Results matching “criticism and s”

Despite widespread allegations of fear-mongering tendencies in British science and health journalism, the minister of science and innovation, Lord Drayson, has praised the high standard of reporting in this field.

The reporting of public health issues by mainstream publications has come under heavy criticism for its inflammatory tone and exaggerated content. The recent coverage of the swine flu outbreak, a pertinent example, has been interpreted as unnecessarily alarming. Yet, speaking at the World Conference of Science Journalists in London yesterday, Drayson came out in defence of the work of science and health reporters. He rejected claims that the reporting of stories such as swine flu amounted to no more than hysterical headlines, but rather,  it provides an essential public service. Journalistic coverage of disease and health risks helps people make educated decisions by bridging a gap between science and the public, Drayson argued.  

The Washington Post has decided to cancel its plans to host private, off-the-record dinner parties for political lobbyists at the home of its publisher after criticism from the newsroom at the suggestion that their services were effectively been sold. Publisher Katharine Weymouth was to host dinners that would give paying lobbyists and business leaders access to officials from the Obama administration and Congress, as well as Post journalists.

Politico first reported the story yesterday after obtaining a flier promoting the events that had been given to a healthcare lobbyist. The flier was entitled "Underwriting Opportunity: An evening with the right people can alter the debate" and advertised events with a maximum of 20 guests to discuss major White House policy initiatives, which participating firms could co-sponsor for $25,000 per event, with up to two sponsors per session. There was also an offer for 11 for the price of 10. The theme of the first July dinner was to be health care reform, and WaPo guaranteed the attendance of Obama administration officials and members of Congress as well as reporters.

The media coverage of the shock death of Michael Jackson has served to highlight press dynamics, raising interesting questions concerning the nature of breaking news reporting, the cult of the celebrity and the relationship between newspapers and their online news rivals. Has the fact that most newspapers were delayed in the initial reporting of the death emphasised the widening gulf between print and digital channels of breaking news? Conversely, has the death been exploited by the printed press as a facile, reader guaranteeing hit?

The news of the performer's death, in terms of rumour, confirmation and reaction has been overwhelmingly 'digital' in expression. The scoop belonged to the Los Angeles based celebrity website, TMZ, which confirmed the death an hour after it aired whispers of a suspected heart attack. The reporting was rapid fire: time of death: 2.26pm, LA time, time of update: 2.44pm. 

The publication of the Complete Expenses File special supplement has reportedly boosted the circulation levels of Saturday's edition of the Telegraph by 120, 000 to 150, 000 copies above its base rate.  

The exposure of the scandal has been a major coup for the British broadsheet: since the story broke on the 8 May, the publication has maintained extraordinarily high circulation levels.  A month later, industry figures suggested that sales were at 87,000 copies above the Daily Telegraph's regular rate. The interest is evidently still strong: Saturday's figures represent the highest peak in the upward soar of circulation figures since the story broke.  

The Qatari Advisory Council has alleged that foreign journalists are being 'brought' into the country to slander its name through negative reports has incited protests of senior journalists. They have also voiced their criticism of the Council's recent debate on 'Irresponsible Journalism'.  This is the latest in a series of incidences which suggest that existing degrees of press freedom in the Middle East are being gradually eroded. 

The Doha Centre for Media Freedom (DCMF) was set up in October 2008 by the Qatar Foundation.  It is headed by the emir's wife, Shaykha Muzah, in partnership with the Paris- based media freedom watchdog Reporters Sans Frontieres (RSF). Robert Menard, former head of the RSF, is now the director-general of the DCMF.

As online news becomes more and more prevalent, with an unimaginable amount of information available at users' fingertips and Internet now ranked as US consumers' top way to access their news, how can media organisations make sure that readers find their articles?  Part of the answer is search engine optimisation, which is becoming an essential part of the daily life of a newsroom. For the printed product, newspapers must try to sell the paper as a whole; online, articles can attract traffic individually as readers come across them while searching for specific topics. It is therefore important that each story, rather than simply the site as a whole, is 'optimised' to appear higher in search results. Aside from highly technical aspects like HTML meta tagging, URL structure or site navigation, what can a newspaper do to optimise its content for search engines?

