Geek gurus on end of dead-tree media wrong, rants SFgate columnist

Out in San Francisco, Mark Moford has had it and he's not going to take it any more from the 'smart, motley crew of big-name, big-brained tech seers and programmers and futurists" known only by Slashdot regulars, co-founder of Digg, those with "a fetish for hardcore database programming" or stargazers at the SXSW Interactive event.

Oh yeah, Moford has had it with Clay "Thinking the Unthinkable" Shirkey and Dave "If you Don't Like the News" Winer, and Steven "Old Growth Media" Johnson and the others who predict the end of newspapers. He lays out his arguments in a post titled "Die, newspapers, die!" and even includes links to the works that set him off.

It basically boils down to a belief that a newspaper - in print or online - means:

"you immediately have an anchor, some credibility and authority, not to mention a sense of place and context. In whatever you read, you know there has been, at minimum, some real editorial oversight and integrity of product borne of trained, experienced editors and writers who, believe it or not, still value accuracy and truth above all else.

Don't believe me? I understand. Get your contemptuous butt into a real, extant newsroom (yes, before they're all gone), sit in on a few editorial meetings, talk to actual reporters who haven't yet been laid off, see how the meat is made, and decide for yourself."

Please do read his words so carefully put together. But - spoiler alert - just know that the man is on Facebook and jas a Twitter account besides his column on sfgate.com. The bottom line, I think, is he wants to make sure that someone will keep paying for content.