Signs of decay for old media
The irony of a post-bust economy is that the wild-eyed predictions made during the previous boom actually come true.
The 1920s did eventually lead to broad ownership of equities.
The 1960s scientific revolutions in agriculture, medicine, synthetics, and,yes, "plastics", did lead to "better living through chemicals".
So now we have at hand the 90s boom, or the echo of the 90s boom anyway, in which new media trumps old.
When the head of the Washington Post's political reporting group feels compelled to deny that:
"Mr. Drudge does not have better sources than most reporters."
You know that a) it's not true and b) the establishment are in trouble.
Jeff Jarvis predicts the death of broadcast following the clipping of Howard Stern's wings, and I think that's about right.
Newspapers are increasingly failing to serve their business or editorial consituencies. I have certainly seen that in the classifieds segment where I toil; and in the information market where I consume. Can anybody argue that the NYTimes' homepage seems fresh and relevant to the times?
Old media crumbles and the new medium springs forth. Funny to see 1997 vindicated and 2002 proven wrong so quickly.
