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.

About 20% of Newsweek's staff took a recent job buyout offer, according to a Wall Street Journal story today. That's a pretty big number, but nothing all that new in the news business.

The real news IMHO is the fact that magazines publishing on a weekly basis still exist at all.

Think about it. TIME. Newsweek. BusinessWeek. Just about the only thing that differentiates them is their weekly schedule.

Now, once upon a time this was indeed a differentiator. But today, with both up-to-the-minute news and context/opinion available from myriad sources, what's the point of a "weekly?" The Journal story picked up on this point somewhat:

After years of writing, I am always amazed at the proofing process. A written piece can pass through multiple hands and head to the printer, only to return with a glaring error. It's easy to toss judgment and blame after the fact, but the bottom line is, just as everything else in life, anyone who has spent time communicating (that would pretty much mean everyone) has fallen prey to this head-banging reality and those pesky mistakes that seem to slip through no matter what.

While driving down the interstate one day, I saw a sign that said "No Pedestrains". Suddenly, I pictured a line of people holding each other by the waist, dancing a conga line across four lanes of traffic.

Not too long ago, I sat down in a restaurant and glanced at a full-color glossy poster for the "Decemember Band Lineup". I wondered if the lead singer stuttered.

As news budgets tighten and local papers continue to focus on their own communities, the disturbing question about who is covering the rest of the world becomes even more critical.

The answer, sadly, is fewer and fewer organizations. The good news is my old alma mater, The Associated Press, is stepping in to fill the void.

There's a great story about the AP's dedication to foreign news and how it covers such stories in the current issue of American Journalism Review. Some stats from the story:

The AP family tree branches out to 243 bureaus in 97 countries, serving news outlets with a potential to reach 1 billion people a day. Those numbers make the wire service the world's largest and most expensive newsgathering operation, says Rick Edmonds, a media business analyst at the Poynter Institute.

How much should you spend on a press release? A lot less than you might think.

According to the 2007 Journalist Survey on Media Relations Practices I posted on yesterday, reporters in overwhelming numbers prefer to get their news from us via email -- not the big newswires.

That's right.

• Nearly 8 out of 10 (77.9%) surveyed said they prefer to receive their news "via press releases sent to me by email."
• Another 4.5% chose "official alerts sent to me from a corporate online newsroom" ... which, of course, come via email.
• And, hold your breath, just 7.6% wanted their news "via commercial newswires (such as PR Newswire or BusinessWire).

Logically, it had to be true. A new survey on reporters' online activities shows that our efforts in the new media space are indeed reaching reporters in healthy numbers.

According to the study by Bulldog Reporter and TEK Group, called the 2007 Journalist Survey on Media Relations Practices:

• 16% of journalists subscribe to 5 or more RSS feeds
• more than a quarter of journalists regularly read 5 or more blogs
• nearly 70% follow at least one blog

Here are some additional details, as reported by A Feed is Born:

It was bound to happen... Reporters are becoming brands.

The New York Observer just did a fascinating piece about this phenomenon taking hold at The New York Times, the newspaper perhaps most unlikely to allow its own reporters to develop personas beyond the institution.

But it's happening. Thanks to the blogosphere, reporters at the NYT -- and elsewhere -- are stepping beyond their Mother Ships to create their own followings. The article explains:

A Chicago Tribune piece that talks about USA Today's upcoming 25th anniversary makes a point all communicators should think about -- particularly in today's challenging environment.

Recall, when it first came out, USA Today was derided as "McPaper" for putting out very short stories that couldn't possibly be substantive...

Here's the beef:

It's not too often that we get a real, inside view of what it's like to cover the White House.

Don't expect one here, either.

However, ABC News White House Correspondent John Hendren in this short video does show us what it's like to cover the president in Texas, where at times the job can be, well, less than glamorous.

John, as you may recall, during his time at NPR was a guest on our Talking Communications with Farrell Kramer podcast, Episode 3 -- Dateline Iraq.

Enough of doom and gloom. Here's some good news for the newspaper industry.

The folks at The Bivings Report have compiled a list of the Top 10 newspaper websites and run through the features that make them special. They were rated "not only on their web features but also on the design, aesthetics and general usability of the site."

And, the winners are...

1. The New York Times
2. The Washington Post
3. USA Today

For the Nos. 4-10, please check out the Bivings post itself.

So, just what made the best, the best?