As many observers have noted (including Robert X. Cringley in a recent blog post), the biggest problem that traditional media entities have right now is a cost base and production system and corporate structure that was designed for one specific platform — namely, the neo-industrial process of laying out and publishing a printed product that is delivered to people’s homes. That structure and process is completely out of whack in relation to the new platform (the web), which is growing in ways the printed version is not. And it’s not just off by a little, it’s off by orders of magnitude.

Think about it this way: Have iTunes and the iPod rescued or saved the music business? Hardly. If anything, they have only accelerated the disruption in that industry, and exposed how out of touch, out of control and cost-prohibitive most of it still is when it comes to doing business online. The web has been doing the same thing to traditional media for the past decade or so, and devices like the iPad are only going to accelerate that process.

Which means that newspapers and magazines still have to figure out what they have that is unique, different and special in a way that makes people want to pay for it. That was the problem before the iPad came along, and it continues to be the central problem facing content creators of all kinds, not just newspapers and magazines.

Why do the costs of traditional media get so little press? This piece just nails it for me. The core problem for trad media - print - TV - Radio are the costs. Their costs are all linked to hanging onto the old medium.

It's feels to me as if the monks still wanted to hang on to script versus print.

Nearly all the talk is about revenue. Let's get to the heart of the matter - the NYT will find a good business model once it gets rid of most of the costs related to the paper. Same for video and radio.