<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8" standalone="yes"?><rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom" xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"><channel><title>Cnn on Philip Sheldrake</title><link>https://philipsheldrake.com/tags/cnn/</link><description>Recent content in Cnn on Philip Sheldrake</description><generator>Hugo</generator><language>en-gb</language><lastBuildDate>Fri, 19 Jun 2009 00:00:00 +0000</lastBuildDate><atom:link href="https://philipsheldrake.com/tags/cnn/index.xml" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/><item><title>Friday Roundup - quoting the social Web</title><link>https://philipsheldrake.com/2009/06/friday-roundup-quoting-the-social-web/</link><pubDate>Fri, 19 Jun 2009 00:00:00 +0000</pubDate><guid>https://philipsheldrake.com/2009/06/friday-roundup-quoting-the-social-web/</guid><description>&lt;p>There is a problem with social media. Conclusions should be drawn from the collective, from the aggregate of all social interaction, conversation, commentary, tagging, ratings etc. As the assertion goes, there&amp;rsquo;s wisdom in them there crowds.&lt;/p>
&lt;p>But that&amp;rsquo;s not how we&amp;rsquo;re all used to working.&lt;/p>
&lt;p>We have evolved, I think you&amp;rsquo;ll agree, to tune into one person at a time. Listen to one person. Watch one person. If I asked you to tell me what the population of London was thinking on a certain topic, unless that topic was their restricted choice of political expression and the question coincided with a local election, you&amp;rsquo;d be hard pressed to tell me.&lt;/p>
&lt;p>We like our individual news readers, individual film stars, individual celebrities. And our individual journalists. You see, we can trust (most) journalists because they&amp;rsquo;ve had to subscribe to a code of conduct, a code of ethics. They have standards to maintain in executing their task at hand.&lt;/p></description></item></channel></rss>