Perez Hilton has reportedly been offered $20 million for his website, PerezHilton.com, according to Gawker.

The deal has apparently been proposed by Avid Life Media, who paid the same amount for HotOrNot.com in 2008. The deal would see Hilton, real name Mario Lavandeira, paid $18 million up front, plus a further $2 million a year later.

Avid Life Media would apparently bring in fellow celebrity gossip blogger Zack Taylor and Nik Richie, who runs adult gossip site TheDirty.com to operate the site, with Gawker speculating that the PerezHilton.com URL would used as a "sort of massive traffic-forwarding address to a new gossip site".

No word yet on whether Perez plans to cash in.

Bearded magazine founder Gareth Main has teamed up with James Elliman from music blog MonoMusic and Anthony Chalmers from music promoters God Don't Like It to launch a new weekly podcast dedicated to independent music called, wait for it, the Independent Music Podcast.

All the music played will come from labels "100% independent from the majors", and the show will also champion some unsigned artists too. The show is accessible via MixCloud or can be downloaded via iTunes.

More at www.independentmusicpodcast.com

US music mag Rolling Stone today launches a new website which will have one of those crazy pay-walls in place, meaning users will have to pay a four dollar per month subscription fee to get access to the full site. Online-only content will still be free, but users will have to pay to access articles from the print magazine. A subscription will also get users access to the music mag's entire archive, which stretches back over 40 years.

Rolling Stone is unusual in the magazine world in that its print circulation is actually up, and its privately-owned publishers insist the title is still profitable. Still, it's known all important ad sales were down last year, so the subscription-based online service is presumably a bid to secure new additional revenues.

Given publishers across the newspaper and magazine industries are pondering over whether a subscription-based model could work for their online titles (given most original attempts at online subscriptions back in the day did not), I think it's fair to say a fair few media owner types will now be watching with interest how the all new Rolling Stone website fairs.

The vast majority of music journalists in the UK are not ready to switch to digital-only promos, according to a new survey of music media people undertaken by CMU.

Following the announcement by Sony Music last month that they intended to phase out all physical promo CDs, so that in future DJs and journalists will only receive advance copies of their releases in a digital format, Creative Business's music news bulletin CMU surveyed 100 music journalists about the way they are 'serviced' by record labels and music PR companies. The first question we asked was how those journalists would prefer to receive advance copies of single and album releases.

75% of those surveyed said their still preferred to receive review and pre-release copies of music in a physical format, ie as a CD. Five main reasons were given to justify this preference.

First, many said that digital preview services that require a journalist to sit at their computer misunderstood how most reviewers go about experiencing new music before writing a review. Those journalists argued that before starting a review they'd listen to an album several times over, normally while at home, or on the move. A CD lets reviewers play albums on home stereos or in the car, or they can rip tracks to an iPod for previewing while out and about.

Second, others, presumably those writing for older music consumers, argued that when they review an album they are not just reviewing a group of stand alone tracks, but the whole package that their readers may or may not wish to purchase. For them, that includes the packaging, artwork and liner notes, and the experience that you get from opening a new CD and putting it in your player for the first time. Digital-only previews do not allow such reviewers to get the "whole experience".

Third, some of those surveyed were review editors, and a number of them said that the system they used to manage the commissioning and publishing of reviews relied on physical product, which can be placed in racks on a desk, and is therefore much easier to manage that processing a plethora of emailed links and digital files in folders on a computer desktop.

Fourth, those running more grass roots music magazines and websites pointed out that their reviewers were not paid for their work, and that a perk of the job was the get a CD in the post which, if they liked the album, they could keep. A digital copy was less attractive, especially if it was a stream, because there is not permanent "gift" to keep in that scenario.

Fifth, a number of journalists pointed out that the PC technology being used by some media - especially regional and local media - is hardly bang up to date, with some still using versions of Windows which first surfaced in the 1990s. For these people many of the digital preview systems simply don't work.

Of course, it is probably inevitable that all record labels will move to a digital preview system eventually, the cost and time involved in pressing and mailing CDs to journalists being an obvious expense for cash strapped record companies to cut. But, while it seems that many reviewers will resist any move to digital previews, there is definitely a lot more resistance to streaming preview services than to MP3-based preview downloads. Of the 25 journalists who expressed a preference for digital promos, 18 said they preferred links to MP3s, while only 7 preferred links to preview streams, ie the kind of digital previews currently being offered by Sony Music and most other labels.

