In an admitted moment of self-congratulatory indulgence I came across this interesting article in the Economist which supports what I was talking about a few weeks back in more philosophical terms. It makes an interesting point about Twitter sort of shooting itself in the foot  in terms of being taken as a viable information resource. It also clearly demonstrates how traditional media (in this case CNN) may not be nimble enough or have their pulse 100% on what the viewership is interested in. (Hint, hint, troll Twitter and the blogosphere for a clue.)

The most validating part though was the implied (and perhaps obvious) connection to the relevance of publishing intervals (which was the thrust of my point in my original post). The Economist article noted that while Twitter was good for speed, slower publication intervals – beginning with bloggers – we’re better for accuracy and credible news. The argument being there’s a need and place for both in the news industry .

The big difference is now there are more players sharing pieces of the same pies (viewership, ratings, revenue — those pies). That will mean building business models than can be profitable given these realities. A pain and purging the news industry is trying to work through now.  I’m eagerly awaiting some information on the outcome of Newsweek’s new editorial and design shift. Anyone hear of anything concrete?