Also on the show: Media technology can put more control in consumers' hands over the gathering and sharing of information and entertainment. But some folks, frankly, would rather it didn't. We'll talk with Megan Tady of the group Free Press about some of the most significant media industry battles going on right now that affect what you get to see and hear.

Push play button to stream this week's show:

A March 18 story by Motoko Rich and Brad Stone begins:

Amazon.com has threatened to stop directly selling the books of some publishers online unless they agree to a detailed list of concessions regarding the sale of electronic books, according to two industry executives with direct knowledge the discussions.

It's very clear who's the villain in the story, tabbed on the website as "Amazon May Impede Access to Some Publishers' Books": The story talks about how the online bookseller is "pressuring publishers" with its "hardball approach," shortly after it was "widely accused of abusing its position" with similar tactics that "shocked the publishing world." If Amazon keeps it up, "it could harm its reputation in the eyes of customers and the publishing industry" and (in the words of a source) do "serious long-term damage to their own brand."

By implication, the hero would be Apple, which is also entering the electronic book market. Apple's business model, at any rate, doesn't get the harsh spin from the Times that Amazon receives.

Which is funny, because Apple's plan would result in consumers paying from 30 percent to 50 percent more to buy most e-books, and prevent publishers from allowing anyone else to undercut Apple's inflated prices. It's a terrible deal for consumers, whom you would think make up the majority of readers even in the Times' Business section--but the piece is written with the unstated assumption that we're all rooting for the publishers.

The word "profit" only comes up once in the article, in reference to the $9.99 Amazon wants to charge for titles for its e-book reader: "Many Kindle owners have said the low price motivates them to buy more e-books, but publishers feared that the price would eventually erode their profits."  But it was Rich, one of the article's co-authors, who did the reporting (3/1/10) that showed that the $9.99 price would give publishers about the same profit they make selling a hardcover for $26--and that the $12.99 price (let alone $14.99) gives them a significantly higher margin.

As FAIR pointed out at the time (FAIR Blog, 3/2/10),  however, Rich's earlier piece was likewise heavily spun so as to avoid giving readers the accurate impression that higher e-book prices are a rip-off for consumers. So it's not surprising that the same pro-publisher slant is found in her coverage today.

The story involves Slim's attempt to take over a loan that  JPMorgan Chase made to a subsidiary of Grupo Televisa, Slim's major business rival--a deal that would have required Televisa to reveal virtually all its financial secrets.  A U.S. federal judge in New York City held that JPMorgan was acting in "bad faith" and put a hold on the loan's transfer (Reuters.com, 2/18/10).

Writes Ledbetter:

This is a scandalous story, involving one of the world's largest banks, a powerful federal judge, and two Mexican telecom giants. Under any other circumstances, the business section of the Times would be expected to cover it, as the Journal and Bloomberg have. Yet as of Saturday midday, I cannot find a single mention of any aspect of this case, anywhere in the physical New York Times, or on its website--not even a blog post or a wire story. Perhaps as the lawsuit moves on, the Times will be compelled to cover it. But for the moment, it certainly appears that Carlos Slim's investment has bought the silence of one of the world's most important newspapers.

I suppose that the Times could argue that it just doesn't find judicial findings of financial wrongdoing against the biggest corporation based in New York City to be particularly newsworthy.

That's right; former editor John Solomon resigned last month after less than a year at the Times, and the company's new president and publisher, Jonathan Slevin, told the Washington Post that "there is no search for a Solomon successor and that his job may not be filled under a reorganization." Who, exactly, will be in charge of news content in the absence of an editor is unclear.

Over at the Dallas Morning News, meanwhile, who will be in charge of news content was made painfully clear to several section editors on Wednesday: the sales department. In a memo to staff at the News and A.H. Belo's other papers, editor Bob Mong and senior vice president of sales Cyndy Carr told editors of departments ranging from sports and entertainment to health and education that they would be reporting to sales managers instead of the editor, as part of the paper's "bold new strategies" of "business/news integration."

As Robert Wilonsky of the Dallas Observer commented (Unfair Park, 12/3/09), "In short, those who sell ads for A.H. Belo's products will now dictate content within A.H. Belo's products, which is a radical departure from the way newspapers have been run since, oh, forever."

It's not entirely radical, given that the vaunted wall between the news and business ends of newspapers have been steadily eroding over the years. (See Extra!'s annual Fear & Favor reports.) But at a certain point, it seems like you have to stop calling yourself a news outlet and admit you're just an advertising supplement.