In fact, while some journalists are resistant to any move from physical to digital promos, it is possible some of those hanging onto CDs are doing so because they are unimpressed with the stream-based preview platforms currently being used by record companies, certainly the majors. It is possible that an MP3-based preview platform could overcome many of the concerns raised about the move to digital promos.

But, in the short term, it seems Word magazine boss David Hepworth was probably right when he predicted that Sony will find turning all music hacks to digital promos very difficult and that  "within a year, when they want reviewers to take notice of something, they'll start sending out [physical] copies again".

You can read the CMU team's take on the survey here.

The promo CD debate is just one of several things covered by CMU's music journalist survey. Details of other matters discussed will be revealed here in the CMU Daily in the coming weeks. More information on the survey will also be presented at the next CMU seminar on music PR, which takes place next Wednesday at CMU HQ in Shoreditch. This full day training event reviews the state and future of the music media, offers a beginners guide to music PR and best practice press releases, a summary of the aforementioned journalist survey, and a review of social media and its role in music marketing in 2010. Some places are still available, full info at www.theCMUwebsite.com/events.

PR group Burson-Marsteller has published the results of a survey of 115 senior journalists from across Europe, the Middle East and Africa, and it reveals a gloomy mood in the news industry, where the recent advertising recession and continued challenges posed by the internet mean smaller teams have to produce more content than ever before, while working in an insecure market.

81% of those journalists surveyed said they'd experienced cost-cutting measures in their editorial teams, and most felt that that was having an impact on the quality of their publication's output. 34% said cost-cutting was the biggest threat to high quality journalism, while 17% said the internet was a bigger threat.

There were mixed opinions among those surveyed about the digital domain, with the internet having both positive and negative impacts. Most agreed digital tools gave them access to unprecedented amounts of information, but many added that the rise of so called 'citizen journalism' and what they see as a de-professionalisation of their trade were courses for concern.

On the up side for the corporate communications profession, most of those surveyed admitted that, because of the cuts, PR agencies played a more vital role in their work than ever before, as sources of information and providers of story leads. Nearly half said they dealt with PR people more frequently now than before, while over a quarter said they saw PR agencies as being good sources of information.

Commenting on the survey, PR Week quote Burson-Marsteller's EMEA media practice boss Dennis Landsbert-Noon as saying: "As the media industry undergoes these tremendous changes, there is both an onus on us to ensure that our standards remain exemplary, as well as an opportunity for us to use new and exciting digital tools to communicate with traditional journalists as well as a whole new digital and social media landscape".

The Independent has announced its current Editor Roger Alton will step down following the recent purchase of the paper by Evening Standard owner Alexander Lebedev. This is not a surprise at all really, people had begun speculating who Lebedev would put in charge of the title long before his deal with former owners Independent News & Media had been done, the assumption all along being that former Observer Editor Alton would be for the axe.

The broadsheet's former Editor, Simon Kelner, who took on an MD and Editor In Chief role after handing over the actual editorship to Alton in 2008, will return to the editor's chair on a temporary basis until a replacement can be found. Standard Editor Geordie Greig will become Editorial Director of the Indy, though isn't expected to have much of a day to day role on the struggling national daily.

The New Musical Express is having a bit of a revamp, with a new cover design that makes the whole thing look a bit like The Word magazine in my mind, but perhaps that's just me; though I think it certainly looks more serious.

The revamp extends to more than just the cover, with a host of new features being added to the indie rock weekly, including 'The Main Event' reviewing the big music news story of the week, 'Talking Head' featuring artists and NME journalists giving some opinions, and 'First Night, On The Road' and 'In the Studio' providing behind the scenes reports from gigs and recording sessions.

The rework, while presumably partly designed to combat the continued slump in the number of people buying the indie brand's flagship print product, also marks the first serious stamp on the magazine to be made by Krissi Murison, who became editor of the IPC-owned music title last year

She says this: "When I took this role I had very clear ideas about what I wanted to do with the magazine. The new NME is significantly different, with a much more mature and aspirational design, and content which focuses on being in-depth, opinionated and above all knowledgeable. We listened carefully to what music fans want from their NME - and delivered a weekly must-have for anyone who is obsessed with music, regardless of age".

The relaunch edition will be available with a choice of different covers, with Jack White, Rihanna, Kasabian, Foals, MIA, Magnetic Man, Florence And The Machine, LCD Soundsystem, Laura Marling and Biffy Clyro featuring on different editions.

It remains to be seen if the revamp, which will be accompanied by a high profile ad campaign, can turn round the mag's declining readership. With all its many spin offs, the future of the NME brand seems more assured than most in the traditional media, though if sales of the weekly magazine continue to fall it will presumably reach a point where the print edition is such a loss leader that management would have to ask if the brand could live on without the print product. Though that decision is presumably someway off as yet.