How to introduce SEO to the newsroom

One major potential stumbling block is that journalists might view SEO as a way to manipulate their stories and take away their true value. So the way it is presented to staff is extremely important. And indeed, it is crucial that newspapers do not get carried away with prioritising SEO above all else. Even Google advises creating content "primarily for your users, not search engines:" it is important to make your site easily accessible to search engines but still remain focused on your visitors' needs.

Clearly, it is important for all reporters to be aware of the ways that they can make each individual article more search-friendly. After all, journalists have always wanted their stories to be as widely read as possible, in print as well as online, and are likely to be willing to help make that happen. And often, the principles of SEO echo the principles of writing a good story: such as the idea that the first sentence should be a summary of the rest of the article, containing relevant concepts or keywords. One difference is that less generic, more specific works for SEO in terms of names or concepts. Google recommends shorter rather than longer titles.

Esa Peltonen, who has been working as a web analyst at the largest Finnish daily Helsingin Sanomat for three years, said that he has worked extensively with editorial staff, for example on how to use Google, to get an idea of how users will be searching and what kind of search words people are using. Head of audience development at the Telegraph, Julian Sambles, said in March that the paper was trying to give journalists "the knowledge and understanding that they need so they can apply it to their daily production process and make informed decisions about content when they're writing or publishing it." Thinking about SEO should be second nature, he added.

Papers must also consider their goals in optimising content for search engines. As Drew Broomhall, head of search at the Times explained, if you rank success by sheer volume of traffic, then you should "write the same as everyone else but more of it and more frequently updated." However, if you are looking to increase engagement on a specific subject you need more detailed keyword analysis and niche research.

One straightforward course is the need to stay ahead of the trends: predict what people are going to be talking about in upcoming months and provide appropriate content. "Fix SEO requirements into the editorial calendar," Broomhall suggests. Obviously much news is unpredictable, but there are some events that are year-in-year-out, or which are easy to prepare for in advance, such as an election or a festival. It is necessary to consider both specific, distinct events, such as religious holidays, and longer, less defined periods such as winter travel. Articles that contain links and that have been linked to by others appear higher in search results. Therefore, with annual events, it is beneficial to link to last year's coverage and make use of old content that already has inbound links to help promote the new content.

Hiring a SEO specialist?

As well as training all reporters to be aware of the principles of search engine optimisation, many newspapers have taken the step of hiring an in-house specialist. Ideally such a person would have deep technical knowledge combined with considerable journalistic experience, but such candidates might be hard to find. Peltonen comes from a business background, Broomhall from journalism and technology.

There are also many third party services available to news outlets, supplementary to the guidance of an in-house expert, such as Thomson Reuters' OpenCalais which recently announced deals made with the Huffington Post, DailyMe and the Mail Online. OpenCalais offers an 'Archive Express' feature which can tag an archive of up to 20 million documents in 24 hours. The service 'reads' and breaks down articles into their essential elements - who, what, when, where, how - and tags and sorts them so that it is easier to bring archived articles into 'related stories' sections and improve their search relevance.

Analysing traffic

A SEO specialist would be responsible for analysing traffic to a news outlet's site, looking at how readers find content, readership patterns and what methods of optimisation work best. Peltonen explained how he started off looking at basic data such as what are the top news stories, how many people are going where on the site, and started to work out how to increase traffic. His paper partnered with Microsoft to further analyse traffic data. Such traffic data analysis can be used to spot and develop potential niche verticals to focus on, for example, by looking at repeat visitor figures.  

Google keywords

Purchasing Google keywords to guarantee that news articles appear higher on search results is one of the more costly ways for news outlets to promote their content. Peltonen said that his paper frequently buys specific words, for instance for sports events, but stressed that it would be cheaper to improve the paper's SEO. Buying keywords could also raise ethical issues, depending on the words and their context. The Sun, for example, reportedly purchased the key words 'Natasha Richardson' immediately after the British actress's sudden death in March, in what appears to be a blatant attempt to profit from the tragedy. The Guardian came under considerable criticism last August when, apparently accidentally, it purchased the Google keywords "Madeleine McCann," giving any searchers the link to its coverage of the child's disappearance. The Guardian promptly relinquished the rights, and said it would review its list of keywords. Purchasing Google keywords in order to promote a product is common practice, but is it ethical for newspapers?

Evidently, SEO strategies are necessary in today's media landscape, not only to make more money but also to spread awareness of stories and help readers find what they are looking for and therefore should be embraced by journalists and editors as well as publishers. Search engine 'friendliness' should not be prioritised over good, accurate stories but it should be used to promote such content. Journalistic training is vital in order to optimise each individual article, and larger strategic steps should be taken by editors in conjunction with SEO specialists.

