Maybe I’m missing the point, but this editorial opinion by the New York Times appears to be condemning advertising. Doesn’t the Times sell advertising? Could it stay in business without it? If it’s okay for the Times to sell its readers’ eyeballs to commercial enterprises, why is it not acceptable for Facebook to do the same? Maybe the Times is just envious that advertisers are going elsewhere. After all, who wants to advertise in a progressive propaganda organ?

Addendum: I think there’s something bigger and more important going on here. Many members of the mainstream media (MSM) are livid that the blogosphere has destroyed its monopoly, and now social sites such as MySpace and Facebook are making things worse (from their perspective). It used to be that people had nowhere to go for information or opinion except the three broadcast television networks and their local newspaper, which took its cues from the New York Times. Now, with the blogosphere and talk radio, people can get information and opinion in thousands of different places—and much of it is free. It’s understandable that the Times and its ilk would resent this. Who likes competition? Who wants to share power? Whenever they get a chance, therefore, they blast the blogosphere. I’ve seen James Taranto do it many times. Has anyone picked up on Taranto’s scorn for bloggers? Every now and then, he’ll let slip a snide remark that reveals his negative attitude. Taranto is part of the MSM.