Everybody's aTwitter with short bites, but where will we get the depth?

These days one cannot read any paper or magazine without coming across a piece on Twitter, the "micro /messaging/blogging/socializing" service. Based on my experience and my readings, Twitter can

• boost one's ego by creating a following
• get a user answers or suggestions in response to a query
• let one post pictures of action or events quickly
  
• let one post inane stuff

Many news reporters, news analysts, anchors, etc. are now Twittering. Obama appeared cool because he was using online social networking while campaigning.

While Facebook and Twitter are growing fast and adding lots of users, news"papers" are a dying breed. Chicago Tribune is in bankruptcy. The NYT, McClatchy Co ( publisher of 30 daily newspapers, including The Miami Herald, Sacramento Bee and Anchorage Daily News), USA Today publisher Gannett Co Inc., and many others have been slashing jobs and dividends in order to survive. How should we look at this situation?

The myth of giving or getting 'something for free' on a societal scale has to be broken. Facebook, Twitter, and other online sites that provides services without charging consumers expect to make money through advertising. Three are possible:

1. Total Ad spending remains constant but the mix/ad medium shifts from paper ads / Google ads to Facebook/Twitter ads. If this happens, consumers might not pay higher prices for goods and services, but they are supporting the "shift" of resources. Part of these resources today support the journalists who gather information, report and write interesting stories, and provide analysis.The resource shift will do away with these workers- instead we will have everyone twittering- a lot of noise through which one has to find the tune.
2. Ad spending will grow, and more money will be spend on the social networking sites in addition to ads on paper and TV. This scenario appears unlikely. If it happens, one can assess the value these social networking sites provide, because consumers will have to fork out more ad dollars when they purchase goods and services. If the price of cereal is raised by a few cents (which go to pay for ads on Twitter) will consumers balk?
3. Total Ad spending declines and the mix shifts. This is an interesting scenario, because it could argue that the dollars that are not spent in advertising can be directed somewhere else.

The basic point is that it is better for society if people paid for services used, rather than getting them for free, but paying for them in a different way. Newspapers should not be giving away their content for free, and Facebook/Twitter should be charging for their services. It is ironic that when the airlines are going completely a la carte, charging extra for seats, food, luggage, and air, these online sites are giving more away for free.
Land of the Free, but certainly home of the Unfree...