On Tuesday 23 June at 14.00 London time, Drew Broomhall, Head of Search at the Times of London will be speaking at a WEF webinar on "How to teach your journalists to write for the web." More details here.

As the world's political and media spotlights focussed on the Iranian elections, the Internet was always expected to play an important role in keeping people up to date with developments, but little did we know the Web would also prove to be the scene of political unrest.

As news emerged that incumbent president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad had secured 62.6 percent of the 46.2 million votes cast compared to rival Mir Hossein Mousavi's 33.75 percent, tweets started circulating from a section of the country's disappointed and disenfranchised voters.

Follow the Media's Philip Stone has written about the "Battle royal" going on between Italian prime minister and media mogul Silvio Berlusconi and News Corp CEO Rupert Murdoch. Berlusconi himself called attention to the rift recently while speaking on one of his TV channels, which he claims has led to News Corp criticism of his relationship with 18-year-old Noemi Letizia.

Stone explores the history of conflict between the two titans, starting in 1998 when Berlusconi rejected Murdoch's offer to buy his TV network Mediaset. Four years later Murdoch entered the market and formed Sky Italia, Italy's only satellite broadcaster, in fact with help from his Italian rival. Sky did well, not least because of its rights to the football matches played by the top Italian leagues, which Murdoch sold in monthly packages. Berlusconi "decided to fight back" and pushed a media law through parliament whereby the top three football teams could sell their home games on Mediaset's new terrestrial digital platform.

Pess freedom in Italy has come under international scrutiny in recent weeks as a down-grading of the press's freedom status by US non-profit Freedom House has coincided with an increase in prime minister Silvio Berlusconi's aggression towards media outlets which oppose him. Leading left-leaning daily La Repubblica has even attempted to take on the premier directly, publishing a list of questions concerning his relationship with a young girl, to which it believes he owes answers. A Dutch politician has threatened to take action in the European parliament against the Italian leader because of journalistic constraints. Should a newspaper be demanding such information which concerns a politician's private life? Is the press freedom situation as bad as it seems?

The La Repubblica crusade

On May 14 La Repubblica journalist Giuseppe D'Avanzo published ten questions directed at the prime minister concerning his involvement with 18-year-old Noemi Letizia. Berlusconi's relationship with the girl gained mass media attention when, four days after the prime minister dropped in on the girl's 18th birthday party in Naples, his wife issued a press release accusing him of "consorting with minors" and pressing for a divorce. Berlusconi promptly went on a late-night political chat show to defend himself, but the holes in his story which have gradually emerged have attracted even more attention than the original incident. D'Avanzo's questions address these holes and ask the premier to come clean about the nature of his encounters with the girl. Berlusconi has not yet answered the questions and has given no indication that he intends to. The paper has put a timer on its website to indicate the days, hours, minutes and seconds since the questions were issued, and even offers them in English.

Berlusconi himself has tried to present the left-leaning paper's campaign as a left-wing plot to undermine his authority, accusing the paper of lying and adding in an interview on TV-channel Sky that he believes many readers will abandon the paper because of this. His office issued a statement saying referring to the "campaign of denigration" and saying that the paper is driven by "jealousy and hatred."  The prime minister has fought back as the story developed, with his lawyers applying for the seizure of photos taken at his Sardinian villa (where Letizia reportedly attended parties with other young women) before they could be published, and a journalist from Berlusconi's brother's Milan-based daily Il Giornale posing as a member of the foreign press to get an interview with Ms Letizia's former boyfriend in an attempt to discredit him.
 
 
The international reaction 
La Repubblica has defended its actions, with editor Ezio Mauro saying that "There are contradictions here and when the powers that be don't explain something, journalism has a job to do." And foreign journalists seem to agree. The paper also featured an interview with Bill Emmott, former editor of the Economist, who said that "for a newspaper, asking a political leader questions is not only legitimate, but part of its mission to inform the people." According to the International Herald Tribune, "for the first time in recent memory, the Italian press is shining a bright light into the dark recesses of a politician's personal life." The Times wrote that the premier's campaign against La Repubblica "looks ominously like an attempt to cow dissent rather than protect a private reputation" and that "his newspaper critics are performing a public service for a badly governed populace." A Financial Times editorial criticised the way that Berlusconi turned on La Repubblica following the questions, and stressed that part of the "danger of Berlusconi... is that of the media sapping the serious content of politics, and replacing it with entertainment."

