Media stories of note for Friday, March 15, 2013:

The British government has shut down talks among political parties and determined it wants a vote Monday on its measures to regulate the press. Prime MInister David Cameron called off all-party talks Thursday and today his party's culture secretary urged support for Cameron's press charter. Among other things it would levy up to million-pound fines and publish up-front apologies in cases of intrusion or misreporting. Opposition parties had been calling for stronger moves, including laws, but Cameron has ruled out legislation as excessive and unenforceable. The measures follow the Leveson inquiry into press conduct in response to the phone-hacking scandal.

Alan Mutter, in his latest post for Reflections of a Newsosaur, has a prescription for newspapers that includes specifics on what they should and should not cover.  Stop rehashing stories already widely known, use graphics instead of words, and quit writing background-padded articles in long-running stories, the veteran newsand tech executive says. Also: focus on people, not process; be local, not global; look forward, not back; show transparency; discuss, don't dominate; and be diverse.

A Reuters social media manager has been indicted in the United States for alleging assisting the Anonymous hacking group with entering the Tribune Co. computer system and defacing its websites. Matthew Keys, a former Tribune television employee at the time of the episode, has been suspended by Reuters. 

The Wall Street Journal examines the emergence of online video advertising as a force in media growth and change. While ad rates are declining due to increased inventory, several major players are entering the space. The result will be a bigger, if less profitable, sector.

The ombudsman for the Washington Post has added his voice to the debate on the value-versus-devalue of the anonymous online post.

Andrew Alexander comes down on the side of permitting anonymous comments and monitoring them.

He believes there are legitimate reasons for people who cannot identify themselves --- either for fear of reprisals or because their work would not permit it --- and sees their contribution as more important to encourage than a system that would demand transparency to drive out the cranks.

He points to new technology coming to the Post --- others, presumably, too --- that provides a preferred ranking to those with experience commenting appropriately.

"Anonymous loudmouths can still shout, but trusted commenters will be easier to hear," he says.

Which might be easy for him to say because the Post has a relatively large staff to review the comments and delete the inappropriate ones. Smaller newsrooms are finding it much more difficult to cope, even when they have filters for words and phrases (the filters are pretty easy to circumvent).

Most difficult are the libelous comments, and different countries have different challenges in not only the definition of defamation but the publishers' responsibilities and how they are legally defined.

Even a so-called "skinny registration," in which someone has to provide an email address, is potentially a big help in dissuading inappropriate remarks and identifying who said what.

What isn't clear is whether it's also a big impediment to traffic and comments. In other words, is the culture of free expression so embedded that even a lighthanded registration will encourage people to go elsewhere and discuss?