I read a lot, but I have little interest in reading the new york times or the wall street journal - because they mean nothing to me. I was never exposed to them being some type of authority, and the few articles I've read on their site did not in any way impress me as being way above the caliber of any other article on any other site. The biggest papers may succeed based of their current name recognition, but this is going to disappear soon.

What's real journalism? Opinion pieces? I think Michael Arrington knows a lot more than most tech NY Times writers. Interviews? The info comes from the interviewer. Sending reporters to the Congo to cover some local conflict? Well, the Congo has local newspapers, and they are covering the conflict there extremely well. And their coverage is also available online to be mixed and matched.

"Real Journalism" cannot be supported by ads - this does not mean that the alternative is a pay system, it means that "Real Journalism" will die. The information monopoly is dead, and that's a good thing.

A newspaper is a combination of opinion pieces, current affairs and analysis. Opinion pieces can be purchased from freelance experts, current affairs can be mashed together from more local and accurate news, and analysis can be done by people who actually understand the topic.

Sure, you don't want your favorite newspaper to die, but there were people who wanted carriages to last forever. You're one of the technologists, accept the new reality.

If New York Times journalism doesn't impress you then you don't read enough of it, or don't read enough periodicals in general. I won't argue that they're the best source of tech news specifically, but they're probably the best of the general media. Their business, politics, science, health, arts, and other sections have a level of depth, understanding, and quality writing that TechCrunch or any big blog never even comes close to. TechCrunch writers might have a lot of breaking info on the startup world, but most of the opinion pieces there are poorly contrived, and the writing is barely above middle-school level.

If you think that the new reality is blogs replacing quality journalism, and that doesn't scare you, then you're either selling quality journalism short or you just don't know what it is. Enough people always will that it will have a market.

"It won't work for local papers, of course, they're just doomed. But those are irrelevant anyway. They're merely a bunch of AP/Reuters stories with a little poorly written sports commentary and a police scanner tied in."

I realized this when the New York Times had better analysis pieces about cultural happenings in my city (Pittsburgh), than I've read in the local on-line paper. Their best sports writer just retired, too.