I enjoyed your article and had a couple of thoughts.

I felt the heart of your position was found in the following: “What we fail to realize is that a revolution independent of media is still a revolution but a story without context, without critical thought and research into its legitimacy is just that, a story.” 

In turn, organizations like the NYT become the antithesis of “new media” organizations built on an architecture of reactionary journalism – reducing the likes of HuffPo to a sort of aggregator of non-intrinsically credible first hand reports & unqualified opinions based upon secondary analysis. This is not to denigrate the value of sites such as HuffPo, as they provide as much value as a Facebook News Feed or a Twitter Trending Topics update, in so far as all are – essentially – clearing houses for independent and unfiltered thoughts on the world as it happens.

Consequently, what this new media and traditional media have in common is the niche they play for the consumer: that of a first draft of history written in real time. Where the NYT (and publications like Foreign Affairs or The Economist) bear important & additional value is found in the supposition that the quality of their journalism will be second to none via a breadth/depth of institutional knowledge. That is to say, though they act as a filter between the news causing event and the media consumer, there is an implicit understanding that the relaying of information will be both factually sound yet reflective of experience in telling the story. This last expectation is not one which can be leveled against the likes of HuffPo.

The NYT becomes the standard bearer, then, not for print media, but rather authentic & earned credibility in writing said first draft of history. The mistake their publishers make is by choosing to fight the wrong battle: “old media versus new media” instead of the virtues of in-field experience that underlies their relaying of global events.

Great article on your part – really enjoyed it.

John

I don't like that you use that as a platform to make McGuinty has done to our province look like he's been honest and not one of the most two faced politicians we have seen in our government since Chretian days.

Using stats like amount of debt has to be given with context of what overall economic environment was during that period of time is sneaky.  Liberal/Conservative/NDP…doesn't matter…if the world goes into economic decline, Canada is not totally insular that it's an individuals fault.  When looking at economics in such a micro fashion you are never considering the macro.

Buygeneric meds…

Buydrugs without prescription…

Buynow…

Buywithout prescription…

Buynow it…

Buynow…