Meanwhile, go look at the revamped cover design at one of the following links:
community.brandrepublic.com/photos/nme_covers_april/images/69647/438x438.aspx
community.brandrepublic.com/photos/nme_covers_april/images/69648/438x438.aspx

Talking of all those NME spin offs, a new NME-branded festival has been announced, very much based around the All Tomorrows' Parties model, and due to take place at the Pontins holiday park in Camber Sands, Sussex. The first ever NME Weekender will take place from 5-7 Nov and both Babyshambles and British Sea Power have already been confirmed for the bill.

So, this is interesting. Regional newspaper company Johnston Press is planning on dropping the paywalls it put up around some of its local papers as part of a pilot project to test the viability of charging for access to its online content.

Had the paywalls put up around the websites of six of its local papers been a success, it was thought Johnston Press would look to introduce a subscription system for its bigger regional titles, such as the Edinburgh daily broadsheet The Scotsman and the Leeds-based Yorkshire Post. But, according to the Press Gazette, the publisher's experiment with paywalls hasn't delivered overly positive results. A source told the trade website that subscriber numbers on one Scottish local paper was in the "low double figures". 

When they began the experiment, Johnston said the paywalls on six local papers were introduced to "get an understanding of what the customer dynamic is around paid-for content". Different subscription systems were employed on each of the six titles. The publisher hasn't officially commented on the results of the pilot project, but the Gazette says all six paywalls have come down sooner than was originally intended.

The Times, of course, is set to put a paywall around its website in June. Opinions are divided regards whether or not the Rupert Murdoch owned paper can successfully move its online operations to a subscription-based business model. It seems likely that national papers will have a better chance of making subscription services work than their regional counterparts, though the regional press need to find a viable online business model even more urgently than the nationals.

The Times today announced it would start charging for access to its websites from June. Despite original rumours The Sunday Times would go the subscription route before the main paper, it seems the paywall will be applied to both titles simultaneously.

The announcement follows months of speculation as to when and how the broadsheet would start charging for its online services, after its owner Rupert Murdoch let it be known he hoped to bring to an end the era of free news analysis on the internet. On confirming the development, News International CEO Rebekah Brooks implied the firm's other titles, The Sun and News Of The World, would soon follow suit.

The Times will charge a pound a day for access to its website, though there will be a £2 weekly subscription that will also provide access to other services, and the plan seems to be to sign people up to that rather than the day rate.

The news has been met with some derision on Twitter this morning, though with the whole newspaper industry in a state of turmoil, mainly because Google and their likes have taken the bulk of the growing internet advertising market away from the traditional media owners, some argue that the subscription model is the only way forward for the news media.

Said subscription-model advocates add that as all the news groups follow suit, and as extra multimedia and mobile widgets are added into the subscription price, web-users will probably eventually be persuaded to part with some cash. Especially once the BBC website is cut down to size (something which is going to happen with minimum public outrage as us media types all get distracted with the Save 6 campaign). 

Of course, The Guardian has an interesting role to play in all this. They say they won't go the subscription route. The Guardian is a unique organisation in that it isn't profit driven, and the mission statement of the wider Guardian Media Group is to make cash to subsidise the company's loss-making flagship title.

Providing GMG can make money elsewhere, they will continue to pump out Guardian online content for free, which will give them a huge competitive advantage once The Times, Telegraph, Indy et al park their websites behind paywalls. And unlike the BBC, there is nothing Murdoch and his team of lobbyists can do to stop The Guardian from giving news, comment and analysis away gratis. Interesting times.

After months of negotiations, Evening Standard owner and former KGB agent Alexander Lebedev yesterday confirmed he had bought The Independent. He got the struggling British broadsheet for a pound, but will take on the firm's liabilities. Well, some of them. Actually current owners Independent News & Media will contribute over £9 million to Lebedev's new company Independent Print Limited to help pay off some of the paper's debts.

As previously reported, when one of INM's big shareholders tried to force the Irish media firm to shut The Independent down last year the firm's management said it would be more expensive to close the title than keep it open. With that in mind, presumably £9 million is an OK sum of money to pay to have the problem taken off INM's hands.

Lebedev's purchase of The Indy has been such a long-time coming, staff there have already been preparing for the new ownership. That said, it remains to be seen what the new proprietor will do with the paper, which has the smallest circulation of all the British dailies and which many expected would bite the dust this year until the Russian started to negotiate a takeover.

