<?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: Lay-ing it into the Wall Street Journal</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.concurringopinions.com/archives/2006/04/laying_it_into_1.html/feed" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.concurringopinions.com/archives/2006/04/laying_it_into_1.html</link>
	<description>The Law, the Universe, and Everything</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Sun, 22 Nov 2009 04:22:46 -0700</lastBuildDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8.3</generator>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
		<item>
		<title>By: Dave Hoffman</title>
		<link>http://www.concurringopinions.com/archives/2006/04/laying_it_into_1.html/comment-page-1#comment-59322</link>
		<dc:creator>Dave Hoffman</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 26 Apr 2006 07:12:42 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.solove.org/archives/2006/04/lay-ing-it-into-the-wall-street-journal.html#comment-59322</guid>
		<description>David, I was talking about the atmospherics of the thing.  I don&#039;t think the WSJ today has be tarred by the same &quot;liberal&quot; brush as other parts of the media.  That doesn&#039;t mean its news pages aren&#039;t &quot;liberal&quot; (whatever that means in this context), but that most folks do not see them that way - probably because of the well-known tilt of the editorial board.  The prevalence of the &quot;misinformation&quot; I think supports my point.  But maybe, as I suggest in the post, the distinction between the WSJ and the Times is an east coast bias.

</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>David, I was talking about the atmospherics of the thing.  I don&#8217;t think the WSJ today has be tarred by the same &#8220;liberal&#8221; brush as other parts of the media.  That doesn&#8217;t mean its news pages aren&#8217;t &#8220;liberal&#8221; (whatever that means in this context), but that most folks do not see them that way &#8211; probably because of the well-known tilt of the editorial board.  The prevalence of the &#8220;misinformation&#8221; I think supports my point.  But maybe, as I suggest in the post, the distinction between the WSJ and the Times is an east coast bias.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: David Bernstein</title>
		<link>http://www.concurringopinions.com/archives/2006/04/laying_it_into_1.html/comment-page-1#comment-59321</link>
		<dc:creator>David Bernstein</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 26 Apr 2006 07:07:42 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.solove.org/archives/2006/04/lay-ing-it-into-the-wall-street-journal.html#comment-59321</guid>
		<description>The Wall Street Journal is not, repeat not, a conservative publication.  The editorial pages are conservative.  The news pages, especially legal news reporters, are known to be quite liberal. This doesn&#039;t defeat your broader point, but I just get tired of this particular misinformation.

</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>The Wall Street Journal is not, repeat not, a conservative publication.  The editorial pages are conservative.  The news pages, especially legal news reporters, are known to be quite liberal. This doesn&#8217;t defeat your broader point, but I just get tired of this particular misinformation.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
