Comparing Articles: "Publisher Lays Out Plans to Save Newspapers" and "End of Journalism as We Know It"

In comparing and contrasting the framing of these two articles, it is clear that they both have two different  ideas of what the end of journalism means for publishers, journalists, and readers.  The first article, Publisher Lays Out Plan to Save Newspapers, written by Eric Pfanner, was published in the New York Times.  The second article, End of Journalism as We Know It, written by Kevin Marsh, was published in a UK blog titled The Guardian.
       The first article, written by Pfanner, is centered around Axel Springer, the founder of the German newspaper publishing business named after Springer himself. Written in a rather formal way, Pfanner explains that in this day and age, many people assume that online news should be free.  Springer says that he wants publishers to get paid for their work on the Internet.  Christoph Keese, Springer's head of public affairs, is quoted in the article by taking a jab at what he seems to be reffering to as the lack of quality in journalism today.  "A highly industrialized world cannot survive on rumors.  It needs quality journalism, and that costs money."
      Pfanner continues to frame the article around other people who believe that a change must take place for valued journalism to survive.  Pfanner uses strong words when talking about Rupert Murdoch, the chief executive of News Corp.  "Rupert Murdoch...has been telling any one that will listen...." Those remarks suggest Pfanner does not care for Pfanner or has a strong opinion of him that may not be positive.  Later in the article Pfanner talks about Springers plans with Google and within the same sentence angles Murdoch in a bad light once again.  Pfanner writes, "...with Google, a company that Mr. Murdoch has accused of 'theft'." 

      The ongoing theme in this article is the idea that journalists should be rewarded for the work they are doing.  Pfanner writes that Springer and other people in his position agree that something must be done and a change must be made so that quality journalism can continue to be written.  The bottom line is that people should pay to read the news online
      The second article that was published in The Guardian, also talks about the change that is happening to journalism.  Marsh uses words such as "grim," to describe the collapsing world of journalism.  Yet he takes both the journalists stance and the stance of an average citizen by saying, "But, as citizens, we sometimes seem to like the idea that journalism is in trouble.  We are liberated from the dictates of a trade..."  The quote goes on, but clearly Marsh sees both sides of the story.  Marsh also mentions the public sphere wondering whether the "disaggregated web will support our acts of citizenship better?"  The article goes on to use the words "Powerful illustration" when Marsh talks about legislators and journalists in regard to their reactions about "self-published citizens."  The ongoing theme in this article was about the differences and struggles between "real" journalists and that growing population of "self-published citizens."  Where do these self-published citizens fit in on the web?  That is the question that Marsh tries to answer.