Given what Lebedev did with the Standard, there has been wide speculation that he will make The Indy a free morning title distributed in key cities to commuters, though he reportedly denied that was a plan during a conversation with Gordon Brown recently. Certainly any move to make The Indy a proper free title (actually, they already give away thousands of copies a day) would be a bold move that could potentially transform the UK newspaper market.

Confirming the deal, which should be completed in May, INM CEO Gavin O'Reilly told reporters: "This is a most satisfactory and positive outcome for the titles, their staff and for INM's shareholders. I wish IPL and the staff every success for the future in continuing the development of these important and influential titles".

The Men From The Press, the previously reported online service which planned to offer a "brand new type of music PR" by paying journalists to fill out online feedback forms after listening to unsigned and self-releasing artists who signed up to the website, announced yesterday that it was closing its doors, a matter of weeks after launching, following widespread derision from both the journalism and PR communities.

As previously reported, the journalists who signed up to the scheme, who were seemingly all freelancers, did not commit to give anything they listened to any actual coverage in any of the media they work for (and in many cases would not be able to anyway), but, rather, they provided a direct critique to each paying artist, which might constitute useful feedback in itself and, if positive, could be used in a band's other publicity. That said, the aim obviously was to force participating journalists to expose themselves to the music bands had paid to upload to the website, in the hope some of the hacks would genuinely like some of music, and then become influential champions of those bands.

Though in theory there was nothing ethically wrong with the service - providing paying bands knew they were buying feedback not coverage - because the service charged a per journalist fee, and because the rate card listed the publications each writer worked for (minus their names), and also because the fee was higher the more esteemed the publication, some argued that the implication was that you could, in fact, buy coverage.

Certainly it would have been easy for less media-savvy exposure-hungry new artists to misconstrue what was actually on offer, and little was done to stress that actual coverage was not for sale. The page on the website where artists selected which writers they wanted feedback from was topped with this explanation: "Listed below are the current publications our journalists write for together with their respective submission fees, which are to cover our admin costs and journalist submission fees - there are no other hidden charges! Please note: Most of our journalists write for several publications, which is why some are bundled together as below... the submission fees are for each bundle, so this gives you more value for money".

As a result, many of the publications listed requested that their titles be removed from the site, even if some of their freelance contributors were actually involved in the new service, because they didn't want confused bands to think editorial coverage was for sale. Meanwhile, some of the journalists signed up seemingly withdrew their services, possibly because the publishers and editors of the titles they write for had started to express concerns. Or possibly because they never really understood what the Men From The Press offer was going to be. Some of the service's participating journalists said they were originally approached by someone who simply asked if they would like to be paid to give feedback to new bands, without being told they'd be participating in a new kind of music publicity venture.

A statement posted on the website yesterday by founder Dave Chisholm, and also emailed to signed up artists, read: "The whole point of themenfromthepress.com was to provide PR in a 'brand new way'. So bands, artists and small labels who simply haven't got the funds would be given a chance! I put a hell of a lot of work into this and set TMFTP up for all the right reasons and with all the best intentions to help new bands and artists as I know how tough it is for them in this business... But we have now been shot down in flames!

He continued: "Certain publications and some traditional PR companies (who I will not name) have made it impossible for us to carry on through their constant slanderous remarks and activities which have damaged our reputation to the point where we have lost all heart with the project. And so sadly and with great regret we have now closed! I would like to say a very big thank you to the many bands artists and journalists who have and still support us ... I tried to make a difference but sorry guys... they wont let us..."

Chisholm also said that all subscription and submission fees would be refunded to those artists who had signed up. Though those artists who opted to pay by PayPal were never charged in the first place, because a glitch in the website's programming meant that, although subscription fees were charged, those paying by the online payment system were able to submit their music for review without paying anything at all.

The dispute between the media relations and press cuttings industries and the Newspaper Licensing Agency over the latter's efforts to launch a 'links licence' will rumble on for at least a year. Papers published by the UK Copyright Tribunal last week revealed that in a preliminary hearing last month the copyright court rejected the NLA's efforts to have the legal case against the agency dismissed, and then ruled it wouldn't consider the disagreement in full until February 2011.
As previously reported, the NLA argues that agencies who provide corporate clients with lists of relevant newspaper headlines and links to the actual articles than mention their company should have to pay a licence fee, in the same way they would if they provided photocopies of the actual articles. But the PR industry argues that because no copies are made when links are provided, the copyright laws that empower the NLA in the print media and photocopy domain don't apply with digital links.

