This does not come across as very well-informed. You are replying to someone who is talking about the NYT, which, whatever its limitations, is probably the bes

This does not come across as very well-informed. You are replying to someone who is talking about the NYT, which, whatever its limitations, is probably the best daily source of the thing we call "news" in the U.S. You say that there is little unique content out there -- but this a false statement if we're talking about the WSJ and NYT. If you are talking about the web as a whole, then you've changed the subject, and you're talking about an unbounded thing. Saying the NYT is irrelevant is also completely false. Endangered? Fearful? Sure. A mouthpiece for the establishment? Often. Caught in their own thought-bubble? Sometimes. But not irrelevant. Information and quality analysis have value - this is obvious. Coming around the other way and saying that because publishers are failing to extract the value, that therefore the news has no value, is a fallacy. Markets can fail to price correctly for many reasons. * Clay Shirky's original 2009 essay on "Thinking the unthinkable" (http://www.shirky.com/weblog/2009/03/newspapers-and-thinking-the-unthinkable/ http://www.shirky.com/weblog/2009/03/newspapers-and-thinking...) was plenty frightening for publishers, and it did not need to exaggerate to make the point.