A feeble attempt at "pundintry"

I don't really want to wade into Paul Mulshine's debate on whether an army of blogging "pundints" are killing newspapers; it's deeper than the muck at the TVA coal plant. Besides Michael Silence caught me snarky.

But the letters published last night by the Wall Street Journal in response to the column show that quite a few of the people that read or used to read newspapers just don't care about the fate of newspapers and just might be knowingly smiling at the prospect of their demise.

I do know a goodly number of people who would miss their newspaper if it failed to show up in the paper tube or driveway -- or online -- so it's just not us poor ink-stained wretches who would miss them.

You can argue the problems of newspapers as content or economic ad infinitum, but, in truth, it's a total business product issue. It won't be pretty, but we'll figure out how to have economically viable local news enterprises and that could very well involve more embracing of the "Army of Davids" than shunning them because they do, in fact, know how to spell pundit more times than not