The FTC recently released a discussion draft titled "Potential Policy Recommendations to Support the Reinvention of Journalism?

Advertisers need to know that the ads they pace in online newspapers are being read. Right now they do not trust that they are otherwise we would not have seen any drop in revenue like 45% since 2000 that this document attests. I have no doubt that this drop is actual and damaging to both the newspaper industry and the overall quality of journalism but if we want good journalists to write good articles we need to pay them.. through newspaper advertising.In a paper newspaper there is no need to click an ad to have it be proven it was read and so it should be in online newspapers.

Advertisers are the ones who need to realize this and start paying the real equal value dollars for the online ads that they would have paid for the print versions. They do not need an algorithm or software application telling them that 43 people clicked an ad today so it was worth (so much) money. The ad is worth equal to print ad value and should be seen as such without proof.

If an ad costs $5000 in paper print it should cost $5000 in online print and be paid for without the need of having to see proof by clicks. The business model has changed and I will paraphrase Jason Calacanis and say "It's time to move out of the big downtown buildings, that era of newspapers is dead" Lower costs, move to an online format, and ask for and get the actual value cost of the ads and pay the journalists to do their job, simple as that. Get with the lead car or get off the train.

The government should sooner set itself on fire than get into the business of journalism. This is the United States for Christs sake, we are not a governed people willing to listen to manufactured and funded directly by the government propaganda. We are not 1939 Germany, we are not anytime China or North Korea.

If the older version of the business model of journalism being print newspapers and other paper mediums is dying it is because it is supposed to, the old timers need to wake up and see this, reformulate their future plans and get with the times or retire and let the younger generation do it for them. All of this seems to come back to cash. Good journalism of any kind requires good journalists and good journalists need to be paid good money, good money needs to be made by the online newspapers through advertising and the advertisers need to be willing to pay for it, if they do not want to then the entire industry is dead.

We will fall into a Blogosphere of inconsistent and sub-par pseudo-journalism and sub-par pseudo-journalists that does not do the same job as the qualified journalists of the previous information age and in this fall will lose touch with the actual reality around us. The venue of the job has changed and that is all. The advertisers need to realize that they are holding in their wallets the future of media and responsibly and with faith pay what the ads are actually worth to the new media outlets like the online versions of the popular newspapers.

It is their industry, we just like it and if the old media dies too bad the new media will arise and at the beginning be lost and less than before but as it grows will surpass the reach, potential, and profit ceilings of the olden style of print media.. those cold feet advertisers will be eating their hats by then and rightfully so. "5. Although some types of online advertising (e.g. , advertising targeted to a consumer’s known interests) can generate greater revenue than other types (e.g. , banner ads), the vast supply of online sites for advertising reduces the amount that an online news site can charge for advertising at its site.

This means that online advertising typically generates much less revenue than print advertising (often described as “digital dimes� As compared to the dollars generated by print ads). It appears unlikely that online advertising revenues will ever be sufficient to replace the print advertising revenues that newspapers previously received.

"(http://www.ftc.gov/opp/workshops/news/jun15/docs/new-staff-discussion.pdf 1) This is a load of crap and it is the fault of the advertisers to embrace the new media. I do not feel sorry for them at all and if they fail so what. I will set myself on fire and fight to the death before the government takes over and starts funding (read 100% creating) the news media.

This document designed to forge a discussion seems more like testing the waters for a bail out and that is as unacceptable an act as any I have ever heard of."If tler had 6 good jokes people would have said "He's changed" - Joan Rivers.

First of all, here is a link to the document which may prove useful: ftc.gov/opp/workshops/news/jun15/docs/ne... The very existence of the discussion is a good thing. The recognition of inescapable and unavoidable changes in journalism is a positive step, and discussion concerning various potential reactions and their results can only be construed as good stewardship. A second positive is the open access to existing recommendations and the solicitation of more from the general public.

According to the document, recommendations can be forwarded to public.commentworks.com/ftc/newsmediawor.... Unfortunately, and this does not bode well, that link does not work. On the negative side, the very first section of the paper, dealing with the current state of the news, seems to lay a foundation for the superiority of the status quo, indicating that shrinking coverage due in part to diminishing print advertising, is of necessity a bad thing.

A second troubling issue is the fact that the authors seem to be adverse to risk as part of any business. They seem to want a guarantee that income sources or business models will work. This has never been true for any business venture in the history of free enterprise.

You hang up your shingle and take your chances. A third problem I see is found on page 4 "journalism always has been subsidized to a large extent by, for example, the federal government, political parties, or advertising". I do not accept this statement, especially if you take out the advertising contribution.

I do not believe that journalism has always been largely subsidized by the Federal government. I DO believe that the authors are attempting to establish that fact by default, hoping that no-one will contradict them. It seems to me they are setting up a case for extensive government subsidizing in the future.

The "fair use" discussion involving search engine (google) thumbnails and the Circuit court decision is something that we will have with us for a while. The bulk of our current copyright law on fair use was written in 1976, well before even Al Gore claimed to have invented the internet, and it could no doubt use some updating. Issues such as "hot news" and misappropriation of such seem compelling.By the time You get to page twelve of the forty-seven page document, government licensing of the news is on the table.

Very bad idea, yet very predictable. Exemptions to antitrust laws are always on the table in my mind, since we compete in a global marketplace. Limiting the size and power our corporations may make them ineffective in the global market, sort of like bringing a Chihuahua to a Pit Bull fight.

Here we are, Page 15, Indirect and direct government Support. WRONG WRONG WRONG. If I want the government news, I'll watch MSNBC where Chris Matthews tells me his leg Tingles when Obama talks.

Nobody in their right mind wants the government funding the news industry, except perhaps the misguided souls on this study group. Not surprisingly, the remaining twenty pages outline and push more and more government funding and control. The government funding plea is the bottom line and fundamental purpose of the document in my opinion.

Journalists are finding themselves on the swampy end end of a competitive morass and are desperate enough to take any life line that keeps them on top, including what amounts to giving up a free press. Don't imagine for a minute that there are not government officials who would love to control the media. Governemnt funding of journalism is a BAD idea, but it is going to be pushed very hard from journalists and from government.

This didn't come from no where for no reason, there are folks behind it that want it very much, no matter how badly they are trying to make it look like "just a few ideas to throw out there". We may well see a State run press in the United States, and not too far down the road.

I cant really gove you an answer,but what I can give you is a way to a solution, that is you have to find the anglde that you relate to or peaks your interest. A good paper is one that people get drawn into because it reaches them ln some way.As for me WW11 to me, I think of the holocaust and the effect it had on the survivors, their families and those who stood by and did nothing until it was too late.