Seems like his story can be thought of as a data point for those who argue that info-grazing doesn't benefit the grazer as much as the grazer might like to thin

Seems like his story can be thought of as a data point for those who argue that info-grazing doesn't benefit the grazer as much as the grazer might like to think. Here is a fellow who oversaw MTV Online during the time it failed to capture the youth demographic online, and also he oversaw MySpace during its collapse. What exactly is the point of being well-informed if being well-informed doesn't give you the information you need to succeed? Consider: "Later, he was President of MySpace at a time when MySpace was still a big deal, though in rapid decline. Yet through all this, Jason always found time to send out a daily list of articles for people in the media and technology industries." and: "At Viacom, Jason rose through the ranks. By 2005, he was running digital media globally for MTV Networks." This next bit seems to suggest that he was unable to succeed due to political factors: "Since Jason was the “Internet Guy” at a non-Internet company, his opinion wasn’t always given due attention." He attempted to combat the political factors by sending out his newsletter. However, the article doesn't suggest any breakthroughs at Viacom that derived from the articles that he sent people. Some political situations are hopeless. Some can be fixed by building an internal coalition. Can some be fixed by sharing a bunch of articles from online? Are there success stories for this technique?