"New Media" can be just as short-sighted as "Old Media"

Now comes a report in the Silicon Valley Insider of gloating by the founder of gawker.com about how much better his sites are doing hitwise than the Los Angeles Times. Undeniably true (at least according to published figures), but they are apples and oranges. Maxim outsells Time, the National Inquirer outsells the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel. So what? I spend more money on a bagel in the morning than I do on my morning newspapers. Once again, the question's going to be: where would the compilers (or those who comment on the news, like on sites like gawker.com) get their material if there were no news-gathering operations left?

Frankly new media denigrating the product of old media is just as short-sighted as those in old media turning up their noses at new ways of publishing. There are two constants across all mass media: 1) It's all publishing, no matter the platform. 2) Content is what's important.