Bloggers are now capable of moving the news stream by themselves. Furthermore, automated algorithms in sites such as Google have selection of news stories based upon thousands of news feeds, which was one of the primary roles of an old style newspaper or TV news editor. Consider the rise of sites such as digg.com that provide a totally different way of selecting stories for readership. The 28th March 2007 issue of the Financial Times carried two stories that were so appropriate for this topic. The first was that in the UK, for the first time, the amount of money spent on internet advertising is going to exceed the amount of money spent on traditional advertising. But, more curious, was the second article that reported a poll between senior news executives for the World Editors Forum and Reuters. While 85% of the executives saw a rosy figure for the future of their newspapers, 40% said that the internet would become the primary medium in ten years, compared to 35% who thought that print would retain its dominance. Almost 50% thought that news will be free, 62% said that circulation had stalled or fallen. The figures from the other side of the pond bear this change out. Time magazine has dropped its advertising pages by 25% in the last five years. The New York Times has halved in value in terms of its stock price in the past five years. Classified advertisements are under tremendous pressure from online internet sites such as Craig's List and Gumtree.

Internet job sites have taken away the other hugely profitable element for newspapers. There seems to be this lingering notion that countries in Asia are still profitable and good for newspapers. Take India for example, one of the freest and biggest newspaper/magazine markets in the world. In the recent readership survey of 2007 compared to 2006, most of the major Indian newspapers and magazines (both English and vernacular) showed a drop in readership ranging from five to 10 per cent in just one year. For example, the top newspaper, Dainik Jagran, dropped a cool million readers from 18 to 17 million. This puts the few hundred thousand subscribers in the UK and Europe in perspective, where the number of Indian subscribers dropped is equal to the overall subscription of few of the major newspapers, no? To make it worse, the overall subscription of the newspapers here in Europe is smartly dropping as well.

Whenever people say, "Oh! The media is biased", it makes me smile. Given the kind of range of news opinions and sources that are available across the world, on radio, TV, newspapers, internet, etc., for them to state that the opinions tend to cluster in one end is a fantastic misreading of the facts or lack of knowledge of how the world has changed. Also, note that the people who state this are either from countries that practise news censorship or are fervent believers in conspiracy theories. There is another type, namely those who are very emotional about news. They aren't looking for news per se; rather, they are looking for corroborating evidence for their fondly held cherished notions. A word of advice to them: in the dim and distant past, when there were few news channels (TV, Radio or print), it made sense to beat up the poor newspapermen. Now? The audience has gone off to other pastures, while they are still wondering about who or what is talking about their pet issues. Therefore, if they do want to influence world opinion and/or inform people, they have to become their own content generators.

Going back to the Arab Media Watch, I would have pointed to the interesting rise of Al Jazeera as an example of the admission of new entrants, the rise in internet chat rooms and groups, blogs, digg.com, etc. The old ways of informing and influencing public opinion has already changed immeasurably. I am reminded of good old Darwin's quote where he said: "the species which survived were not the biggest or fastest but the most adaptable to change".

It is a very exciting time, my dear readers. It is not good or bad (other than for the people who refuse to change), it's just different. I will close with an old trekkie quote. One of the classic utterances in Star Trek is when the Doc tells the Captain on seeing new life on a strange planet, "It's life, Jim, but not as we know it".

All this to be taken with a grain of piquant salt!