Berlusconi has reacted with anger and scepticism to such foreign criticism. He seems to refuse to believe that papers might be acting of their own accord, announcing that "the international press's campaign is being orchestrated by an Italian group" and referring to it as a left-wing "plot." He insists that the foreign press is misrepresenting the Italian situation, and a rift in his relationship with Rupert Murdoch seems to be further deteriorating following the Times' article and others. He has accused the Times of writing critical editorials about him because his government is in dispute with News Corp. Il Giornale, owned by the prime minister's brother Paolo, ran a story discussing the FT editorial entitled "The left has also enlisted the Financial Times."

One of a newspaper's main goals should be to act as a watchdog over the government, but it is unusual for a paper to take on a country's leader so directly, particularly over a matter which is largely private. In the UK, the Daily Telegraph's recent campaign over MPs' expenses was firmly in the public interest, as it dealt with public money being used by members of parliament for personal gain. Berlusconi has been derisive of the media discussing what he says is his private life. Should a paper be putting so much focus on an issue that is arguably unrelated to the prime minister's ability to govern the country? Is this indicative of media trivialisation?

The Times editorial does not see the questions as intrusive, as they relate to Berlusconi's "public roles as politician and media magnate". The Independent's Peter Popham said that the media "cannot be accused of muck-raking on the issue because it was Mr Berlusconi himself who drew attention to the relationship" by attending the 18-year-old's party and not only posing for photographs but publicly giving the girl a 6000euro gold necklace. And the fact that a politician might have lied to the public is probably enough of an incentive to investigate.
 
Press freedom in Italy
 
Italy has a fairly unique media situation, which makes confrontation between a newspaper and the prime minister even more pertinent. The country's press freedom status is clearly in question. A Dutch politician who is leader of the Green Left party in the European Parliament, Judith Sargentini, has said that her party is considering taking legal action against Berlusconi because of the press freedom constraints in his country. Amongst her complaints is the fact that the premier blocks critical questions at press conferences. If a majority of the European Parliament were to agree to the initiation of legal proceedings, then the matter would come before the European Court of Justice.

US-based nonprofit Freedom House recently downgraded Italy's press freedom status from 'free' to 'partly free' for 2008. In conversation with Karin Karlekar, editor of the report, she explained that the main reasons given for this were the unusually high level of media concentration, particularly in broadcasting, threats from organised crime and others, and attacks on journalists, mainly from far right groups. During Berlusconi's former term as prime minister, the country was also given partly free ratings, and Karlekar added that the media concentration was "one of the highest levels anywhere in the world."

Daria Gorodisky, a veteran Corriere della Sera journalist who is also a union representative for the paper, told the Editors Weblog that she believes there is a "truly enormous press freedom problem in Italy" which will be "extremely difficult to resolve." She does not place blame for this directly on the government but on the fact that there are no "pure" newspaper owners, rather, those who publish newspapers also run other businesses and therefore have aims and interests aside from their papers. She also believes that the quality of Italy's journalism schools have deteriorated as more and more have sprung up. She did, however, point out that this is not the first time that Berlusconi has threatened the press.

Internet penetration is low in Italy in comparison to that of its Western European neighbours: about 48%, compared to 72% in the UK or 66% in France, for example. This low figure would suggest that many people are more likely to get their news from television and one or two newspapers, rather than the range of sources that online readers might visit. Despite this, however, Karlekar noted the country's "very vibrant and influential" blogosphere, particularly politically-orientated blogs.

Gorodisky commented that although some journalists were "very worried" by the situation, she did not think that there was enough widespread concern about Italy's press freedom status. Karlekar said that her organisation's report had sparked considerable debate and she had received both praise and hate mail from Italians. Niccolo Ghedini, lawyer to Berlusconi, dismissed the report on a TV show called Anno Zero, saying it was a private organisation and took its information from only two sources, La Repubblica and Corriere della Sera. Karlekar responded that she was "not sure where he got that" and was clear that "the range of sources is large and our authors would never just rely on one or two." She added that it was "interesting that the government felt compelled to respond in some way."
 
