David Nassar responds to Douglas Rushkoff
In the opening to your question, you use the words contemplative, deep and reflective. One word you do not use is authentic. As I suggested in my previous post, I believe it is the potential for authenticity that the web offers that makes it a truly credible alternative to other forms of media So if we were weighing relevancy, how much weight do we give to an "expert" offering deep thoughts as compared to an "amateur" offering footage or analysis from the spot where events happened, just having lived them?
If we suppose that people come to the web expecting authenticity then faked videos or false testimony to events undermines its value for sure. However, the multiplicity of sources online also offers its own checks and balances.
People seem to be caught in a debate over whether the web will replace traditional media and I feel this is implicit in your question. I would argue that is the wrong question and that the right one is how can the two forms of media complement each other to ensure the most accurate picture gets out about events.