The New York University scholar, Jay Rosen, has made an enormous contribution to the understanding of journalism's direction, practice and relationship to the public. He is fast approaching 25 years of teaching and has distilled his views into four simple points.

1. The more people who participate in the press the stronger it will be.

2. The profession of journalism went awry when it began to adopt the View from Nowhere.

3. The news system will improve when it is made more useful to people.

4. Making facts public does not a public make; information alone will not inform us.

His post elaborates on these ideas, and some remain highly unconventional, particularly the assertion that journalists should correct the craft's emphasis on objectivity (that View from Nowhere).  He thinks the emphasis needs to be on narrative, public participation, and useful opinions.

What do you think?

There are several other perspectives, but journalist/author/scholar Jeff Jarvis has typically offered an ahead-of-its-time approach to the direction of journalism.

In his latest post for Buzzmachine, he has set down some new rules of the game.

They veer from the new rules for business models, for newspapers, for digital media, and for the opportunities that now and will exist. Clearly he has concluded that existing models are broken and cannot be mended; all that remains is how media contend with change, not how they preserve tradition.

He is trying to create a "canonical link" in his wide-ranging work that involves helping organizations determine their best paths. There are several implications for the relationship between media and the public in his ideas, so I am carrying a link to it here.

Robert Niles, the longtime contributor to the Online Journalism Review, has a quite separate passion. To those only familiar with his writing on media, it might be a revelation that he is the publisher of Theme Park Insider.

He has been thinking of late about the ethics of expense accounting in journalism, and specifically on who pays the bills, and he has some interesting observations on how his criticism is affected when the funds come from his pocket.

He suggests most critics can't be clear-minded because their employers are footing the bills. When he reviewed a $400-a-night hotel recently, it dawned on him that he was suddenly bound to be more consumer-conscious --- he was, after all, now a consumer, and had to determine if the room fixtures and luxuries were really worth it.

Niles suggests, too, that one of the reasons user-generated review sites are so popular is that they are being graded by people who you will be if you choose that experience. Imagine, he says, if sports events were only reviewed by those who had to pay to see them.

He provides a good perspective on how the context shifts when you're the benefactor and not only the beneficiary.

The Society of Professional Journalists' code of ethics has been one of the benchmarks of the news industry when it establishes its own newsroom policy on conduct. But it has been 15 years since the code was changed, and unquestionably the ground has changed in that time.

Still, some documents stand the test of time and ought not to be tinkered with. To gauge the next steps, the SPJ commissioned two arguments in support of and against change.

Steve Buttry argues that the code has lost some of its relevance in the social media era, that it is no longer cited or useful as a reference in modern journalism. He makes several recommendations to supplement the principles of the code in his argument and even suggests that the principle of independence should be reviewed.

Irwin Gratz argues that the code should not be adapted to accommodate technology; rather, it should serve as a guide around which journalists should adapt. He asserts that it's a flexible, inclusive document that might seem vague but can be interpreted to good effect, and he's not so sure that Web journalism is any different and deserving of a code reflecting it.

The SPJ has asked for comments.