Karlekar did say that Berlusconi did not seem to be "exerting the same amount of influence over the broadcast media" as he did during his previous term as prime minister; there seems to be less "overt political manipulation." She was also clear that she did not think that the high media concentration had "stifled" the whole media, and drew attention to the diversity in terms of political opinion in the print sector.

Arguably there are far more important questions that the Italian press could be asking its country's leader, rather than focusing on the somewhat sordid details of his involvement with a teenage girl. But as a vital part of the press's role in a democracy is to play watchdog on the government, the fact that a paper is challenging the prime minister to clear up inconsistencies is something that must be welcomed. And even though the original issue may not be crucial in itself, the other questions it has brought up concerning use of government planes for private use, for example, are very pertinent. Given how much of the media the prime minister does control, and the fact that even the journalists who do not currently work for Berlusconi know that they may well some day, the press freedom situation could undoubtedly be worse than it is, and it is important that journalists keep fighting.

New York Times journalist Martin Fackler has written about the "failure" of the news media to press Japanese prosecutors for answers in an ongoing political scandal.

In March, Tokyo prosecutors arrested an aide to a prominent opposition political leader and sparked a damaging scandal which led to the resignation of Ichiro Ozawa, head of the opposition Democratic Party. Many Japanese have been vocal in their criticism of the prosecutors' actions, which appear politically motivated, but "you would not know that from the coverage by Japan's big newspapers and television networks," said Fackler.

Former deputy Prime Minister John Prescott has lashed out at the British press and its reaction to the Telegraph's revelations on the MP expenses scandal, branding it "arguably the worst area of self-regulation of all." Prescott's article has met with heavy criticism from readers due to his personal embroilment in the scandal, but he makes some very valid points about the Press Complaints Commission nonetheless.

He asks how effective a regulator can be "when it is not only funded by the newspaper industry but also has senior editors sitting on the board adjudicating the editorial decisions of their colleagues?" Prescott points out that amongst the board members are Sunday Telegraph editor Ian MacGregor, Mail on Sunday editor Peter Wright and Daily Mail editor Paul Dacre (who is chair of the PCC committee that reviews the Code of Practice).

Internet newspaper the Huffington Post has since its inception provided a means of communication and dialogue for left-leaning pundits and politicians to air their views to a predominately sympathetic audience.  So it may have come as a bit of a surprise to regular readers when blogs and comments by Republican Party members began to appear more frequently on the site, Politico reports.

Surely, to obtain an appreciative reception to criticisms of their opponents and the pitch of their plans, it would be safer for Republicans to use conservative platforms, such as the RedState blog or the Wall Street Journal?  Yet online political debate today, it appears, is all about stepping out of the comfort zone.  Controversy and argument equal greater impact, and the reach is increased hugely by stepping into enemy territory.

Constructive criticism leads to development - but what about when the critic lacks professional knowledge or qualifications in the subject of their opinions? Not a problem, according to Christopher Harper, an associate professor at Temple University's department of journalism, writing about the role of the blogosphere in the criticism of journalists.

Harper writes that "They might be wrong in their analysis, but I think that any... journalistic practice is certainly open to criticism. It doesn't mean that criticism is necessarily valid, but I think it's great that they question the things that we do." He also writes that the traditional concepts of fair, balanced and objective reporting are outdated, that fact can be interspersed with opinion and that this is one of the great things about the blogosphere.

Robert G Picard has a controversial proposition:  journalists should accept lower pay.  To explain these potentially friend-losing remarks published on the Christian Science Monitior website, the media economist offers a lesson in the philosophy of economic value as applied to the beleaguered profession.

In a time of worrying industry cutbacks and the rise of citizen journalism as an inexpensive and exciting source of information, Picard offers alternative paths for the profession, necessitating the specialisation of focus and an acceptance of the economic realities of the labour market.

"Economic outcomes have traditionally held low priority for journalists. That's got to change."

In a letter sent to the Office of Fair Trading today, Google is expected to show its support for newspaper mergers, arguing that current laws do not reflect the true scope of competition that relatively recent newcomers such as search engines and internet companies, in general, represent to publishers, the Times has reported.

Despite changes to competition laws as recent as the Competition Act of 1998 and the Enterprise Act of 2002, the internet giant believes the existing framework on mergers is potentially stifling to newspapers and insists that if publishers are to be able to seriously compete with other information and content providers, they should be given the freedom to merge with the local and regional news titles of other publishers.

