That depends on what you mean by “scoop.”

At 14:28 local time on May 12 the Sichuan, China, earthquake, with a magnitude of 7.8, was felt in Beijing, some 1,500 kilometers from the epicenter. The first report on the Twitter micro-blogging service (https://twitter.com/) came at 14:35:33, according to an analysis by Martyn Williams of the IDG News Service. A user, probably on a cell phone and limited to 140 characters, typed out the message “earthquake. not sure how big. maybe 4.5.” The message went out immediately to Twitter subscribers.

Twenty-three seconds later, at 14:35:55, Bloomberg News ran a bulletin “Earthquake Shakes Beijing Office,” and followed 22 seconds later with “Earthquake Felt In Central Beijing.” The Dow Jones Newswire ran with “Earthquake Rocks Beijing; Still Underway” at 14:36 and Reuters reported “Beijing Shaken By Earthquake, Office Buildings Sway,” at 14:37, Williams reports. At 14:39, Reuters announced “Earthquake Magnitude 7.8 Hits Eastern Sichuan Province” with information it obtained from the U.S. Geological Service, which measures seismic activity worldwide.

Twitter had beaten the newswires with the fact of the quake, but offered no substantive information. It wasn’t until 14:41 that Twitter subscribers got news on the magnitude and location of the quake.

Proponents of “infotainment” might want to start giving television news audiences a little less fluff and a little more credit for thinking.

A media watcher from Irvine, California, has been comparing English- and Spanish-language evening television news broadcasts in the Los Angeles area and found that not only are Spanish programs more popular, but they also are much more informative.

Joe Mathews, a senior fellow at the New America Foundation, found that on a typical half-hour evening broadcast, the three English channels might lead with news such as weather or a brief roundup of local events, but then switch to what he called “trivia,” such as stories about celebrities, fashion, entertainment and other “soft features.” The two Spanish channels provided fewer short features, but offered more in-depth reports on news topics, providing context and a wide perspective.

It’s rare that a court’s verdict pleases both sides.

A lawsuit aimed at ending Indonesia’s Film Censorship Board was defeated April 30. But the filmmakers who opposed the suit could still celebrate because the court ruled a new assessment system is “needed urgently” to encourage more creativity in the country’s cinema, according to Agence France Presse (AFP).

The censorship board, as Indonesia’s editorial authority, cuts scenes it finds violent or overly sexual from movies and television shows. AFP said board supporters saw the ruling as a victory for Islamic religious values.

A close reading of the ruling doesn’t quite match up with that interpretation. The court found the law authorizing the censorship board is “not in line with modern times” but said it cannot do away with the board until a new system of assessing films is in place.

Opponents of the board argued it should be replaced with another film board that would use a standard rating system and let people decide for themselves whether to see a film.

The United States went through its own film censorship code throughout the “Golden Age of Hollywood” in the 1940s and 1950s until the influx of foreign films which were exempt watered down the provisions and it was scrapped in 1968 for the current ratings system.

Indonesian filmmaker Rivai Riza told AFP the court’s ruling gave hope to Indonesia’s film industry. He pointed to a dissenting judge’s opinion that censorship violates Indonesian constitutional rights of communicating and acquiring information.

“The decision was clear that our request was rejected but we are happy that there is at least a rational dissenting opinion. This means that the democratic process worked,” he said.

Does your country use a censorship board or ratings system to alert viewers to potentially offensive material? How’s that working for you?