[Hardastarboard]

"As Walter Cronkite prospered in the old environment," says Starr, "Bill O'Reilly and Keith Olbermann thrive in the new one.

The author pines for a better, more romantic era in which journalists were more ethical, more concerned for the well being of their country, and less partisan. Of course, the above quote from the article quite tellingly reveals the fact that in the old media model, there was only the one view point, from the left, and no one disputed it. I'll take today's model over yesterday's, thank you very much.

The author also notes that most internet news is based on the borrowing of material from other sources, leaving the organization that incurred the cost to bear that burden with little to no associated revenue. I understand his point, but I would suggest that it's not my, nor his, issue if the news gatherers can't figure out a successful business model. Fresh information DOES have value. A well-designed business model will inevitably profit from that value.

What the author doesn't understand is that traditional news gathering organizations have two issues caused by their failure to adapt to a new paradigm. The first is bias, which has become screamingly apparent due to the diversity of views now available. The second is clinging to the old business model like a drowning man to a board. They will either adapt, or die. Given their inherent bias, and the incredible damage that it's done to America, I know which one I'm hoping for.

[abb]

Of course, the above quote from the article quite tellingly reveals the fact that in the old media model, there was only the one view point, from the left, and no one disputed it.

Have you ever wondered if "And that's the way it is..." wasn't?

[Phlyer]

I would suggest that it's not my, nor his, issue if the news gatherers can't figure out a successful business model. Fresh information DOES have value.

Exactly!! The issue about why anyone would pay for something that others are giving away free is a smokescreen for the larger issue of why others can give their service away for free. And the reason is that they have lost the confidence of the great middle of the country. If they were reasonably 'fair and balanced' in providing fresh information, people would be willing to pay. But why should we pay for someone else to express their opinion? We can do that ourselves . . . for free.