UK publisher Newsquest has come under criticism for its decision to run a banner advertisement for the controversial right-wing British National Party on the home pages of some of its regional titles. The ad, which is no longer visible, was on the home pages of titles including the Bromsgrove Advertiser, Dudley News and Stourbridge News, and lead directly to the BNP homepage.

The BNP, which is recognised as a legal party in the UK, holds controversial views on issues such as immigration, and is considered by many to have racist and extremist tendencies. Newsquest's decision to run BNP advertisements comes at a sensitive time in British politics, amidst concerns that the fallout from the MP expenses scandal could lead disillusioned voters towards fringe parties.

Some readers may be shocked and offended by the presence of the ads - however, there is an argument for freedom of speech in a democracy: both in politics and the press. The BNP, like Labour or the Conservatives, is a recognised political party and as such theoretically has as much right to advertise. Is it justifiable, therefore, for Newsquest to overlook such controversial and widely-opposed views and to allow the BNP to advertise, all in the name of free speech?

Source: Journalism.co.uk

According to United Press International, one of Thailand's leading political parties announced on Friday that it is set to launch its own newspaper.

The United Front for Democracy against Dictatorship (UDD), often referred to as the Red Shirts is expecting to launch the Red News by the end of the month.

Earlier this week, the Wall Street Journal issued a new set of guidelines for professional conduct to its staff which, among other things, detailed the do's and don'ts of social networking. At the time, reaction to the rules was unknown, but writing on her Save the media blog, newspaper journalist, Gina Chen, clearly disagrees with the WSJ bosses.

"This is an open letter to the Dow Jones and Co.," begins the post. The author says that executives at the WSJ "fail" to grasp the point of social media and proceeds to address each specific rule, line by line.

In response to criticism from some of the UK's leading journalism pundits, editorial staff who
work on East End Life, a weekly newspaper based in the London Borough of Tower Hamlets, have penned a passionate letter defending their right to work for council-run newspapers, according to the Guardian's Roy Greenslade referring to a post on blog site FleetStreetBlues, which in turn says the letter was originally sent to the National Union of Journalist's (NUJ) Journalist magazine.

The Washington Post's Howard Kurtz has reported that the Post Co.'s chief executive Donald Graham has been in talks with Google CEO Eric Schmidt to discuss working together. Post executive Philip Bennett described the meetings as "an informal collaboration."

Bennett confirmed that "we're talking to each other about improved ways of creating and presenting news online." Details of how this could develop are unclear: Kurtz suggests that the collaboration could lead to creating new web pages or technological tools for journalists or readers.

Former industry analyst and media commentator Lauren Rich Fine wrote a strong criticism of the growing consideration of not-for-profit status as an option for newspapers. Last week she took part in the Duke Conference on Nonprofit Media, where she saw her role as "to remind everyone that the business model wasn't working and that philanthropists don't typically give funds to organizations that have yet to find stability."

Rich Fine believes that the best way to preserve good journalism is to "let the market figure it out on its own." She asserts that successful not-for-profit start-ups such as ProPublica or MinnPost are surviving not because of their philanthropic support, but because of their "entrepreneurial spirit and lean cost structure, two things most newspaper companies are lacking."

Last Wednesday, May 6, the US Senate Commerce Subcommittee on Communications, Technology, and the Internet held a hearing to review the plight of the newspaper industry, to better understand new media and the new model emerging, and to assess the role that government should play in the media as it evolves. The Future of Journalism hearing was presided over by Subcommittee chair Massachusetts Senator John Kerry, who called the hearing in response to the threatened closure of his local paper, the Boston Globe, and the troubles facing newspapers across the country as advertising and circulation decline and the Internet replaces traditional media.

In his opening statement, Kerry says the committee has met to discuss not only the jolting condition of the newspaper, but also its implications for the future of journalism and the country. He believes it is important to "preserve the core society function served by independent and diverse media" and questions whether online journalism will "sustain the values of professional journalism the way the newspaper industry has." The committee invited five prominent representatives of various types of media to express their views about the Future of Journalism and offer their solutions.

"Why is the government interested?" asks Kerry. "We do have a responsibility for the licensing of broadcast. We have a responsibility for the regulatory oversight of ownership of cable, satellite, other issues with respect to communications; and needless to say, how the American people get their information--what the structure of ownership is--is of enormous interest to all of us because it is the foundation of our democracy." Is there even any government role at all, he wonders, or is this simply a normal transition in the marketplace?

