Vanity Fair, which added 44.09 ad pages in its March issue (up from 2011), led the pack of hefty spring editions, the only general interest/celeb pub among four fashion magazines with the largest ad page gains: in descending order, Marie Claire (which added almost a third more pages from last year's March edition); W (its spring fashion issue);  InStyle; and Harper's Bazaar.

Though other reports put celeb mags on a downward trend, Vanity Fair's winning March issue was the one focused on Hollywood stars. Seems  the difference here is VF's more upscale feel than the typical celeb gossip pub. In fact, VF's VP/Publisher Edward Meniches "credits the increase 'to significant [growth] in all luxury sectors of the business,'" writes Greer Jonas.

Did Comcast's announcement yesterday of four new independent channels headed by the likes of Sean "Diddy" Combs and “Desperado” director Robert Rodrigue, signal "a true commitment" to more diversity in programming?

Brent Lang analyzes this question, garnering mixed responses from various sources -- and noting that "in order  to land NBCUniversal, the cable giant was required to commit to minority targeted programming."

Conde Nast, among the first publishers to move its mags onto the iPad, is rethinking its tablet strategy in the wake of so many different new devices and formats.

The company's goal, Content Innovation VP Scott Dadich told a briefing with London ad buyers,  is "to have ultimate flexibility [so] we’re able to take a piece of content and put it on 15 different screens and still have a very consistent look and feel. Print considerations are really being heavily influenced by design conventions in tablet.”

Is it ethical to summarize and repackage a story online? How can  traditional print newspapers maximize their digital strategy?  These were some of the issues raised by the post "How Forbes Stole A New York Times Article And Got All The Traffic," which Jim Romenesko revisits here.

Romensko gets telling quotes from the three people involved in the controversy.  "I took a great piece by an excellent reporter and created a version of it that was better for an online audience," says Forbes reporter Kashmir Hill."This is a big part of what I do as a 'new journalist.'"

"Remixing content is an important part of creating content on the web. It also happens to perform incredibly well," says blogger Nick O'Neill, who wrote the original post criticizing Hill. "However there is an important question that’s raised: when someone else spends a significant amount of time to research and develop something... [aren't they the one who] deserves the majority of the recognition?"

And Charles Duhigg, who wrote the original Times piece, is gracious toward Hill -- but also notes "every hour spent summarizing is an hour not spent reporting. And at the end of the day, this job is only really fun if you discover what no one else already knows."

Fascinating take on the subject -- even the post commenters add something to the discussion.