Reuters reports Thursday that Wine Spectator founder Robert Morrisey died this past weekend in San Diego. He was 78.

There's been a lot of discussion lately about the possibility that online newspapers may begin charging for content in some way, shape, or form on their websites, as the readership begins to shift from "paid" circulation for print editions to an online distribution. This is obviously something that is of concern for a lot of bloggers, as blogging for most is all about links - and if articles are behind paid walls, then most bloggers are going to have trouble getting their readers to follow links - though one would assume that many bloggers might have a subscription or seven to some online pubs, based on price.

There are a lot of factors in play here, the most important of which is the ability for a news organization to fund itself. While advertising online at publications these days may do a great job at bringing in plenty of revenue to cover the costs of staffing a website - technically - and paying bandwidth and development cost, it surely does not cover any and all costs of the manpower gathering the news itself. Conversely, the paid circulation of newspapers is also a small piece of what the monies needed to fund your daily paper on a regular basis - hence advertising, which "picks up the slack," we might say. All that said, if we were to take Newspaper X today, keep all the newsgathering, writing and editing bodies at desks, plus whatever administration and general costs that went into the business, and kicked the printing presses out to the curb - publishing exclusively online - we'd have a problem, based on today's advertising rates and volume.

The obvious solution seems to be smack dab in front of us - readership would be much higher for the online site (by design), sans any readers that don't use computers, but you would raise your CPM (cost per thousand) ad rates for the online presence - justifiably. It'd be shocking, but would probably eventually work out. But that doesn't mean you could still operate as the same Newspaper X that you were before.

[ed: Note that much of this is theoretical and/or based on conversations with those in the news business]

So today, when I caught this post by Steve Rubel where he points out that "Newspapers who go down this arrogant path may not be able to return to prominence online ever again," I couldn't help but think, "Oh really?"

So, content providers who are currently charging for content to those who purchase print editions are arrogant if they decide they need / want to charge for the news and information that they have done so with for....ever, more or less? That's a big statement to make. I don't disagree that consumers will hit blogs and other folks "in the know" in order to get secondary relaying of information - but here's where the quandary comes in. Newspapers and other publications that are charging are going to be much less tolerant of those who are currently going a little bit beyond the fair use way of publishing and information distribution - what do you think is going to happen when "Joe Blog" is reprinting better portions of stories with his own comments, etc., and suddenly becomes a big hit because he happens to be the one guy with a subscription?

Now let's be clear - I can't say I'd be super happy if I had to pay for access to many of these publications, but who's to say that concepts like micropayments won't become mainstream when something like this would happen? Perhaps the Salon.com model of "day passes" would move into play? But to state that the newspapers who would choose - again, maybe by need - to charge for content are being off-track is just that - off-track. The advertising could not - at least in the short term - make up for the gap lost by advertising sales on the print side. And since advertising rates on the print side are based on the readership levels of a publication, it's only a matter of time before the shift makes a big dent in some major names.

Blogs are a resource that, at least as of today, are complementary to the publications they link to. The newspapers and magazines are not banking on blogger-linked readership to make or break them - yet. Rubel's use of MarketingVOX and Adrants as examples of sites that are taking away from mainstream advertising publications are perfectly valid - but neither of those blogs could exist with the same staff levels and skills as what Ad Age or Adweek have today. It'd be tough to argue that those publications are "outdone" by any advertising weblog, no matter how good it is. Heck, blogs use those magazines as sources for their own entries and commentary. And as someone who writes for an advertising blog, AdJab, I will state up front that it's all about knowing where to look for the information, news releases, and contact persons at agencies or PR firms in order to write about them. This isn't something that we woke up and realized in the last six months. It's the way that publications have been started, from the ground up, forever - the distribution channel has changed, and the barriers to entry are now falling down all over the place. But just because we can blog about whatever industry or topic we want doesn't mean that some sites won't stink at it or ever gain any respect or readership - perhaps deservedly. Writing off "mainstream" media is all fun and games, but as we've learned with moves like the newspaper joint venture purchasing 75% of Topix.net and the presence of digital teams within newspapers becoming more prominent, those outlets aren't going to be the one losing an eye anytime soon, if they know what's good for them. Their resources still outbank 99% of any up-and-comer on the 'net.

