[mattlanger]

I'm all for expecting due diligence from traditional media, but saying they're dying because Michael Arrington provided more exhaustive details for his very particular and specialized audience while the Times ran a puff piece for a much more generalized audience seems a little petty on Fake Steve's part.

Seriously. This is the same newspaper that helped legitimize a war by running Judith Miller bylines above the fold.

Mountains. Molehills.

[nl]

You're missing the point of what Fake Steve is saying. Puff pieces don't work as often anymore because they rely on people not having good access to better (non-puff) reporting.

If someone cares enough about something to read a puff-piece then they probably are going to care enough to read properly informative stories.

Increasingly, in all field (from celebrity gossip to finance to politics) you can get expert reporting from people who write well and know what they are talking about - and they provide real insights, not puff.

Forest. Trees.

[mattlanger]

I don't see these two roles being mutually exclusive, nor do I see your statement to be a given ("if someone cares enough...").

The experience of sitting down with a Sunday paper is very different from that of reading a specialized outlet with a specifically targeted audience. The Sunday paper is a curated aggregator. Nine in ten stories (and probably much more than that) relate to subjects I don't have very specific knowledge of, and I'd be lost if I tried to keep up with reporting that expected significant topical familiarity.