<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8"?>
<rss xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom" version="2.0"><channel><title>From the Online - Latest Comments in NightJack - issues raised</title><link>http://fromtheonline.disqus.com/</link><description>Reporting from the Isle of Blogs</description><atom:link href="https://fromtheonline.disqus.com/nightjack_issues_raised/latest.rss" rel="self"></atom:link><language>en</language><lastBuildDate>Wed, 17 Jun 2009 14:56:12 -0000</lastBuildDate><item><title>Re: NightJack - issues raised</title><link>http://fromtheonline.com/2009/06/17/nightjack-issues-raised/#comment-11056307</link><description>&lt;p&gt;I think this has been really tricky. I think that The Times was right to investigate a prominent award winning anonymous blogger to check if they a) had the credentials they said they had and b) were not a really senior figure in public service. But having done that and established his identity, I don't see that *in this case* they should have fought tooth'n'nail to publish.&lt;/p&gt;</description><dc:creator xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/">Martin Belam</dc:creator><pubDate>Wed, 17 Jun 2009 14:56:12 -0000</pubDate></item></channel></rss>