On Monday March 28 Jaimelinfo.fr was launched in France: a new web platform for crowd-funding journalism whose principal aim to support quality online journalism ("soutenez la presse en ligne" says the subhead). It was created by the news site Rue89.

Crowd-funding works on the basis that readers can collectively finance news sites or projects. Citizens can now contribute to news in several ways, by sourcing (crowd-sourcing) or producing (citizen journalism) as well as funding.
The best known example of crowd-funding journalism is Spot.Us, a start up based in California's Bay Area, founded by David Cohn with help from the Knight Foundation.
Anyone can suggest a story about an important topic he/she thinks should be reported on. A budget for developing the story is fixed, and then anyone can donate towards covering the story, which will be investigated, once the amount is reached, by one or more professional reporters. Reporters can also create "Assignments" and invite the public to help them out.

People who think to have been publicly misrepresented or wrongly and inaccurately represented have the right to ask for a correction and to re-establish the truth about them. There is no doubt about it.

Accuracy and fair reporting are the fundamental pillars of journalism. It's the basis of professional ethics.

The need to maintain true accountability demands that the press publishes a correction whenever it is found to be necessary.

That's why many news media not only have correction pages but have also established internal watchdog system such as an ombudsman or have subscribed to self-regulation bodies as news (or press) councils.

Anyone has the right to see incorrect information rectified, celebrities as well as common people and every untruth must be corrected, no matter if it's about high ideals or simply common facts.

Money shouldn't count in this process then. That's the point raised by The Observer readers' editor, Stephen Pritchard in his last article.

"What price the truth now?", he wonders.

Apple has received a not-so-positive reputation for having strict regulations for publishers who want to have apps on the iPad. It has become common knowledge that Apple gets a 30 percent cut of the revenue from every app. After releasing a subscription plan for newspapers and magazines, many publications remained skeptical and opted not to make one yet. Popular Science, however, decided to give it a try, and the bet appears to have paid off.

Today, the publication reported having sold 10,000 subscriptions in less than 6 weeks, reported Advertising Age.

Many magazines disliked Apple's terms for their subscribers. If iPad users purchase a subscription on iTunes, the publications have no access to user information unless users specifically allow Apple to give it to them. As reader information is used for targeting advertising and reaching consumers, most publications have as yet deemed it not worth the risk. One publisher said, "We're waiting to see how Apple's sub model will evolve before jumping in." Another publisher said, "The only person standing between us and our subscribers was the mailman."

One of the first news organizations to go behind a full paywall last July, The Times and Sunday Times have gained industry interest in their fate. News International has released numbers for the two papers' digital subscriptions, showing that they have experienced quite a bit of growth. In five months, they have gained 29,000 subscriptions, reported the Guardian. This figure can be added to November's report of over 50,000 subscribers.

Digital subscriptions include online, iPad, and Kindle purchases. News International claimed the iPad app was largely responsible for the growth, according to the Telegraph.

Trying to be fair and impartial in the news industry is a well-established goal. The Pew Research Center's Project for Excellence in Journalism (PEJ) released the Principles of Journalism several years ago, stating, "Keeping news in proportion and not leaving important things out are also cornerstones of truthfulness. Journalism is a form of cartography: it creates a map for citizens to navigate society. Inflating events for sensation, neglecting others, stereotyping or being disproportionately negative all make a less reliable map."

But can news organizations always avoid showing a bias? What details need to be added in order to present a holistic map of the story? These questions have troubled both BBC News and the New York Times in the past few weeks.

After the 9.0 magnitude earthquake that hit Japan on March 11 and the ensuing tsunami that devastated the coasts, the world, and Japan itself, was following the event via breaking news and news coverage.

As Martyn Williams, IDG News, reported (via PCWorld.com), millions of Japanese flocked to the Internet and social media websites in the aftermath.

However, according to two surveys, the article said that television retained its place as the primary source of information for the Japanese. "The data highlights the growing importance of Internet-based information sources in Japan, but underlines the continued dominance of traditional media and the trust Japan has in its well-funded public broadcaster, NHK".

