Rogers Cadenhead hits the bullseye on the problems faced by the old line media as they try to adapt to the changed landscape. He first notes that Paul Ford tries to analogize from the cable tv experience - to wit, HBO managed to add value, why can't the Times? To which Rogers points out:

Interesting comparison, but I think it's far easier for HBO to beat network TV than for the Times to beat a horde of free online papers and bloggers.

That's a very good point. Consider cable TV, like HBO - they have more leeway than the free competition, as an artifact of FCC regulation. They can air content that simply can't make its way to the networks. You may agree or disagree with those restrictions, but nevermind - they exist, and they allow HBO (et. al.) to shift the playing field.

Now consider the plight of the Times. Straight news? There's tons of free content out there, from Google News and tons of other sources. Opinion, from their op-ed folks? I can find scads of free opinion pieces across the blogosphere, covering a much more intellectually diverse range than the Times op-ed page allows. What does that leave? It leaves real reporting. It leaves investigative pieces that bloggers don't have the resources to engage in, and that cable news nets won't air, for the most part.

Can the Times add enough of that to justify their subscription costs? I don't know, but the legacy of the Jayson Blair incident certainly doesn't help their cause. It's going to be a tough row to hoe, that's for sure.