Some media stories of note for Friday, May 17, 2013:

Margaret Talbot, writing for The New Yorker online, examines the recent spate of incidents involving the Obama Administration and the press. She argues that they have damaged the credibility of the government and threatened the freedom of the press. An effect, she fears, is the chilling of sources of information who fear their anonymity cannot be protected. The result of that will be fewer stories that explore significant secretive information and a reduction in civil liberties.

BBC reports on a new British study of 35,000 young people that suggests they now prefer to read on a screen than on paper. They engage in social networking and one-third prefer to read fiction on a screen. The National Literary Trust report, based on interviews with those eight to 16 years old, concluded that 52 per cent preferred a screen, while only 32 per cent preferred a print experience.

The controversy this week involving Bloomberg reporters monitoring the online activity of their clients on Bloomberg terminals has raised a series of ethical issues. The Associated Press has a look at what experts feel is a shifting landscape in which more access to technology and user activity will permit greater access to consumer information once considered private --- and where privacy is not as respected as it once was.

James Breiner, writing for Poynter, looks at recent developments in journalism education to teach students how to be entrepreneurial. With more opportunities to build businesses, and less likelihood of one-company careers, journalism schools are finding it valuable to impart business start-up and operational skills in their journalists to teach them how to create and manage their own companies. 

Three media stories of note for Monday, March 4, 2013:

The Washington Post has decided not to have an ombudsman. It announced Friday it will create a role within its newsroom for a readers' representative who will on occasion write in the paper and online on matters of audience concern. Post publisher Katherine Weymouth said other media writers and the audience will help Patrick Pexton, the Post ombudsman, ended his two-year term Friday with a column on some of what he had learned.

Robert McChesney, the American media scholar, writes in Salon.com on what happens to democracy if the digital business model cannot finance journalism. In an excerpt of his next book, McChesney says the transformation to digital would be acceptable if an acceptable replacement  accompanied the change. Instead, he argues that it is unclear if anyone can be commercially successful outside of media aimed at the wealthy or business. The proof that journalism is a public good is that no one is making money from it, he concludes.

Greg Satell, writing for Forbes.com, isn't pessimistic but believes it's necessary for print media to change its thinking to succeed in the time ahead. Above all else, he says, it has to recognize that marketers will pay more for consumers than consumers will pay for content. He says video, affiliate programs and social media integration are keys to sustained print media.

Some media stories of note for Tuesday, February 26, 2013:

Is there some science behind successful Tweeting? Seems so. Poynter's Jeff Sonderman writes about a Georgia Institute of Technology study that suggests negative Tweets are largely a turn-off in securing a larger audience. Given that Twitter is a weak-tie platform, the more negative Tweets tend to make unfamiliar people uncomfortable. Another conclusion: Feed those followers information, not your eating habits.

There are three different takes arguing the necessity of media change.

Kylie Davis, the national real estate editor for News Corp. in Australia, challenges print media to embrace content marketing or face its wrath -- the departure of advertisers who will become direct competitors. She writes for the International Newsmedia Marketing Association (INMA) blog that it can deliver a targeted audience, take time away from traditional media, and might even be better in some cases as storytellers. "Choosing to ignore it or claim it is not relevant will end only in shouts and tears."

Mark Challinor, the director of mobile for the Telegraph Group in London, says print will remain the cornerstone of his business. Challinor, writing for the INMA blog, suggests print will be integrated with mobile as a vehicle to cut through the clutter and deliver audiences to advertisers with rich content.

David Lieberman, the executive editor of Deadline New York, writes about an analyst's view that big media companies are taking the rise of mobile streaming far too lightly.  Laura Martin of Needham & Co. says a new wave of streaming tech companies are sneaking up on the traditional networks and outlets with short-term premium videos designed to attract younger viewers of tablets and smartphones.

Here are some media stories of note for Friday, February 22, 2013:

Given that Google's large search engine is in turn an engine for news site traffic, an understanding of its algorithm to rate content is essential to a site's success. Computerworld has examined Google's latest patent application that reveals the elements of what it gauges in ranking site content. There are no particular surprises, as it might be expected: the site's productivity, article length, deemed importance, speed, staff size, circulation, originality, style, diversity and breadth of coverage all factor in the ranking, among other things.

Magazine editor Ann Friedman, writing for the Columbia Journalism Review, argues it's time to stop pronouncing the death of print. Many print outlets continue to thrive, she notes. Rather, it's time to simply recognize the end of the primacy of print.

Tom Rosenstiel, the veteran news executive and head of the American Press Institute, writes regularly for Poynter Online. His latest involves what he describes as the twin delusions of the White House and the press corps. The latter has complained that the Obama Administration has managed to avoid major newspaper interviews and focused instead on local and digital sessions. Rosenstiel, who interviews extensively for the column, concludes it is wrong for the White House to think it can bypass major media and wrong for the press corps to believe it is somehow the lone gatekeeper.