Sites will always allow linking. However, sites like Variety.com and others who have abstracts about their articles and where subscriptions are necessary definitely get less link love from blogs because of just that - but those mags haven't gone out of business (yet?). It might soon be impossible, as a commenter on Rubel's blog states, to start charging for articles. But there has to be some happy medium that readers and publishers can reach - because once again, TINSTAAFL rules the roost - there's no such thing as a free lunch. If you want news to read and link to and rant about, expect a "cost" of some sorts to be in the plans. If you don't, you're not only devaluing the news that you want to read, but are missing the point - open source doesn't work for everything. If it did, certain forms of economics and government that will remain nameless would be slightly more popular these days.

Reuters has announced that it would host a debate next Tuesday, April 5 where the topic of discussion will be "the impact of blogs in journalism and the media."

Details as follows:

When: 6.00 pm - 8.30 pm, Tuesday, April 5th, 2005

Where: The Reuters Building, (42ND Street and 7th Avenue), 3 Times Square, 30th Floor, New York NY 10036

Panel convenes at 6.15pm, followed by open audience discussion and a cocktail reception.

Scheduled to participate:

Paul Holmes: Global Editor, General & Political News, Reuters

Stephen Baker: Senior Writer, IT Group, BusinessWeek

Jay Rosen: Author, Pressthink.org, & Associate Professor, NYU Dept. of Journalism

Halley Suitt: Author, Halley's Comment; Writer

Bryan Keefer: Assistant Managing Editor, Columbia Journalism Review Daily

Garrett Graff: FishbowlDC.com, 1st White House Accredited Blogger

Dave Winer: Editor, Scripting News

John Fund: Columnist, OpinionJournal.com

Most importantly, the topics of discussion:

Are bloggers journalists? Should they be afforded the same rights as journalists?

With blogs central to the recent resignations of top journalists, is anyone holding the bloggers to account?

Do blogs have a vital role in the national debate?

Are they seeking the truth and exposing poor journalism? Or are they being used as campaigning tools to advance particular causes or points of view?

RSVP: Mediafolk wishing to attend should reach out to Sophie Brendel at +1 646 223 4331 or sophie.brendel (at) reuters (dot) com.

[update] Halley Suitt has been named as a replacement for Jay Rosen at the event. Rosen will not be attending due to a schedule conflict.

Should Cablevision be able to jump in on the bidding for Adelphia Communications, the financially troubled cableco? That seems to be an important question of the day, according to a Denver Business Journal story.

Cable television providers are already existing in semi-monopolies (or actual ones in their own little markets), and the expansion of the market reach of one by purchase of a distressed system may not be what the doctor ordered. As these network operators begin to provide more and more programming and have channel ownership in markets where other operators own a "slice" of, problems can and will occur. If they can't get along within one market, is there a reason that a cableco should be seen as the right suitor for another, other than having the funds and knowhow to run the company?

This week, the Independent Producers Initiative Weblog was launched by CABLEready, an independent program distributor. The blog will be manned by CABLEready president / CEO Gary Lico and other staffers at the company. It's been up and running "soft" for a bit now, and it appears to have a mix of commentary about topics like media consolidation, personnel changes, the FCC, and more.

My only suggestion at this point is to break open the category jar and let people sort your stuff - we blog readers are topic-happy, ya know.

Niche is good.

It's a statement that many a blogger has mentioned to me when they were trying to figure out the best way to build a following as a writer online. Okay, maybe they rambled on and said something like "I wasn't getting any traffic until I focused on one industry / topic / idea / area" or something like that, but you get the picture.

So while many a television station has cropped up in recent years, further fraying the overall ratings table in a million different directions, the Web has a similar growth pattern. Fortunately, this seems to be a model that works - not just for website operators, but television stations as well. And as bandwidth continues to get cheaper and broadband connections reach ever higher levels, video and "bigger" content continue to grow in number online. That seems to be the strategy behind HGTV, the Scripps television channel that has kicked off quite a bit of online content in 2005. The AP's Duncan Mansfield writes about the HGTVPro.com website that now carries "dozens of three-minute videos" for consumers to snap up.

Outside of the advertising and marketing opportunity that this could provide, a la ABC's "Extreme Makeover Home Edition" with Sears, it provides evidence of linkage between the television programming and the online presence of the channel - something that content providers are clamoring for.