Cuttings agency Meltwater and the PR Consultants Association are opposing the NLA's efforts to launch the links licence, and took the matter to the Copyright Tribunal, the court that considers disputes specifically relating to copyright issues and royalty payments. The NLA was forced to suspend its link licence operations when Meltwater began its action, and given the time scale of the Tribunal hearing those operations will now have to be on hold for over a year.

In related news, the NLA recently announced a new fee structure regards their traditional newspaper copying licences for smaller PR agencies, those with less than five staff and three or less clients. The new fees will simplify the licence system for said agencies and, the NLA argues, reduce their costs. Though the boss of one affected agency said that while he recognised both the NLA's claims were true, it still wasn't a cost effective licence for his company.

Mervyn Edgecombe, MD of London-based PR agency Mervyn Edgecombe Associates, told Communicte: "The old system was so complex and convoluted that anything that simplifies the process has to be welcome. [But while] £150 [per client] may not sound much, that's £450 for the three main accounts that would warrant this license, and there's not enough value to justify it. When we get the coverage, we just send the office junior out to buy an extra copy of the paper".

So, there has been much chatter in the music journalism community in the last few weeks about a new service being offered to grass roots artists that guarantees to put their music in front of apparently influential music critics. The company can make that guarantee because it pays the journalists in question to listen to their clients' music and to provide a one-to-one critique.

The service competes with those traditional music PR agencies which offer their services to unsigned or self-releasing artists, normally for a few hundred pounds per campaign. The founders of the new service, called The Men From The Press, say their web-based promotional platform is more cost effective than traditional PR, because it ensures exposure to a small number of targeted journalists, whereas the traditional approach involves sending CDs or press releases to a long list of reviewers and editors, none of whom might actually listen to the music they are sent. With TMFTP bands pay a registration fee, and then an additional fee per journalist they wish to make contact with.

The journalists signed up to the scheme, who are seemingly all freelancers, do not commit to give anything they listen to any actual coverage in any of the media they work for, but will provide a direct critique, which might constitute useful feedback and, if positive, can be used in a band's other publicity. Though presumably the real attraction for bands is that it commits signed-up journalists to listen to any music they are sent, meaning that - if any of those journalists turn out to genuinely like an artist's music - an influential fan may be secured.

The page on the new service's website that lists the journalists who can be targeted has been through a number of incarnations. Initially customers of the service could choose which publications they wanted to target, and presumably any freelancers who write for those titles would have been contacted on a signed up artists' behalf. But that page was removed, reportedly after some of the featured publications complained it implied coverage in their titles could be bought, or that journalists participating somehow represented the viewpoint of the titles they may contribute to.

The crucial page is now structured by journalist, listing all the titles each reviewer writes for. The more titles, and the more influential the titles, the more it costs to put your music in front of a signed up hack. At one stage this page actually named participating writers, though currently the identities of participating reviewers are not actually revealed.

While there is nothing ethically wrong with it in principle, providing artists are clear they are buying feedback not coverage, and providing participating journalists are never unduly swayed to give coverage to paying bands, many music publicists and journalists are nervous about the implications of the new service.

It's founder, Dave Chisholm, admits that part of the aim of his service is to try to win his clients new fans in the music journalism community, but told The Guardian that he disagrees with the viewpoint that it is wrong to offer cash-strapped freelance journalists a financial incentive to ensure his bands are exposed to opinion formers. He argues that such financial incentives are no different to traditional PRs offering journalists free perks in a bid to ensure they listen to their clients' music.

But also speaking to The Guardian, one artist manager who previously worked in PR, Tim Vigon, said he still had concerns. He told the paper: "My instinct is that it's wrong on every level ... it feels like payola [paying for coverage], even though there's nothing illegitimate about it and all they're after is feedback".

Meanwhile the founder of one music website, some of whose reviewers were approached by Chisholm's team, was more blatant in his criticism. Drowned In Sound's Sean Adams blogged yesterday: "I sit around listening to mostly not very good unsigned bands for free. I can kinda see where the 'concept' came from, in terms of greasing the wheels to bring certain CDs to the top of the pile and give bands some feedback. Not all ideas are worth running with though, especially when they're so poorly executed, and give the impression [bands will] get a leg up when it generally seems exploitative and EVIL. If you're in a band, don't do this, just do your research of who will like your stuff. People are easy to communicate with".

German entertainment magazine NEON has issued an apology after it published a fabricated interview with Beyonce Knowles earlier this year. Apparently they didn't initially think it was odd that the singer, who is famously tight-lipped about details of her marriage to Jay-Z, would suddenly admit to having a pre-nuptial agreement, reveal she is keeping her desire to have children secret from her husband, and claim that he's a bit of a misogynist.

