again. Today, the National Post lost an appeal which pitted confidentiality of sources against the interests of law enforcement. And the court [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://blog.fagstein.com/2008/02/29/journalism-died-today/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>3</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>It&#8217;s time to re-think anonymous sources</title>
		<link>http://blog.fagstein.com/2008/01/20/its-time-to-re-think-anonymous-sources/</link>
		<comments>http://blog.fagstein.com/2008/01/20/its-time-to-re-think-anonymous-sources/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Sun, 20 Jan 2008 09:10:59 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Fagstein</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Media]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Opinion]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[anonymous sources]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blog.fagstein.com/2008/01/20/its-time-to-re-think-anonymous-sources/</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Anonymous sources are important tools for journalists. They can provide information that changes the course of history (insert obligatory Deep Throat reference here), usually in the form of an insider whose conscience gets the better of them. For example, an article in The Link this week, which talks to an anonymous member of Concordia University's [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://blog.fagstein.com/2008/01/20/its-time-to-re-think-anonymous-sources/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>1</slash:comments>
		</item>
	</channel>
</rss>