A week ago, it was announced that CRACKED magazine had new ownership, and readers would see a shift in the publication when it relaunched later on in 2005. On Monday, Cracked Entertainment Inc. CEO / publisher Monty Sarhan made public that former Marvel Editor-in-Chief Tom DeFalco would take on the same role at the mag. Additionally, the company has named Sven Larsen the Associate Publisher. Larsen, also having worked at Marvel, brings his most recent publishing experience from Penguin Books, where he worked on marketing and sales for Financial Times and The Economist. Associate Editor duties will be handled by Justin Droms, whose online expertise has most recently been seen at Scholastic Books. This will be key as the company's focus will be to develop a lot more content for other forms of media, not just print.

The WSJ's Vauhini Vara profiles Wikipedia and the newest venture of its founder, Jimmy Wales - Wikicities.com.

Last week, Motley Fool's Tom Taulli called the Topix.net purchase by Knight Ridder, Gannett and Tribune "the very tip of the iceberg as investment goes."

And if you're looking for ideas, o investors, then be sure and drop by PaidContent.org - they're keeping tabs on who should be next.

According to an AP story, Phillipine columnist Marlene Garcia Esperat was shot and killed at her home on Thursday, making her the second journalist in that country to be killed this year, and the 15th in two years.

The Winston-Salem Journal has the story about the Craven Community College student newspaper, the Campus Communicator, who has pulled its sex advice column and has been informed that the newspaper would face a review by "a panel of students and administrators" going forward.

Rox Pop posts a column by Philadelphia City Paper publisher Paul Curci about the recent blowout of video news releases being run on television news programs across the country, and what needs to be done about it. Read the whole thing.

Additionally, the following letter was sent by Boston University journalism department chair Bob Zelnick to various journalism schools / departments.

March 23, 2005

Dear Colleague:

Attached is a resolution adopted yesterday by the faculty of the Boston University Department of Journalism condemning the practice of broadcasting government video news releases (VNRs) where the source of the material is not identified.

We find particularly objectionable the use of “phony reporters� hired by one agency or another who deliver complete reports, including sign-offs, without ever mentioning their affiliation and, in some cases misrepresenting it.

We also condemn those stations that knowingly run news segments, written, shot and recorded by the government with no identification as to the source of the material. We regard these practices as unethical journalism that run a high risk of confusing or even deceiving the public.

During the civil rights era, and again during the Vietnam war, we found that simple appeals to decency and respect for the rule of law presented by academicians often carried great moral and political impact. We believe the same may be true with respect to this situation which strikes at the core of journalistic integrity.

Accordingly we invite your distinguished faculty to join us in protesting the subversion of journalistic values both by the government and those media collaborators who seek competitive advantage at the expense of fundamental public integrity.

Please let me know how your faculty responds to this invitation. It is my judgment that by acting in concert, we can achieve significant results.

Yours truly,

Bob Zelnick
Chairman, Journalism Department
College of Communication
Boston University

Also, the following is the resolution that the Boston U College of Communication faculty for the journalism department.

March 22, 2005

RESOLVED, THAT...

As educators of the next generation of American journalists, we the journalism faculty at the College of Communication, Boston University:

* Recognize the need of citizens in a democracy for information that is accurate, unbiased and independently gathered and presented;

* Recognize the vital need of government to communicate with its citizens and the useful role print and video news releases (VNRs) can play in this process;

* Recognize the obligation of news organizations to identify clearly the origin of any editorial material provided by government, business, interest group or any source other than their own news gathering or that of affiliated news organizations;

* Recognize the obligation of government to avoid using VNRs for purposes of political advocacy or propaganda;

* Recognize the need to avoid presenting the material in a way that invites public confusion as to its source;

* Note the President’s recent statement that acknowledges the need to maintain a clear line of distinction between journalists and members of the government or Administration;

* Condemn the use of “phony� reporters hired by the government to perform in VNRs where their affiliation with government is unstated, and urge the Administration to translate the President’s words into action by ceasing this practice at once;

* Urge the Administration to identify and cease other practices with respect to VNRs that run a substantial risk of misleading the public;

* Condemn the deliberate use by television news outlets of material knowingly obtained from the Administration without clear identification of its origin, and urge all members of the media to cease this deceptive practice at once.

We invite colleagues at other journalism schools and departments to endorse the Boston University Resolution.

