For the second time in two months, a major publication is giving up on print.

PC Magazine is shutting down its print edition and focusing on its PCMag websites. In late October, The Christian Science Monitor said it was closing down its daily print edition and would move that content online.

For Ziff Davis, the owner of PC Magazine, the move seems to be more a final step in its evolution to online than a catastrophe. According to paidContent.org, only about 7 jobs will be lost, related to print-specific tasks.

How can we carry on PR and communications when budgets are being cut and resources tight? Why not just put the whole thing on hold until business improves?

Tough times like we're experiencing now have always been a challenge for PR and marketing -- which are often the first to experience budget cuts. But take heart. Good communications can continue.

That's why we're launching the free newsletter, "In Difficult Times." In it, we will show readers how to do more with less. In some cases, it's a thoughtful approach to existing tools and workflow.

In other cases, it's embracing Web 2.0 distribution channels, which tend to be far cheaper than their traditional media brethren.

The Christian Science Monitor, a highly respected national newspaper, is throwing in the towel on paper.

The Monitor has announced that it is giving up its daily newsprint and ink distribution -- and instead will be a web-only publication. It will run the presses only for its weekend edition. Poynter Online explains:

The Monitor, celebrating its 100th birthday this month and next, is the most prominent newspaper to date to take the online plunge. But, like some of the others that have quit daily print publication this year, it has special circumstances that would not apply to the typical metro daily. In the Monitor's case, those circumstance include a modest circulation -- about 50,000 -- combined with national distribution. Also, it is owned by the Church of Christ, Scientist, which has been willing to underwrite operating shortfalls though the years but not the big losses that come in the current deteriorating print climate.

Many of you know that in addition to my communications work, I'm also a photographer. But for the most part, photos have not played into the discussion on this blog. Until now.

In a story that broke last week, it was reported that noted photographer Jill Greenberg shot a cover of John McCain for The Atlantic and purposefully set the lighting to cast him in a monstrous way. The Atlantic did not run this particular photo and chose another from the shoot for the cover.

Over the past few weeks, there have been fifty some-odd changes to my most active Cision MediaSource press list. Which means that a staggering 20% of the reporters I’m in touch with on a regular basis have recently switched beats, switched organizations, or simply switched professions.

We all know that most newsrooms are shrinking. In mid July alone, about 400 newsroom people lost their jobs at papers across the country, according to MediaLife. Among the organizations making cuts were the Chicago Tribune and the Los Angeles Times.

Here's something new and interesting on the decline of newspapers.

A longtime Los Angeles Times reporter, William Lobdell, has left the paper and provides his list of the 42 Things I Know about the newspaper, its challenges and its future in the Web 2.0 world.

Here's a sample, from Lobdell's blog:

There is plenty of uncertainty about the newspapers, but this much I know:

1. I made the right decision leaving the newspaper business.
2. That’s not to say I’m happy about breaking up with my one true career love.
3. But the business model for newspapers is broken.
4. No one has figured out how to fix it.
5. That’s probably because it can’t be fixed.

There's a lot more in the post worth reading ... from someone who's actually been in the trenches.

Some things just leave me scratching my head.

In an interview with Robert Thomson, the new managing editor of Rupert Murdoch's Wall Street Journal, we find out that the Journal is gunning for The New York Times by way of its ability to be objective. Business Week reports:

Still, how can the Journal compete with the Times' much bigger newsroom? No worries, shrugs Thomson. "Journalists at The Wall Street Journal have the objective of being objective. At The New York Times, you have news with a skew. Or a skew with news."

This is a ludicrous assertion, albeit one that echoes his boss, Rupert Murdoch. Told that such talk sends some into seizures, Thomson concedes "there are great journalists at the Times," but the paper's "calcification of culture" gives the Journal an opportunity.

When journalists get arrested, usually it's to protect an anonymous source or support the First Amendment. Video blogger Lindsay Campbell of MobLogic.tv chose jail in order to better understand the story she was covering.

At the end of the clip below, Campbell questions why reporters are supposed to avoid becoming part of the story. She asks why it's wrong to relate her feelings about a story along with the facts?

As a reporter, I was taught not to do these things. But watching Campbell's piece, I wonder if there aren't new ways to approach news coverage we should all think about? New technology, a new generation...

Many of the "military analysts" who explain wars and weapons programs to the public on CNN, NBC and other TV and radio networks are actually part of an Pentagon-orchestrated PR campaign, The New York Times tells us this weekend:

To the public, these men are members of a familiar fraternity, presented tens of thousands of times on television and radio as “military analysts” whose long service has equipped them to give authoritative and unfettered judgments about the most pressing issues of the post-Sept. 11 world.

Hidden behind that appearance of objectivity, though, is a Pentagon information apparatus that has used those analysts in a campaign to generate favorable news coverage of the administration’s wartime performance, an examination by The New York Times has found.