While the premise of the article is reasonable, the evidence is flimsy. This seems like an example of NY Times defending their turf. We've seen numerous [1] examples [2] lately of legacy media companies trying to drive advertisers away from new media sites and Youtube by discrediting sites as "fake news" and by running hit pieces on popular Youtube personalities.
I mean, just look at the author's latest articles. 5 of the last 6 (including this one) disparage advertising on new channels! [3] Targets include Youtube, Snapchat, Breitbart, and Google (in general).
The legacy media is just not well suited for the current state of the world. Breaking news comes first through Twitter now. Investigative journalism doesn't require a big budget to make high quality content any more. As for political commentary, many people would rather listen to a well-educated everyman craft videos on Youtube than listen to the millionaire personalities on Fox News talk about how the Democratic party doesn't understand the proletariat.
I mean, just look at the author's latest articles. 5 of the last 6 (including this one) disparage advertising on new channels! [3] Targets include Youtube, Snapchat, Breitbart, and Google (in general).
The legacy media is just not well suited for the current state of the world. Breaking news comes first through Twitter now. Investigative journalism doesn't require a big budget to make high quality content any more. As for political commentary, many people would rather listen to a well-educated everyman craft videos on Youtube than listen to the millionaire personalities on Fox News talk about how the Democratic party doesn't understand the proletariat.
1. https://www.theguardian.com/culture/2017/feb/24/zoe-sugg-zoe...
2. https://www.wsj.com/articles/disney-severs-ties-with-youtube...
3. https://www.nytimes.com/by/sapna-maheshwari?action=click&con...