The Baltimore Sun's David Zurawik reported Thursday that Maryland Public Television has cancelled "Wall Street Week," the financial show that has run on public stations for decades. The show, previously hosted by Louis Rukeyser, has been unable to keep ratings and financing since he left the program in 2002.

CNN picks up the AP story about the retirement of Howard Reig, staff announcer for NBC. He's the man you've probably heard say "This is NBC Nightly News" if you've ever watched the program from its intro - and he's leaving the broadcasting company after 62 years.

If there's one thing you can learn while working as a journalist (or just playing one on your blog), it's that information is everywhere. Tons of it. Company performance information, mergers & acquisition rumors, hirings and firings, new products-to-be, and much more. The important thing is knowing what to pursue, and what not to - and how. On occasion, information comes on a silver platter, as a news release from a company or a hot tip from a source. Those need investigation, but sometimes go out with a little less digging than a story would like to have included because of the time factor. Sometimes, the silver platter press release or tip comes with a caveat - an embargo. Sometimes you have a few hours, sometimes a few days, it all varies. Experiences with embargoes vary - sometimes companies just wildly send out press releases to every editor on their press list, saying "don't publish this till Monday," or something along those lines. If a company or PR rep is smart, s/he will make some sort of contact with a journalist / editor and discuss the embargo along with the tip, and work out getting an interview or other information over to the journalist in a timely manner. It's fairly commonplace, and is typically something a publication will agree to, even though one or more other publications may have made similar deals. A time or date is set, and everyone is on "the same playing field," so to speak.

Back in December of 2004, Wired News' Adam Penenberg made the case for ditching embargoes altogether, calling it "a shame" that publications like the New York Times and the Wall Street Journal, along with the Associated Press "continue to toe the line." Well, what if those news organizations were to not agree with embargoes - better yet, what if one of them broke an embargo?

That seems to be the case this week, with the Times publishing Katharine Seelye's article, "Newspaper Giants Buy Web News Monitor," on Tuesday night. This story was embargoed until midnight Eastern, multiple sources have confirmed, but the story hit the wire first out of the NYT's gates, sometime between 11 and 11:30p.m. Consultant / blogger Susan Mernit quickly responded with the post she had written on the subject shortly afterward. Mernit had been privy to the information before the midnight timeframe and had agreed to follow the embargo. Other publications, including the Journal and PaidContent (which was not under embargo) published stories on the topic as well. Once the dam was broken, the water began to flow - a lot.

This begs the question - what's the point of embargoing a story or information if a publication is going to break it. A little over a month ago, MarketWatch's Frank Barnako called out bloggers for not being able to "keep a secret." But it's obviously not just bloggers who can't keep a secret - or can they? It appears that there were many a blogger who had access to the Topix.net acquisition information, with a few of them having interviewed Topix staff and done a little bit of research that afternoon as the time ticked closer to midnight. So why the free pass? Good question. And what happens next?

Last October, Rebecca Lieb wrote an item at ClickZ about embargoes, and how they should be handled. She even includes suggestions of what should be done if one is broken.

If a publication breaks an embargo, PR must act swiftly and punitively against the outlet that broke it. Strike it from the list of media accorded priority access. But don't come down on any of the subsequent torrent of publications that immediately rush to get their story up on the embargoed topic. It's already out there. We've seen it on RSS feeds, gotten frantic IMs and e-mail messages. PRs must discipline the perpetrator, not the other victims.

But would this ever happen to the vaunted New York Times? I'm guessing someone gave a call to the publication in this case, but it's obviously unexpected that it will be left off of anyone's "invite" list for stories going forward. But should it be? Penenberg clarified the reality behind embargoes today, stating that their use "levels the playing field, otherwise, the thinking goes, The Wall Street Journal or The New York Times would have every scoop handed to them." Which is more or less what happened here. The Times got recognition for being first to the dance, when meanwhile it was supposed to be playing along with everyone else.

A quick search in Google yields a stack of results about broken embargoes. L.A. Observed had an item from back in September of 2003 where recently departed Newsday staffer Laurie Garrett complained that the Times had been guilty of doing just this. The Sunday Herald has a story about a broken embargo by the London Evening Standard, which appeared to be trying to beat the rush to a story.

