This Week In Old Media Vs. New Media . . .

So TMZ, a gossip Web site wholly owned by Time Warner is "new media" how? Because it's a Web site? Then who isn't "new media" at this point? NYT broke its Spitzer story online, etc. WSJ did same with Jobs liver transplant, etc. Everybody does, right?
And the gossip part isn't new: See Donna Rice, etc.

Peter:
TMZ is new media because it’s an online news organization that grew up entirely without an old-media framework: no newspaper, radio or TV was initially attached. (The syndicated show came later, and is not the main focus.)
I don't think Engadget is old media just because they’re owned by AOL. Do you?
Jon

maybe you could explore why CNN ( a Time Warner owned company) refused to use the information posted by its fellow corporate citizen, preferring all day to quote The LA Times web site.
Was CNN saying that it didn't trust its' own partner. Meanwhile, MSNBC quoted TMZ liberally. just wierd.

Like a lot of people I don't visit TMZ on the matter of principle, due to their criminal harassment of celebrities. Perhaps CNN staffers feel the same way?

That's JUST what I'd expect a member of the old media to say ... on his blog.

Touche. But TMZ still feels very much old media to me, where as Engadget and its ilk are a radical break in form from their predecessors. Still, tomato tomatoe.

"Charging for Content ..." in BW ignores the fact that sites with unique valuable (to readers) content are already successful selling it - eg Investors Bus Daily and Financial Times. Too many newspapers though are just distribution outlets for AP and Reuters content. It's their distribution function that's been superseded by the Internet. Those with real (unique, valuable) content will be winners.