Considering the nonprofit model

Before it heard from the media representatives, Maryland Senator Ben Cardin spoke to the committee about his Newspaper Revitalization Act, which proposes a nonprofit, tax-exempt 501(c)(3) status for newspapers. Cardin stresses that online journalism does not supply the in-depth reporting and investigative journalism provided by traditional newsrooms that are essential to a free and democratic society. His bill would provide an opportunity for local supporters--whether individuals, foundations, or educational institutions--to come together to preserve their community newspaper.

The major criticism of Cardin's bill is that it could threaten a newspaper's freedom of speech: 501(c)(3) status allows editorializing but prohibits a paper from endorsing political candidates. The independence of journalism from government is crucial to its role as watchdog, and it is undesirable for a newspaper to have the government involved in judging its content. However, in their addresses to the Committee, both Steve Coll, former managing editor of the Washington Post, and former newspaperman David Simon, say that while they seriously oppose government interference in newspapers, they are intrigued by the nonprofit model.

Newsrooms provide an important public service, so why shouldn't the government give them the tax exempt benefit of becoming non-profits? After all, the danger of government interference in content could be exaggerated. Any single politician or political party attempting to manipulate a publication would be immediately exposed through other media outlets, and the threat is not much greater than private ownership where powerful investors might maneuver the paper to serve their own interests. Nonetheless, the greatest issue faced by nonprofit newspapers and their investors will be where to draw the line between endorsing and editorializing. If a newspaper's responsibility is to provide the public with unbiased information, then blatant political endorsements seem in violation of that role anyway, but nonprofit status could limit criticism and commentary on politicians and legislation that might reduce the media's role as watchdog.

As Coll and Alberto Ibargüen, President of the Knight Foundation, point out, nonprofit is not a universal remedy nor will it solve newspapers' profit problems. The initiative could be viewed less as a savior of the newspaper entity and more as a bridge to preserve local journalism during a transitional period. Ibarguen says that relieving profit pressures with nonprofit status might help newspapers "extend their useful life until we figure out what's next and what online model can afford professional journalism."

Relaxing antitrust could help publishers charge for online content

The other great appeal for government intervention in newspapers has been the request for changes to media ownership and antitrust policy. Last month the Justice Department rejected House Speaker Nancy Pelosi's request to change the boundaries of media antitrust to include all media in a geographic area--including radio, TV, and newspapers--when deciding whether a sale is anticompetitive.

Pelosi's antitrust proposal raised obvious criticism about the independence of newspapers and consolidation of ownership. However, at the Senate hearing, Simon and James Moroney, publisher and CEO of the Dallas Morning News, approached antitrust from a different angle: they urged the Committee to give newspapers an antitrust exemption so that industry leaders could convene to discuss copyrighting from aggregators and charging for content online.

Unable to foresee the digital future, at the advent of the Internet newspaper publishers made the mistake of offering content free online. Now readers are accessing that content for free, not through the publisher's site, but through aggregators like Google News, which also does not pay publishers for content. Marissa Mayer, vice president of Search Products and User Experience at Google Inc., defends Google to the committee, calling it a "conduit" for journalism that provides a free service to online newspapers by driving traffic to their sites.

However, Simon and Moroney argue that aggregators do not provide adequate compensation for the revenue generated from publishers' original content. They contend that as of now, the profits publishers make from online advertising are not enough to sustain the quality journalism newsrooms have been providing. There must be an industry wide initiative to charge for content online, says Simon, as no individual can swim against the tide. According to Moroney, under the current antitrust laws, publishers cannot even begin to have a conversation about possibilities for pricing or charging aggregators.

If the government does relax antitrust to allow for this industry wide "conversation," it could possibly lead to major publications placing a pay wall around content, charging users and aggregators, but does such a pay wall threaten the free market? One of the virtues of the Internet is the accessibility of information, so where do pay walls and content hoarding fit in? A generation of Internet users already views information as a free commodity, and charging online users for content will significantly reduce traffic, which will in turn reduce advertising revenue. Even if industry leaders can convene and discuss, they still might find themselves at a loss for a viable solution.