So why now, on this story? A request to the Times corporate communications department about the paper's 'policy' on embargoed stories has not been responded to as of this time, so is unclear as to the official reason for this action. That said, what about the easy explanations? Well, is it possible that since the people on the print side of the publication had access to Seelye's story for deadline reasons that the folks on the online side were "accidentally" given the article or made it live prematurely. But it's safe to assume that the Times is technically unable to place a story online at midnight exactly, right? Additionally, Topix VP of Marketing Chris Tolles clarified that the Associated Press discussed just this situation, and made it very clear that the print side would have the story early in order to make all deadlines, and the online side received it whenever it was necessary to reach the Internet in a timely manner.

These days, the bloggers who are receiving sensitive information that may or may not be under embargo are generally pretty smart about handling it with care. Most bloggers are happy to be considered a media source at all, and the ones who have journalism experience are even better off. When asked about embargoed stories, one prominent sports blogger told The Media Drop: "From my business experience, my word is my bond. If somebody comes to me and asks me to respect an embargo in exchange for access to information, I'll always respect it. Otherwise I'm dead. On the other hand, if someone sends me something blind, I don't believe I'm under any requirement to respect it. Do that, and you take your chances."

For argument's sake, let's just say that the former situation is what happened here. If a few publications and bloggers were able to keep the cat in the bag for that long, why did it work out the way it did?

Hammock Publishing president and blogger Rex Hammock believes there are times when an embargo is worthwhile and should be respected. "As someone who spent a few years early in my career as a press secretary for a U.S. congressman and then in a PR firm, I know there were times when I would work with a reporter on a specific story for an extended period before the story was published. Sometimes those were stories being pitched by me and other times, in response to a reporter working on a project. And, in those cases, I think the concept of an "embargo" on me discussing it with others was appropriate." Hammock does agree that "broadcast" press releases that a company is expecting to be kept quiet is "an anachronistic concept." He cites the early release of exit poll numbers during 2004's presidential election as being an example of "a disservice" being done by a media outlet (or outlets), and one that has had a residual effect on his reading of those who published the data.

Advertising blogger Steve Hall, who mans Adrants.com, keeps it simple when asked of his opinion on embargoes in general, stating that "Just like our parents taught us, if a promise is made, a promise should be kept. If an embargo can't be honored, don't lie and say it will be just to get the story. It's not honest. It's not right." Obviously the input of three bloggers isn't meant to defeat Barnako's - or anyone else's - contention that the collective group of them could keep information confidential in the same manner as a professional journalist would, but to serve as an example that there are many a cool head among the group.

Professionally, my day job allows me to work on the other side of the embargo wall. But I'm not a professional journalist (I just play one on some blogs), so I thought it would be worthwhile to get some background on their use and perception. They're not loved by everyone, but most people understand when they're used. A veteran broadcast journalist told me that they do serve a purpose, and that as long as they are in use they should be taken seriously. When a major news organization bypasses one, they should be treated the same way that a smaller one or individual who leaked the information is. Which leads back to the question above: Who's going to stand up to the Times? The reasons for a publication like this going forward with a story before it should be hitting the wire is simple - getting the scoop. The playing field had been leveled, but that doesn't matter -- because the pub is what it is, and no one is going to say otherwise. This intrepid writer believes that while the Times obviously holds a special place in the hearts of many, that doesn't mean that a company absolutely has to have a story in its pages or gracing its website for the news to make it across the vast readership out there. Perhaps that's heresy to say, but it's a chance worth taking.

The AP reports Thursday that Judith Ann Bruhn Serrin, 58, onetime Detroit Free Press and New York Times reporter, died last weekend in New York.

The AP's David Kravets writes about a big of a conundrum that the legal system is in surrounding free speech rights on the web, and who can "govern" them. At the center of the situation is a court ruling in France that said that a U.S.-based company (Yahoo!) was liable for Nazi materials that were available to web surfers in that country. In a way, it's like the start of a discussion about whether companies providing web content would be liable under multiple jurisdictions, internationally and nationally. If it sounds unbearable to even think about, it is.

The transcript from Tuesday's "The Impact of the New Media" session at the Brookings Institution can be found online here, in PDF format.

The Winston-Salem Journal's Mike Mulhern writes Wednesday about Time, Inc.'s latest addition to the publishing family - Racing Fan. The pub, all about auto racing, is probably a long time coming, I'll agree. But it really isn't too surprising that it took NASCAR's ascent towards the mainstream for a publisher in the U.S. to really invest some cash in the market.

