With all that said, he is mistaking the content of journalism for the means of delivery. Of course, 90% of what is on the Internet is dreck. The remaining 10% includes nuggets that the MSM totally missed, like the deserved downfall of Dan Rather.
The broader point is this. At the turn of the last century, every newspaper delivered its content on horse-drawn wagons. By 1920, all newspapers were using trucks, and anyone dumb enough to continue using horse-drawn wagons would soon be out of business.
Standard newspapers face a similar choice today. Those who persist in putting ink on paper will die. That includes the NY Times. Any newspaper that learns how to edit Internet content, publish on the Internet, and make money doing that, will become the leading newspaper in the United States, bar none.
This is a rather obvious point. Paul is missing it.
Congressman Billybob
Latest article, "Come Back to 1600, Johnny Dean, Johnny Dean"
The Declaration, the Constitution, parts of the Federalist, and America's Owner's Manual, here.
Ink-on-paper investigative reporting would always have its place, and the money would surely follow.
Who wouldn't want more scrutiny of a Governor McGreevey, bankers giving liars loans to "deserving" folks, or stellar Madoff fund returns IN ADVANCE of an implosion. Mr. Mulshine sprains his arm patting his "profession" on the back, arguing that the unwashed simply cannot be entrusted with so noble a task.
Whether in pixelated form or smudgy ink, stellar content counts.