As a further sign of the times in the challenging world of print media, the 100-year-old Christian Science Monitor will cease printing in April 2009 and thereafter be available only over the Internet, the first major U.S. periodical to take this step.

In announcing the action, editor John Yemma said having a daily print edition had become “too costly and energy-intensive.” Online journalism, he said, “is more timely and is rapidly expanding its reach, especially among younger readers.” Yemma added that CSM’s bold step “is likely to be watched by others in the news industry as they contemplate similar moves.”

The Chicago Tribune’s Phil Rosenthal describes an “end-of-the-world-as-we-know-it vibe” among those in the news business these days, and says CSM’s decision is “intriguing.”

“It’s also a test case to be watched intently by anyone who enjoys flipping pages, or at least need something for the bottom of their pet’s cage,” he writes.

When asked about whether a New York Times print edition could disappear, publisher Arthur Sulzberger Jr. said a week before CSM’s announcement that “The heart of the answer must be we can’t care.”

Fewer and fewer readers are getting newspapers on their doorsteps or from newsstands, and nostalgia cannot compete with economic reality. “I care very much,” Sulzberger said. “But we must be where people want us for our information. It’s the thought of cannibalizing yourself before somebody else cannibalizes you.”

The importance of good media relations has long been understood by politicians, corporate leaders and philanthropists, but it seems pirates, even from an impoverished country like Somalia, are becoming media-savvy in the 21^st century, with prepared talking points and authorized spokesmen (spokespirates?).

After the Ukrainian vessel Faina and its crew were hijacked in Somali waters on September 25, the New York Times’ Nairobi-based reporter Jeffrey Gettleman obtained the pirates’ satellite telephone number from a high-level Kenyan contact involved with efforts to bring the incident to a peaceful end.

Gettleman recalled, “It was probably my 50th call. The line had always been busy. Or the phone had been shut off.  But on Tuesday [September 30] morning, someone actually picked up.”  The reporter asked, “Can I speak to the pirate spokesman, please?”

He was actually able to talk to several pirates but was told “in no uncertain terms” that Sugule Ali “was the only pirate allowed to be quoted. Or else.”

For everything Gettleman asked, Sugule seemed to have a ready answer, comparing his band of pirates to a sort of Somali “coast guard,” whose goal is simply $20 million in cash which they claim would be used to buy themselves food.  “[W]e have a lot of men and it will be divided amongst all of us,” Sugule said.

Piracy has been a growing problem off the Somali coast for years, with nearly 30 hijackings in 2008.  But the Faina incident has heightened international attention and prompted the intervention of both the U.S. and Russian navies because the vessel is loaded with armaments, including tanks and grenade launchers.  Sugule was able to turn the cargo into a talking point by claiming the hijacking aimed to inhibit arms trafficking and prevent the weapons from reaching war-torn Somalia.  (See transcript.)

Mark Fitzgerald of Editor and Publisher said the notion that pirates now have public relations flacks who can set the rules over who can and can’t be quoted “deserves a place in the history of journalism.”

“And just what are the ethics of dealing with a pirate? … Aren’t the rules turned upside down?” he asked.   But Gettleman “played fair, and that’s probably all to the good for next journalists who have to deal with, you know, pirates.”

The situation certainly says something about the power of the press, but where do journalists draw the line between informing the public and providing a public platform for criminal activity?