Very poorly-written post. I'm not usually one to troll, but since the article has such a direct, condescending tone, I'll offer some advice of my own.<p>If you are going to make an assertion like the following:<p>"<i>At any rate, for a company, I’d say hands-down you’re getting more out of an online hit than a print piece. So stop riding your publicist’s ass about not getting you in the print edition of TIME and thank her or him for the mentions in various Time.com blogs. You may not get a photo of yourself in TIME to frame for your office, but chances are those blog posts will be read more and pay back more over time than that one print hit will.</i>"<p>It might make sense to cite some sources or have some basis for making that statement. Otherwise it is just your own perception which, please take no offense, I have little worry about.<p>In fact that brings me to my next point- people have no respect for online publications because a vanishingly small number actually do any research or care two shits about producing factual information. No, they want ad revenue, and sadly ad revenue does not have a direct correlation to fact-checking. In fact, it's precisely because reporters have to produce "<i>three times as much content in half the time and for half the pay</i>" that you should doubt the validity of your claims about the value of online vs print media. Blogs and online news outlets are factories of eyeball-catching bullshit that don't care about accuracy.<p>This post does nothing to solidify my confidence in the direction of online media.