re: Selena Roberts

And if that adaptation is less thorough reporting, more AP reprints, less local and regional focus, fewer feature length stories, more human interest fluff pieces, or paid corporate branding pieces you are fine with that? Because that's what you have right now.

The press is more than just a business. It's the fourth -- and in my opinion, the most important -- estate. It is a vital part of the American way of life. Without it, the average American has no defense against propaganda and outright lies used by the powerful. Case in point, almost 50 percent of all news stories in the 2012 presidential campaign came straight from the individual campaigns themselves. No editing. No opinion. No fact checking. No research. Just repeated verbatim.

I, honestly, don't now the answer. I think WSJ and the NYT have something with their pay for news model. I have no problem paying 7 bucks a month for good journalism, and I do pay it. The revenue from that particular stream exceeds their circulation revenue, but is that a viable option for smaller, regional papers? I don't know. It doesn't seem to be.

I just think it's in the best interest of the American people to keep the press free, and the only way to do that is to give them enough money so they are not tempted to give in to corporate sponsorship, to grant favors for political access or sensationalize and rush stories just to get a few more clicks and impressions.

I realize this is off topic, but it's a subject that I'm pretty passionate about. I've spent plenty of time researching and writing on the topic of the state of the press.

I'm also avoiding writing this damn media guide for the Barclays Center and Brooklyn Nets cause it's boring as hell.

ETA: If you would like to read more, try PEWS State of the Media 2013