As newspapers buckle under economic pressure, and the news industry struggles to make the transition from traditional subscription-based models to a profitable online business, an interestingly balanced panel met here on 9 June to discuss how to make this possible.

Two journalists from traditional media organizations, Pete Clifton of the BBC, and Atte Jääskeläinen from the Finnish Broadcasting Company (YLE), were counter-balanced by two others who are part of the new wave of journalism: Jacob Weisberg from Slate, and Jotman the blogger.

“A magazine company that’s safe for trees,” is how Weisberg described his organisation, Slate.com, which he said represented a model for a post-print future.

In response to a question about whether blogging can ever be financially viable, Jotman warned the audience not to start blogging to make money. “Oh, we’re in it to make money,” interjected Weisberg. Slate earns 95 per cent of its revenue from advertising, and low overheads make an online news organization easier and cheaper to run, he said.

The point that emerged most clearly from the session — “New Media and the Future of Broadcast News” — was that content for the web is not the same as content written for a print publication that is posted online. All four panelists emphasized that the medium will influence the content, and that lengthy news broadcasts will eventually be replaced by a system where users will have much more control over what they see and hear.

“Newspapers will become a boutique product for the older generation, ” said Weisberg, and was met with an uncomfortable silence from the audience. But the reassuring agreement across the panel was that newspapers and TV news are far from obsolete, and in fact, as the media find ways to work together and converge content across platforms, the new wave of journalism may not be a death knell for the news industry, but the beginning of a new revolution.

— Nayana Jayarajan

Can Economies survive without free media?

There is a tendency in the West to see emergent China as a dark threat — increasingly influential both politically and economically, but ruled by an authoritarian regime whose intentions are unclear. As barriers to trade are lowered, new barriers to the free movement of information are raised to combat the growth of mobile telephones and the Internet.

But as four panelists discussed “Asian Capitalism: Can Economies Survive without Free Media?”, a far more nuanced picture emerged. Meeting in Helsinki on 8 June were Yuen-Ying Chan, director of the Journalism and Media Studies Centre at the University of Hong Kong, Anthony Milner from the Australian National University in Canberra and Xiao Qiang, founder and editor-in-chief of China Digital Times and director of the China Internet Project at the University of California at Berkeley. The talk was moderated by Matt Steinglass, a DPA correspondent based in Hanoi.

Although the discussion was about Asia as a whole, the conversation continually returned to China. Panelists argued that the Chinese media are not as restrained as some may suspect.

Xiao pointed out that state-owned media can broadcast and publish news critical of the Communist Party, although through coded language. News reports from foreign media also make it into China: “The Great Fire Wall is not air tight,” Xiao said. Blogs and online commentary have an increasing role in the national agenda, despite the authorities’ Internet policing.

Yuen-Ying described the Chinese media environment as “schizophrenic and contradictory,” but emphasized that China must not be underestimated. Traditional and state-owned media are evolving, she said.

— Naomi Hunt

A bear at the doorstep?

Last year’s short war in Georgia, followed by this winter’s shutdown of Europe’s gas supply through Ukraine, have left many asking: is Russia’s recent assertiveness a sign of worse to come?

Three experts representing a spectrum of opinions tackled this question – the Economist’s Edward Lucas; Brahma Chellaney, a professor at the New Delhi Centre for Policy Research; and Anatoly Adamishin, a former Russian ambassador to Britain. Lending a sense of cable news energy and immediacy was moderator, CNN anchor Jim Clancy. They spoke on 7 June at the IPI World Congress and 58th General Assembly in Helsinki, in the session “The Bear at the Doorstep – Russia’s Resurgence and the Start of a New Cold War? ”

“Who’s in charge of Russia?” fired Clancy at Adamishin with his first question- the former diplomat responding to dispel the idea that Russian democracy extends no further than the Kremlin’s top seat.  .

A burgeoning and corrupt bureaucracy, coupled with national apathy, lie at the heart of the problem, Adamishin said. “Russia is a democratic country without democracy.”

“Please relax,” he said. “The bear is less belligerent than one may judge from its growling.”

Lucas, on the other hand, fears that a new form of Cold War has already begun, with Chellaney tempering the debate by saying that a return to past tensions is still avoidable.

Comments and questions from the journalists in Finlandia Hall broached tinderbox topics such as the South Caucasus, Kremlin-backed moves to form an international natural gas cartel similar to OPEC, and press freedom.

All the panelists agreed that Russian press freedom has regressed sharply since the 1990s, with Adamishin pointing to Novaya Gazeta editor-in-chief Dmitry Muratov’s acceptance speech of the IPI Free Media Pioneer Award as all the indication anyone needs as to the state of media freedom in Russia.

“Some of my friends are dead because they pushed too hard for press freedom [in Russia],” added Lucas.

— Colin Peters