I feel great, because NYT just published a story that immensely strengthen my view of blogs that try to maximize their posts-per-day and be-the-first-in-the-blogosphere metrics at the expense of quality. A week ago I wrote about Silicon Alley Insider’s poor post on Wired magazine’s declining ad pages. My firm conclusion was that SAI authors are not spending enough time to write internally-consistent and reasonable posts. I gave some hypothetical arguments about which additional data should be provided to support SAI’s conclusions, and I asserted that traditional news sources such as NYT would have handled the situation differently. Today, that hypothetical assertion gained a practical anecdotal evidence, thanks to NYT.

I won’t write too much on this issue. Just go and visit two posts: One in Silicon Alley Insider and One in New York Times. Then, decide which one is more well-written, and which one is based on sensible, concrete research. And then, try to be more critical for the stories you read on this web 2.0-exclusive sources.