Do we really want to live in a world determined by the volume of clicks?

People who want to keep their Marketing Gene awake and dominant take note: the observations of SF Chron biz columist Alan Saracevic in Can't the media all get along? go way beyond what ultimately happens to some of the former Knight-Ridder newspapers in wake of the McClatchy purchase and sale. The San Jose Merc-News among them. "Back in San Francisco sit my two colleagues, Lance Williams and Mark Fainaru-Wada, who have devoted the past few years of their lives investigating Barry Bonds' alleged steroid use, pursuing a story millions of sports fans don't want to read. It's a scary story that no sane person would undertake without the might of something like Hearst Corp. legal resources behind them. "Does San Jose want a weaker Mercury News to cover its scandal-plagued City Hall? Does (blogger and ex-Merc writer) Dan Gillmor want to quit (blogging)? Are citizen journalists going to tell the Barry Bonds story? Is the mainstream media going to tell the story of (the many non-celebrities who have important stories to tell )? Let's face it, analog needs digital. And visa versa." To paraphrase the ancient Chinese curse, marketers live in "interesting times". Advertising and branding dollars are looking for new "media homes", which may not necessarily be "new-media" homes. Marketers are uncomfortable in many old-school, "analog" media because they're unconvinced the pay-off is everything it could be. Still, will information that's measured solely on its popularity -- by the click -- be the most informative? At some point, in the not-to-distant future, those ad dollars will find their way to the media that serve the greatest purpose. Hmm. There's a business there somewhere...