News last week that Google and Verizon had reached consensus on a "legislative framework" for Net Neutrality was met with near universal disdain.

Sen. Al Franken just joined the bill for tomorrow’s public hearing on the future of the Internet in Minneapolis. Will you be there to express your support for Net Neutrality and free speech online?

And not only Sen. Franken -- Federal Communications Commissioners Mignon Clyburn and Michael Copps will be at the hearing to listen to you, too.

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?

A familiar foe is once again threatening the future of many U.S. magazines and newspapers — and it’s not the Internet. The U.S. Postal Service’s recent proposal to hike postal rates has print publications even more worried about their future.

The USPS is asking the Postal Regulatory Commission to approve emergency rate increases in order to help offset a $7 billion deficit this fiscal year, which ends in September. But the rate increases, which would be the third price hike to hit periodicals since 2007, may put dozens of already struggling independent and alternative print publications — like In These Times — in jeopardy. They would balloon publications’ postage costs at a time when raising subscription prices and expanding ad revenue is basically out of the question.