Experimentation and innovation rather than government intervention

The hearing's last speaker, Arianna Huffington, co-founder and editor-in-chief of the Huffington Post, opposed antitrust exemptions, paywalls, or really any government intervention. In fact, she countered some speaker's doom and gloom position with the opening statement, "Journalism will not only survive, it will thrive." Her main point is that the industry has changed and moved forward and there is no going back.

Huffington says, "The future is to be found elsewhere: it's a linked economy, it's search engines, it's online advertising, it's citizen journalism, and the foundations supporting investigative journalism. That's where the future is, and if you can't find your way to that, then you just can't find your way."

Ibargüen, Mayer, and Huffington all support embracing new media and encouraging experimentation and business models that promote digital possibilities. For Ibargüen that means providing universal, affordable digital action and adoption in the US and more inclusive public media that reaches every American. Neither he nor Huffington mourn the decline of investigative journalism, and both praise the efforts of nonprofits like ProPublica and the Knight Foundation supported Voices of San Diego for providing quality journalism outside the traditional newsroom.

According to Mayer, "The structure of the web has caused the basic unit--the atom of consumption--to migrate from the newspaper to the individual article," and because of the Web's ability to operate in real time, this allows for "living" instead of "static" stories that are constantly changed and updated like Wikipedia or the New York Times' "Times Topics." These changes to the way information is viewed, insist Mayer and Huffington, mean a different approach to monetization is necessary, which requires innovation and creativity. The solution for newspaper publishers is not to appeal to the government for a handout to preserve the old ways, but to adapt quickly and direct their time and resources into experimenting with the monetization of traffic through advertising.

What will the Senate decide?

Despite Kerry and Cardin's concern for the American newspaper, more than one of the subcommittee's senators held up a Blackberry during the hearing, proving themselves a part of the new digital audience. The general consensus of both the senators and media representatives seemed to be that their priority is not to save newspapers but to promote policies that sustain journalism.

How enlightening were the testimonies of the media representatives? Though certainly thorough in unveiling all the problems facing the media today, they failed to provide the government with a cure-all solution as to how it should proceed.

It seems fairly likely that the Senate could pursue the nonprofit solution as it seems basically harmless and might help some local newspapers stay on their feet at least long enough to find another answer. Relaxing antitrust could prove more risky, giving industry leaders the occasion to consolidate prices and possibly restrict information in a move that could prove more harmful than helpful to their own purpose.

The testimonies may have encouraged the Senate to do nothing at all for the newspaper but instead to accept that the audience and the market is evolving and no legislation can hold it back. If this is the case, then publishers will be faced with only one choice: innovate or fail. Instead of resisting change, they must get a grasp on technology and the new audience, paying attention to the success of others, then find ways to provide creative content and advertising solutions. As a few of the speakers said, this is still a transitional period for old media and new media, and there is still immense possibility for originality and advances. Though certain publications might lament their own fate, it is too early to be mourning the future of journalism.  

Talk about how to report the "Swine Flu" continues as disease hype propagates. Many journalists and doctors continue to say the news needs to bring it down a notch and make sure readers are not being scared unnecessarily. Others say it may not be such a terrible thing; hype gets the worlds attention to a situation that may need people to be informed and prepared.

The comments adorning the bottom of online articles have become the norm in online news; for the most part, readers expect the right to comment and by and large publications allow them to have it. Intended as a means of criticism and communication between writers and their audience, Virginia Heffernan of the New York Times asks what purpose the comment pages really serve.

Using op-ed columnist Anne Applebaum as her example, Heffernan points out that although Pulitzer prize winner Applebaum has been regarded as one of "the world's most sophisticated thinkers", the comments on her online articles (published on Slate and the Washington Post) often ridicule her opinions and insist she knows nothing. She explains that Applebaum is branded a fool by some commenters, patronisingly referred to as "sweetie" and "dear", and has even been subject to "anti-Semitic tirades".

The BBC is to unveil proposals tomorrow for a deal with local news providers that would see the national broadcaster share resources with newspapers, TV and radio stations. The suggestions will be outlined at an industry summit hosted by UK culture secretary Andy Burnham on Tuesday, which had been arranged to discuss ways to assist local papers, which have been heavily hit by the fall in advertising revenue.

BBC proposals include giving local papers free access to video content for their websites, allowing them access to its college of journalism, sharing audio content with community and local radio reporters, and making its iPlayer technology available to rivals so that they can build their own video-rich websites, reported the Guardian.