As we debate the future of news, we need to keep in mind what this debate is really about. We need to ask ourselves, “What is it we’re trying to save, protect or foster?” Or asked another way, “Journalism for what?” Identifying what we mean by journalism and why we care about its future is central to figuring out what solutions might get us there.

The most common response to these questions is that journalism is fundamental for our democracy. It's hard to argue with that, but how does it help guide us toward a new vision for news?

I have spent a good deal of time recently looking at two new trends in journalism - the tendency toward journalism collaborations, and the increased emphasis on community engagement. Obviously, neither of these ideas is "new" in the sense that they’ve never been tried, but the rate at which they are being adopted is a clear sign of some fundamental shifts in the way reporting is done.

Recently, however, a few bits of information came my way and reminded me that everything old is new again.

Over the weekend the journalism tweetosphere and blogs were abuzz with rumors of a government plot to freeze journalism in time by propping up a range of failing business models at the expense of new innovation in news. The document that set off this flurry of digital doomsday warnings was a “Discussion Draft” of possible policy changes released by the Federal Trade Commission team working on their future of journalism initiative and the announcement of a June 15th roundtable discussion where the draft will be debated.

For the past year the FTC has been examining how laws related to copyright, antitrust, advertising, and tax status could be changed to ensure that our communities have access to the news and information they need. Along the way it has sought public input and has heard from thousands of people (Free Press members submitted over 2,000 comments last fall). Now it is preparing its report and seeking feedback on its draft.

We talk a lot about the digital divide, the lack of local news coverage in communities across the country, and how this absence of information affects civic participation, quality of life and ultimately our democracy. We are facing a growing information divide that is leaving more and more people with less and less access to the basic information that helps them make choices about their jobs, families and communities. We have to have a national approach to the challenge of meeting these information needs.

But first we have to answer a few core questions: How do we define the information needs of communities, and how do we measure them? What metrics should we use and what tools do we need? Are communities receiving quality news and information? A panel at the Free Press Summit delved into these questions because understanding our communities information needs is essential in shaping the policies and solutions we fight for in our quest for a better media system.