Yet, to some degree, the current fracas over this very issue at the Los Angeles Times reflects rapid changes in the newspaper business that are blurring traditional lines between news and advertising at most US news organisations.

The dizzying changes complicate a couple of key questions: What did the Los Angeles Times do that was so bad? And how does the Times' behavior differ from that of other major newspapers?

The controversy stems from the fact that the Times magazine devoted a full issue last month to the new Staples Center sports arena. Unbeknownst to the news staff at the time, the newspaper agreed to share the profits from the issue - which brought in more than $2 million in advertising revenue -with owners of the arena.

The apparent conflict was between the newspaper's interest in pleasing its partner in the project and its duty to provide objective coverage of the arena for readers who weren't aware of the link between the two organisations.

Because the news staff working on the issue didn't know of the link, they weren't aware that the paper had any business incentive to treat the arena kindly. Nevertheless, the mere appearance of such a conflict has set off a controversy so incendiary that even Otis Chandler, the paper's former publisher and a member of its founding family, called the Staples alliance "unbelievably stupid and unprofessional" in a letter to the newspaper's staff.

`The only value of any newspaper'
"Ultimately, the only value of any newspaper lies in its trustworthiness," said Dean Mills, who is dean of the Missouri School of Journalism at the University of Missouri. "If you can't trust the news content of a newspaper, then the paper literally has almost no value." That said, Mills acknowledged that the lines between business and editorial content, always blurry, have become fuzzier of late. Increased competition between news organisations, pressure on newspapers to serve their communities more directly, and the sudden importance of the Internet have all pushed the editorial and business sides of news organisations closer together.

"In most things in a free-market society, you have a tension between the noble mission and the crass mission, and the trick is to come down on the right place on that spectrum. It's not to fantasise that you can be absolutely pure in the noble mission," Mills said.

Readers across the country have long complained that their local press doesn't accurately reflect their lives. In response, newspapers have become more involved in their communities, in a phenomenon often called "public journalism."

The Baltimore Sun, which like the Los Angeles Times is owned by Times Mirror Co., contributes to the city's symphony orchestra, as well as a literacy program also sponsored by Bell Atlantic Corp. and Legg Mason Inc. It also sponsors the Orioles baseball team and the Ravens football team.

Marcia Goldman, director of communications for the Sun, said that news coverage is totally unaffected by the company's corporate relationships. "I do not believe there is any perception that there is a conflict of interest," she said.

Online Blurring Journalists' sensitivities about the crumbling walls between the news and business sides are especially heightened right now, because on the Internet, it sometimes isn't even clear what is news. "The business model for online journalism is not very settled, and everyone is sort of feeling their way. There are not that many tried and true measures and structures to fall back on," said John Pavlik, executive director of the Center for New Journalism at Columbia University. Electronic links between online news and sites in which products can be purchased are now commonplace. At newspapers with which Internet sites compete, news space is traditionally clearly labelled as such and separated from ads or sales materials.

"I'll tell you at Slate we are committed to holding the traditional line," said Michael Kinsley, editor of the online magazine owned by Microsoft Corp. and former editor of the New Republic magazine. "But we have compromised in a couple of things." He said that when links between Slate and Amazon.com or Barnes & Noble's Web site were first proposed, "I recoiled in horror. That's breaching the church-state lines."

But, he said, he changed his mind after Slate authors complained. "It does breach the line, but we now do that." The question of whether a news organisation has crossed the line of acceptability may come down to readers' expectations - and the extent to which business relationships have been disclosed. Internet entrepreneurs argue that their users understand and appreciate the convenience of links between content and commerce.

Many newspaper editors argue that their readers still expect to find their news unaffected by, and unconnected to, the paper's advertising. That's the view that underlies the intense negative reaction to the Staples alliance. But a survey conducted last year by the American Society of Newspaper Editors found that 50 per cent of readers believe that advertisers' interests do influence news decisions.