This afternoon, news rooms worldwide were on hold as they waited to see which way the Italian court’s would swing on Amanda Knox’s appeal. In hopes of being first, or at least quick, many newsroom probably had two stories, near-ready for publishing: one assuming she was found guilty once more, the other reporting that she has been set free. When she was acquitted, most outlets got the story up quickly and correctly. One, however, got things wrong. Perhaps hoping to get the jump on the story, the Daily Mail hit go on the wrong one, proclaiming the exact opposite of how things actually went: “Guilty: Amanda Knox looks stunned as appeal against murder conviction is rejected.”

It has finally happened. After twelve months (or more) of rumors and speculation the New York Times has announced that it will start charging for content in 2011. Here’s the money quote from the press release.

The end is nigh! Again. But will it be the end of free content across the board, or will it be the end of the NYT dominance on the web? We shall see. Over the weekend it was once again reported the NYT may be charging soon. Here’s a look at the reactions.

If the media were a politician who had to answer the question every incumbent party dreads “are you better off now than you were eight years ago?” it would be in for a sweeping defeat. And in fact, the media, or the media as we knew it at the beginning of this decade has suffered a sweeping defeat — will we even have newspapers in ten years? Doubtful.

Today is the ‘State of The Times‘ meeting, the annual New York Times get-together. Hot topic this year is paid content. However despite all the recent noises the paper has been making about paid content, managing editor Bill Keller is clearly a man hoping to put off the unsavory for as long as possible.

Oh the irony. Reports surfaced yesterday that two stalwarts of show business Variety and The Hollywood Reporter are changing their business models in a fight for survival. This was exclusively reported by Nikki Finke, the premier showbiz blogger who many see as the prime reason for the trades’ decline in both relevance and viability.

Rupert Murdoch stated that the Wall Street Journal will begin to charge users to access the WSJ iPhone and BlackBerry content apps ($2/month for non-subscribers, $1 for subscribers.) He also told Goldman Sachs Communicopia attendees that the News Corp., NBCU, Walt Disney joint venture Hulu was looking into charging subscriptions to view TV content online.

Bill O’Reilly’s rise to cable news superiority has been well documented. And in the context of the increased influence and popularity of his Fox News co-hort Glenn Beck, O’Reilly’s claim of being non-partisan now seems less specious. But where is O’Reilly also dominating? In the pay-for-content game that nearly all newspapers have been wrestling with in the last few years. What is he doing so right?

It appears that the scarcity of information about the Alabama Crimson Tide is far more valuable than pedestrian local news, at least in the eyes of one local paper. Editor & Publisher reports that The Tuscaloosa News announced the creation of a new site devoted to University of Alabama athletics, TidesSportsExtra.com. The daily paper will charge $10 per month or $59.95 per year for access to the site, and will be separate from the paper’s main Web page, which remains free.