In a statement, the magazine said: "We do have serious doubts in the truth of many statements of the interview of Ms Beyonce Knowles published in NEON, issue January 2010The article was written by the freelancer Ingo Mecek. The editors-in-chief have confronted Ingo Mocek with these doubts. Ingo Mocek was not able to verify certain statements, particularly the statements regarding a marriage contract of Ms Knowles. Therefore, we assume that the interview did not take place as claimed by Ingo Mocek".

It continued: "NEON dissociates itself from the content of the interview with Ms Knowles. NEON subscribes to a high level standard of truthful journalism. Since Ingo Mocek has violated these standards severely, NEON has terminated all relationships with him with immediate effect.We sincerely apologize to Ms Knowles and her management for all personal inconvenience that may have arisen due to the publication of this interview".

NME have appointed a new Deputy Editor, Martin Robinson. He was previously a freelancer who contributed to Wired, Shortlist and FHM as well as NME.

NME Editor Krissi Murison told CMU: "Martin has been a core contributor to NME for some time now, and I am absolutely thrilled to welcome him onto the team full-time in such a prominent role at such a crucial time as we prepare to unveil some exciting changes".

Robinson added: "I'm chuffed to bits to have bagged my dream job and be joining Krissi and the team at NME. The magazine has already improved dramatically under Krissi's editorship and is about to step up to a whole new level. I'm delighted that I'm going to be a part of it".

Facebook is threatening to sue the Daily Mail after the tabloid wrongly claimed that one of its freelance writers, a middle aged man, had successfully posed as a 14 year old girl on the uber-social network and that, "within seconds" he was approached by older men who "wanted to perform a sex act" (or, possibly, a 14 year old girl writing for a rival paper successfully posing as an older man, who knows?).

The Mail's big mistake was that while said freelance writer - Mark Williams-Thomas - had indeed posed as a 14 year old girl on a social network and had indeed been approached by a dodgy older man, the social network he was using was not Facebook, and he claims that the paper were well aware of that fact but incorrectly edited his article to name the market-leading social networking site anyway.

Facebook quickly threatened a libel action, and The Mail subsequently removed the firm's name from the story online and published an apology. Well, I say they removed the firm's name from the report online, they did cut it from the article and headline, but Facebook say they are still name-checked in the story's page title and URL, both of which influence Google searches. The paper admitted that because of "technical issues" (ie, no one at the Mail knows how to work a website) that was indeed still the case, but that the paper was now getting those Facebook mentions removed too.

Nevertheless, Facebook says it is still consulting its lawyers over the reputation damage done by the original story, and the paper's slow removal of all elements of it. A UK spokesman told the Guardian that the company was assessing what "brand damage has been done".

Talking of lobbyists, the PR Consultants Association has confirmed it will be lobbying key decision makers in both government and the Conservative Party as part of its previously reported campaign to stop the Newspaper Licensing Agency from charging PR companies who provide clients with lists of URLs that link to relevant media coverage on free-to-access newspaper websites.

As previously reported, the NLA recently claimed companies who provide such links on a commercial basis need a copyright licence, similar to that required when a communications department or agency distributes photocopies of articles to their managers or clients. But many in the PR and newspaper cuttings industries disagree, saying that as no actual copy is made when a link to a relevant web page is provided, no such licence is required.

Media monitoring company Meltwater is taking the NLA to the Copyright Tribunal about their links licence claim. Meanwhile the PRCA is busy trying to win influential support for their campaign against the NLA's new licence. They recently surveyed 151 MPs on the issue, and say that 65% supported their viewpoint.

Now PRCA chief Francis Ingham now plans to engage in some lobbying on this issue. He told PR Week: "We will now be rolling out the next stage of our campaign against the NLA's plans. It centres on good, old-fashioned political lobbying".

A new music recommendation service called mflow has announced a number of media partnerships ahead of its April launch.

mflow is a bit like a music-specific version of Twitter, users can recommend favourite tracks to their followers, who can then stream the recommended track in full once and, if they like it, buy the track, all via the one mflow widget. The recommender then gets 20% of the download fee as a credit to spend on other music recommended to them by the people s/he follows. The service has been in beta for a while, and will properly launch next month.

The media partnerships are with Bauer titles Q, Kerrang! and Mojo plus the NME and Clash, and will see the digital firm profiled across those partners' media. Each media will also start recommending top tunes via mflow. 

mflow marketing man Atan Burrows told Creative Business: "Reaching users through major music titles is a key part of our marketing strategy pre-launch. The titles we are partnering with are all trusted sources and play a vital role in the recommendation of new music. [And] all the titles we will be working with will also have their own profiles on mflow, which will allow them to recommend and share new music with their readers".

