Comments on the Sanef media audit: a new news culture is facing the media and journalism educators: the time to act is now!

This omnibus article deals with some of the comments received by the authors of the Sanef media audit (see p. 11) of the edition of Ecquid Novi). As Mark Deuze, one of the commentators puts it: The threats and challenges to contemporary journalism have caused scholars, publics, journalists, and thus journalism educators, to reconsider their approaches, definitions, roles, and function in community and society. Widely recognized as the four main changes or challenges facing education programmes in journalism are: the multicultural society; the rise and establishment of infotainment genres; the convergence of existing and new media technologies (cf. multimedia); and the internationalization or ‘glocalization’ of the media and journalism playing field. The four mentioned challenges and developments could be seen as reflected in the 2002 Sanef audit. The report particularly stresses the ‘new culture’ within which journalists are expected to do their work. This is a culture determined by fragmented audiences; a widening gap between journalists and their publics; and an increased need for quality information. It is also a culture of enhanced interactivity and media accountability; intercultural communication; recognition of cultural diversity; and dealing with ‘nonhierarchical’ management styles. Journalism education, in other words, is gearing up to face a tough challenge: keeping the best practices of the teaching context and practical skills courses on the one hand, and including cultural and critical reflective didactics on the other. This is not the traditional theory versus skills debate of old—this is definitely something ‘new’—as is clearly shown in the Sanef audit. In this respect the Sanef audit stands out for its discourse of emphasizing changes in journalism and news culture, rather than simply advocating more or less theory- or skills-based curricula

Vorapaxar in the secondary prevention of atherothrombotic events

Item does not contain fulltextBACKGROUND: Thrombin potently activates platelets through the protease-activated receptor PAR-1. Vorapaxar is a novel antiplatelet agent that selectively inhibits the cellular actions of thrombin through antagonism of PAR-1. METHODS: We randomly assigned 26,449 patients who had a history of myocardial infarction, ischemic stroke, or peripheral arterial disease to receive vorapaxar (2.5 mg daily) or matching placebo and followed them for a median of 30 months. The primary efficacy end point was the composite of death from cardiovascular causes, myocardial infarction, or stroke. After 2 years, the data and safety monitoring board recommended discontinuation of the study treatment in patients with a history of stroke owing to the risk of intracranial hemorrhage. RESULTS: At 3 years, the primary end point had occurred in 1028 patients (9.3%) in the vorapaxar group and in 1176 patients (10.5%) in the placebo group (hazard ratio for the vorapaxar group, 0.87; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.80 to 0.94; P<0.001). Cardiovascular death, myocardial infarction, stroke, or recurrent ischemia leading to revascularization occurred in 1259 patients (11.2%) in the vorapaxar group and 1417 patients (12.4%) in the placebo group (hazard ratio, 0.88; 95% CI, 0.82 to 0.95; P=0.001). Moderate or severe bleeding occurred in 4.2% of patients who received vorapaxar and 2.5% of those who received placebo (hazard ratio, 1.66; 95% CI, 1.43 to 1.93; P<0.001). There was an increase in the rate of intracranial hemorrhage in the vorapaxar group (1.0%, vs. 0.5% in the placebo group; P<0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Inhibition of PAR-1 with vorapaxar reduced the risk of cardiovascular death or ischemic events in patients with stable atherosclerosis who were receiving standard therapy. However, it increased the risk of moderate or severe bleeding, including intracranial hemorrhage. (Funded by Merck; TRA 2P-TIMI 50 ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT00526474.)