NJ.com's John Shabe wasn't disappointed with the media folk that shared the dinner spot he was at last night, the Algonquin Hotel's Oak Room. Looks like CBS News' Don Hewitt & Leslie Stahl were there, but one of them had a bit of trouble staying awake.

One of the great benefits of being a part of the Media Bloggers Association is the opportunity for the members to get some recognition and be utilized as experts or new voices when the media is looking to cover a particular story. Earlier this week, Robert Cox wrote about some great examples of this happening recently, including some television appearances. If you're interested in finding out more about the group - or are looking for panelists or discussion possibilities, check out the members list or contact the MBA at info-at-mediabloggers-dot-org or through our voice mail at (928) 223-5711

Susan Mernit breaks the story about Topix.net's acquisition by a joint venture of Knight Ridder, Tribune and Gannett. They'll each own 25% of the company, the New York Times' Katharine Seelye reports, with the company keeping the rest. Most importantly, this will allow Topix to "deploy their skills across the KRD-Trib-Gannett platform," as Mernit describes it.

As much as this is big news for the companies involved, it's also proof of the importance of today's technology, and how things like RSS and new distribution channels are what's hot today - and not just for those tech savvy folks floating around the 'net, either. While many are quick to trash "old media" for doing what they've been doing for years and years, this is the proof that they're in the game for the long run - not that there were really any doubts - right?

The Wall Street Journal's David Kesmodel and Vauhini Vara have more, including the situation with Agence France Presse and Google News, where AFP is upset at GN for harnessing its content and publishing it on the Google News pages. And the WSJ piece answers a question we all had - about placement of the joint venturers in the news annals of Topix.

Palo Alto, Calif.-based Topix said it won't give higher placement in search results to stories from those sites. However, Topix recently launched a program that lets newspapers buy a paid spot at the top of certain pages. It already has a deal with the New York Times Co., in which article links for the NYTimes.com Web site appear in a special box at the top of certain pages. Rich Skrenta, Topix's chief executive, said he expects more news outlets to buy similar ads.

Not surprising, of course. Topix has always been wise of any conflicts or confusion on their site. That's not to say that some observers won't call them out on a regular basis if something looks awry. I expect that someone will start a tally of Knight Ridder, Tribune, and Gannett articles on a blog somewhere soon.

[update] Tony Gentile has a bunch more, plus some great links and the press release, over at buzzhit!

Last word (for tonight, at least) comes from Rafat Ali over at paidcontent.org. He's got comments from Topix.net co-founder Chris Tolles about how the deal was struck and how revenues have been working for the site.

Over at Gelf Magazine, David Goldenberg and Carl Bialik have details on the writing of Michelle Delio, a contributor to Technology Review and Wired News. It seems that some of Delio's works at Technology Review have been removed from active viewing after concerns arose about one of her sources, a pseudonymous "G.S." Delio's prolific production at Wired News creates a curious situation, as she has hundreds of articles that will surely be pored over by many a fact-checker, yet again - if they haven't already.

Over at MediaCitizen, Tim Karr wrote yesterday about a complaint filed with the FCC about the recent fun and excitement surrounding the use of video news releases, or VNRs. Additionally, anyone concerned about their use can sign their petition that asks for the end of VNR use.

On Tuesday, Tribune Publishing announced that Jeff Johnson, currently the EVP/GM of the Los Angeles Times, would take over as president, publisher, and CEO of that publication as of June 1. John Puerner, currently holding those roles, has decided to leave the publication to go on a "a self-imposed career break," as he describes it.

More here.

The L.A. Press Club has announced that it had extended the deadline for this year's Southern California Journalism Awards. Now, journalists have until this Friday, March 25, at 6 p.m. Entry forms and additional information are available at lapressclub.org.

FMQB informs about a bill introduced by a Vermont legislator to halt the possibility of censorship of programming on cable/satellite television and the Internet.

Want to see an uproar of the financial sense? People would start seriously limiting their cable television and other Internet usage if censorship went into effect across the board on those distribution channels - or at least try doing things on the down low. You see, technology always wins. If we're going to make uncensored content illegal in the same sense that something as horrible as child pr0n is, then we might as well just make "Fahrenheit 451" the national book.

Let's try talking some sense into ourselves before taking the nannyism to a higher level, okay?

Tuesday's Wall Street Journal has a funny item online if you're interested in the purchase of Ask Jeeves by IAC/InterActiveCorp - and it's a doozy.