Lad mags like Zoo and Nuts should be stored with the porn on the top shelves of newsagents around the world, and should have movie style age ratings applied to them so no horny fifteen year olds can get their hands on them. Or at least that's what a Home Office commissioned report says. More or less.

The report says the weekly mags are basically "soft porn at pocket-money prices", and have a role to play in the sexualisation of boys and girls at an increasingly early age. Explicit video games, too-easy-to-access internet porn and the increased use of sexual imagery in advertising are all also blamed for that phenomenon.

The report's author, Dr Linda Papadopoulos from London Metropolitan University, said at a seminar previewing the report: "It is a drip, drip effect. Look at porn stars, and look how an average girl now looks. It's seeped into every day: fake breasts, fuck-me shoes ... we are hypersexualising girls, telling them that their desirability relies on being desired. They want to please at any cost. And we are masculinising boys - many feel they can't live up to the porn ideal, sleeping with lots of women".

The report makes 36 recommendations about how to combat this here sexualisation of young people, including the aforementioned age restrictions on the sale of magazines like Zoo and Nuts. I'm pretty sure some newsagent chains already operate such a system already, but this would force all magazine sellers to comply

If ministers give the recommendation any serious consideration it remains to be seen how the publishers of Zoo and Nuts respond. In the past they have argued they are no more explicit than The Star or Daily Sport and that any rules applied to them should be applied to the red tops too.

The Daily Telegraph has the most nominations for this year's British Press Awards, which perhaps isn't surprising given its MP expenses scoop was surely the biggest event in the British newspaper industry in the last twelve months.

The broadsheet gets nineteen mentions on the newspaper industry's flagship awards shortlists, published this week. The Guardian actually has the same number of nominations, though two of its nominees also work on its sister title The Observer, confusing the overall nom count somewhat.

The newspaper industry's big night out is on 23 Mar in London.

British Press Awards nominations in full:

Reporter: News of the World - Mazher Mahmood, The Daily Telegraph - Robert Winnett, The Guardian - Paul Lewis, The Mail on Sunday - David Rose, The Mail on Sunday - Jason Lewis, The Times - Andrew Norfolk.

Foreign Reporter: The Daily Mail - Richard Pendlebury, The Guardian - Ghaith Abdul-Ahad, The Independent - Robert Fisk, The Sunday Times - Marie Colvin, The Sunday Times - Dan McDougall, The Times - Martin Fletcher.

Showbiz Reporter: Daily Mirror - Tom Bryant, Daily Mirror - Fiona Cummins, Daily Mirror - Sarah Tetteh, Daily Mirror - Clemmie Moodie, News of the World - Dan Wootton, Sunday Mirror - Dean Piper, The People - Katie Hind, The Sun - Gordon Smart, The Sun - Colin Robertson.

Business & Finance Journalist: The Daily Mail - Alex Brummer, The Daily Telegraph - Jeremy Warner, The Guardian and The Observer - Jill Treanor, The Independent - Hamish McRae, The Observer - Larry Elliott, The Sunday Times - Iain Dey.

Political Journalist: The Daily Telegraph - Benedict Brogan, The Daily Telegraph - Robert Winnett, The Financial Times - George Parker, The Guardian - Patrick Wintour, The Observer - Andrew Rawnsley, The Sunday Telegraph - Matthew D'Ancona, The Times - Daniel Finkelstein.

Sports Journalist: The Daily Mail - Martin Samuel, The Daily Telegraph - Ian Chadband, The Guardian - David Conn, The Guardian - Donald McRae, The Mail on Sunday - Rob Draper, The Mail on Sunday - Patrick Collins, The Sunday Times - Paul Kimmage, The Times - Matthew Syed, The Times - Mike Atherton.

Specialist Journalist: Financial Times - Martin Wolf, The Daily Mail - Michael Hanlon, The Daily Telegraph - David Millward, The Guardian and The Observer - John Vidal, The Independent - Terri Judd, The Mail on Sunday - Jason Lewis.

--

Feature Writer: The Daily Mail - Richard Pendlebury, The Daily Telegraph - Mick Brown, The Guardian - Tanya Gold, The Independent - Johann Hari, The Sunday Times - John Arlidge, The Sunday Times - AA Gill.