Many news site saw big jumps in their audience: according to Nielsen NetRatings Japan, Reuters attracted a million Japanese and TEPCO (Tokyo Electric Power Co.), operator of the Fukushima nuclear power plants, increased its audience from 500,000 to over 5 million during the period, the article reported.

Social media sites saw increased use - it added - with Twitter increasing its PC audience by a third, but the NetRatings data doesn't count cell phone use, which is an important platform for social media use in Japan.

The New York Times digital paywall went live globally yesterday, after months of anticipation. The paper is offering access to NYTimes.com plus a smartphone app for $15 a month, website access plus a tablet app for $20, or full digital access for $35 (hence no discount for smartphone AND tablet access). For now, a four-week trial is available at 99 cents.

Just before the launch, Martin Nisenholtz, Times' senior vice president for digital operations, spoke to the Newspaper Association of America convention in Dallas, where Poynter's Steve Myers live-blogged his speech.

The digital paywall will provide flexibility: at its launch, 20 free articles a month will be offered to non-subscribers, and Nisenholtz said that the meter could be adjusted to offer more or fewer articles depending on levels of advertising and leakage. Links are 'free' via search and social media after the limit of 20 has run out.

It often happens that Twitter and Facebook are pointed out indiscriminately as examples of social media. And although they obviously both are, they have very different social environments and their users have very different behaviour patterns.

With these preliminary remarks, Mashable compared the click-per share of the two social platforms to find out how many people are actually reading what you tweet or share on Facebook and see, looking at its own data, how user behaviour compares between Facebook and Twitter, the two social media sites that generate the most referral traffic to Mashable.com.

Comparing three months worth of data and calculating the click-per-share (CPS), the article announced that it appears that users on Twitter are more likely to share an article rather than read it, whereas Facebook users click on more articles than they share.

Noting that Mashable receives about 20% of its visits from social media sites, the article explains that Twitter's click-per-share means the number of total retweets the site has received the period examined, while for Facebook's click-per-share it means the total number of actions on Facebook that result in Mashable links, including likes, shares, comments and links being posted to one's 'Wall.'

Social media and new technologies can be without doubt an important tool for politicians and governments to create a direct relationship with the public. Using Facebook, YouTube or even creating a personal blog to go direct to the people could be a step towards defeating the sense of distance people feel towards politics.

But could this turn out to be counterproductive for journalism?

Italian website LSDI raises these questions regarding the case of Matteo Renzi, mayor of Florence.

Recently Renzi has strengthened his line of communication with citizens via his Facebook page and his personal website, claiming his right to choose the way he prefers to communicate, and prompting criticism from journalists and local journalism authorities.

"Could the citizens be informed only via social forums?" wonders the article. "Is it legitimate for a civil servant - and not merely a politician - to completely bypass media outlets (even his own public relations office) in order to communicate uniquely through a direct line to citizens?"

Regular blogging can allow for a more detailed, expert opinion than traditional print stories, Reuter's Felix Salmon pointed out earlier this month. However, live blogging is different. It depends on information given right now, usually without analysis or heavy wording.

The form has become popular in the news industry as stories in Africa and Japan unfold. Readers have embraced the medium, bringing a huge surge in traffic and comments. The Guardian reported that live blogs account for 3.6 million unique visitors, 9 percent of the site's traffic. But as this style grows in prevalence, media experts and enthusiasts debate its pros and cons.

The cons are more obvious. With a constant live feed, readers can get lost in the story. The feeds are short and simple. For example, BBC New's live blog for Libya posted, "1031: Thirteen injured Libyans have been taken to Istanbul for treatment, a Turkish charity says. On Saturday, Turkey's deputy prime minister told a newspaper that the country was planning to treat about 450 wounded Libyans." Reading this alone, readers have no idea why the Libyans were injured, or how, or when, or even where. They just know that they have been injured and are being taken to Turkey.

Journalists are often taught to present the information without adding their own opinions or suggestions. The Age's ex-editor, Andrew Jaspan decided there was something lacking in this model and decided to do something about it. After several months of putting the site together and hiring staff, he and co-founder Jack Rejtman's academic commentary website The Conversation went live yesterday, according to The Sydney Morning Herald.