Kevin Delaney reports that one of the top (if not the first - that's being debated) search requests on Ask.com is for "Google."

Well, after a few months of avoiding the upgrade to iTunes 4.7.1 software, it appears that download and installation of it is necessary to download free songs via the Pepsi promo, or some of the "free" songs that are up weekly. This is the first time this option came up forced in the purchase menu, and there doesn't appear to be any way around it. Anyone else come across this?

Humor magazine CRACKED, a competitor of MAD Magazine, has been purchased by a group of investors looking to revive the brand. The new company will be called Cracked Entertainment, Inc., and will be based out of New York. The magazine will be overhauled, from editorial to publishing schedule, according to new publisher and CEO Monty Sarhan. Additionally, Cracked Entertainment will tune into the media of today, looking towards the production of television and Internet content.

The Associated Press reports Monday that Metro International is launching five new papers in Italy. The publications will be distributed in Bologna, Florence, Genoa, Padua, Turin and Verona.

On Tuesday, March 22, the Brookings Institution will be running a live event entitled "The Impact of the New Media" in Washington, D.C. from 10a.m. - 12p.m.

The event, which will be webcast, will feature Jodie Allen of the Pew Research Center, Ana Marie Cox from Wonkette, White House Correspondent Ellen Ratner, Slate's Jack Shafer, and Andrew Sullivan. Additionally, a few bloggers are already "scheduled" to be covering the event live, and their commentary will be fed into the session and webcast.

Find out more about the event - or register - here.

The Orlando Sentinel's Manning Pynn writes about what journalism is - and isn't. What it is is what you're used to seeing in the newspaper, over the radio, and on the TV news - though it's not always the case for the last in that bunch. Pynn points out something that has been discussed quite a bit in recent times - the use (again) of video news releases (VNRs) by the government to promote or discuss federal programs or efforts. While I don't condemn this particular administration as much as many have done - many administrations have used VNRs in recent times to serve their purposes, which no one feels like pointing out - I do believe that the news organizations who play them just like they're part of the newscast are absolutely kidding themselves. Viewers aren't stupid, and it's not so difficult for you to put a "Source: blahblahblah agency" in the corner of the video when you run it. Of course, this isn't what's happening.

In 2004, the New York Times Magazine stacked up a bunch of their individual sections and one-offs to create "T: The New York Times Style Magazine" under one brand name. Today, they've announced that the same will be done to replace "The Sophisticated Traveler," with a nifty new name, following the same theme as "Style." It'll be called "T: Travel," and will show up for the first time this weekend, on Sunday, March 20, and will be published quarterly.

According to a company statement, "T: Travel" has 97 pages of advertising, over 100% more than "Sophisticated" had in 2004 for its first quarter issue.

This and other NYTCo info is available here.

Just saw that Rebecca MacKinnon had an article published in The Nation today, with excerpts of comments made by those who participated in January's "Blogging, Journalism & Credibility" session at Harvard. If you hadn't followed this event before, then this wrapup should provide some really good insights into what went on.

Ahead of an official announcement, word has skipped out that President Bush has named Kevin Martin the new chairman of the Federal Communications Commission. Martin has been a commissioner at the FCC since 2001, after spending some time working for the president as an economic adviser.

While this doesn't come as a surprise at all, it does raise some questions as to the direction the FCC will go in the future. Media watchdog Free Press founder Robert McChesney said, in a statement released Wednesday, that Martin "has not distinguished himself as a defender of the public interest during his tenure at the FCC." Outside of many telecommunications industry issues currently on the table, media consolidation may be a major part of what Martin gets his hands on.

The Boston Globe's Mark Jurkowitz writes Tuesday about the world of online journalism today. It's not so much about what the face of online journalism is today, but what readers are really looking for.

The AP reports that Mankato Free Press editor Deb Flemming has chosen to resign and leave the paper in order to keep other staffers on the books.

If you're in or around Des Moines, Iowa, then you might want to take part in an opportunity that the Des Moines Register's managing editor, Richard Tapscott, has put on the table. On April 19, the newspaper will host 20 individuals for a "roundtable" discussion about what the paper is doing right or wrong, and perhaps open up the "conversation" with the public a bit more. Tapscott also wants to let you know that you'll get "a tour of the newsroom, a meal and a couple of hours to get things off your chest."

Good job, Des Moines Register!