Columnist: Daily Mirror - Brian Reade, Financial Times - Martin Wolf, The Guardian - Tanya Gold,
The Guardian - Marina Hyde, The Guardian - Charlie Brooker, The Independent - Ian Birrell, The Sun - Kelvin MacKenzie, The Times - Caitlin Moran.

Critic: The Daily Mail - Quentin Letts, The Daily Telegraph - Charles Spencer, The Evening Standard - Brian Sewell, The Mail on Sunday - Craig Brown, The Sunday Times - AA Gill, The Sunday Times - Waldemar Januszczak.

Interviewer: The Daily Telegraph - Elizabeth Grice, The Daily Telegraph - Mick Brown, The Observer - Carole Cadwalladr, The Sunday Times - Ariel Leve, The Sunday Times - Camilla Long, The Times - Ginny Dougary.

--

Young Journalist: The Daily Mirror - Andrew Gregory, The Daily Telegraph - Holly Watt, The Daily Telegraph - Jon Swaine, The Financial Times - Tom Burgis, The News of The World - Guy Basnett, The Observer - Tom Lamont, The Sunday Times - Miles Amoore, The Times - Sheera Frankel.

International Journalist: Abdel Kareem Nabil Suleiman - Egypt, Ahmad Zeydabadi - Iran, Asos Hardi - Iraq, Dawit Isaac - Eritrea, Dhondup Wangchen - China, Eynulla Fatullayev - Azerbaijan, Gustavo Azócar - Venezuela, Hanevy Ould Dehah - Mauritania, Hla Hla Win - Burma, Ismail Cihan Hayirsevener - Turkey, J. S. Tissainayagam - Sri Lanka, Kim Seong-Min - North Korea, Mashallah Shamsolvaezin - Iran, Maziar Bahari - Iran, Olga Kotovskaya - Russia, Ricardo González Alfonso - Cuba.

--

Photographer: Getty Images - Peter Macdiarmid, Press Association Images - Lewis Whyld, Press Association Images - Owen Humphreys, Press Association Images - Stefan Rousseau, The Daily Mail - Jamie Wiseman, The Times - Peter Nicholls.

Sports Photographer: Freelance - Bradley Ormesher, Press Association Images - Owen Humphreys, Reuters - Eddie Keogh, The Daily Mail - Andy Hooper, The Guardian - Tom Jenkins, The Sun - Richard Pelham.

Cartoon: The Daily Mail - Stanley McMurtry, The Daily Telegraph - Nick Garland, The Daily Telegraph - Matt Pritchett, The Independent - Dave Brown, The Mail on Sunday - Michael Heath, The Observer - Chris Riddell, The Times - Peter Brookes.

--

Scoop: The Mail on Sunday - Jason Lewis for "Mi6 chief blows his cover on Facebook"; The Sunday Express - Marco Giannangeli and Jason Groves for "Jacqui Smith put adult film on expenses"; The Daily Mail - Dan Newling for "Cabinet minister's cleaner is alleged illegal immigrant"; The Guardian - For revelations about the death of Ian Tomlinson; The Sunday Times - Claire Newell and Jonathan Calvert for "Cash for Amendments"; The Daily Telegraph - MPs' Expenses.

Campaign: Daily Mirror - Fair Tips Campaign, The Guardian - The Tax Gap Series, The Sunday Telegraph - Robert Mendick, The Guardian - Climate Change Campaign, The Sunday Times Insight - Lords Investigation, The Daily Telegraph - MPs' Expenses.

Cudlipp Award - for outstanding tabloid journalism: The Daily Mail - Richard Pendlebury and Jamie Wiseman: Afghanistan boy soldiers; The Daily Mirror - Andrew Penman and Nick Sommerlad Investigate; The Daily Mirror - Hillsborough: Justice for 96; The Independent - Baltimore Crime Exchange; The Sun - Sunemployment; The Sunday Mirror - Christmas salute to war heroes.

Digital Innovation: Telegraph.co.uk - 2009 Flower Show; The Guardian G20 Coverage; The Guardian on the iPhone; The Sun - SunTalk; The Times - Times Labs; The Wall Street Journal - Berlin Wall Interactive.

--

Regular Supplement: The Daily Telegraph - Telegraph Magazine, The Guardian - Guardian Weekend Magazine, The Mail on Sunday - Live Magazine, The Mail on Sunday - You Magazine, The Sunday Times - Culture, The Times - Eureka.

Special Supplement: Daily Mirror - Hillsborough Campaign, Evening Standard Ltd - The 1000, Financial Times - The Future of Capitalism, The Daily Telegraph - The Complete Expenses Files, The Guardian - 100 Years of Great Press Photographs, The Sunday Times - Climate Change