What the media commentators are saying.

In the Independent,Stephen Glover questions the BBC's decision to axe What the papers say.For him it is a

clear an indication as you could have that the Corporation is losing sight of its public service remit

and questions why

it has dumped the programme we can only guess. It certainly wasn't because of low ratings. Despite being buried in a dead slot, What the Papers Say usually attracted around a million viewers, about the same as Newsnight, and more than virtually any programme shown on BBC3 or BBC4

Peter Wilby in the Guardian looks at how the media reports on health stories.

newspapers believe health coverage attracts readers

he says adding

At some level, newspaper reports must influence eating, drinking and buying habits, and affect the wellbeing of readers and their families. Yet the press, sceptical about anything politicians say or do, becomes credulous when faced with medicine.

In the same paper Jeff Jarvis takes a look at the social networking site Facebook saying that it

is standing at a critical juncture. If it turns one way, it could reach its grandest ambition - to be the Google of people. If it turns the other way, it risks becoming the next AOL or Yahoo - the next has-been.

Social networking sites are looked at in the Indy as well which asks

Are ads on children's social networking sites harmless child's play or virtual insanity?blockquote> reporting that

with more than 100 youth-focused virtual worlds now either up and running or about to launch – over half of which are aimed at under-sevens, according to one estimate – regulators and parents are struggling to keep up.

Finally staying with the children's market,Alice Wignall asks in the Guardian

The tweenage mag market is growing ever stronger on a diet of princesses, ponies, pals and puzzles. But how long will parents continue to fund the pre-teen boom?