Isaac Chotiner's 6000-word TNR takedown of the collected works of Arianna Huffington came out last week, but, late as always, I didn't get around to reading it till over the weekend. It's packed to the gills with good stuff. That said, I don't think I can sign on to Isaac's most pointed paragraph:
The truth is that The Huffington Post is not just supplementing a print media that has long been dominated by newspapers. It is also helping to destroy newspapers. The trials of print media have been explored at length recently in a number of settings, both print and digital, and for good reason. But some tough questions must be asked also about the powerful digital interlopers. For the blogosphere and the news aggregators that dominate cyberspace are completely reliant--completely parasitic--on the very institutions they are driving to bankruptcy. [The Huffington Post] is thoroughly dependent on the reporting that Huffington has spent three decades bashing. Fire up the site on your computer some evening, and see how many of its main stories are from The New York Times or The Washington Post.
I wouldn't go so far as to say HuffPo is "completely parasitic" on the big newspapers (the Huffington Post employs plenty of full-time journalists and as far as I know is looking for more), but the bigger question here is: Why should we assume that the Huffington Post's reliance/dependence/symbiosis/parasitism (take your pick) is what's destroying newspapers?
My sense from friends at the Times and Post is that they're thrilled whenever Huffington Post links to a story. (The publisher of the Washington Post, Katharine Weymouth, admitted as much two weeks ago: "I think Arianna has built an amazing site and drives a lot of traffic to us, so thank you!") And if you compare the traffic of, say, the New York Times to that of the Huffington Post, the story is one of the two rising and falling together -- not the meteoric rise of HuffPo and the stagnation and decline of the Times.