Who should take centre stage? Heritage vs. new.

Tim Burrowes, former group editor of B&T magazine, has recently entered the blogosphere with a new project called mUmBRELLA and despite the title the offering has nothing to do with Mums or umbrellas... rather 'everything under Australia's marketing and media umbrealla'.

Anyway to cut a long story short I was very perplexed by the following post, and admittedly it is an 'opinion' piece, titled the media vs. Laurel Papworth. I've included some excerpts below to paint the picture:

"It’s that snide use of the phrase “heritage media”. You have to hear it come out of her mouth to feel the full contempt she appears to have for things non-digital.

"Her usual argument is that the established media, whether print or broadcast, is stuck in its ways, ignorant of the new and doomed, doomed, doomed…

"And there is a certain type of digerati who really winds me up. So obsessed are they with the new, that they refuse to accept the possibility that anything that went before has any value. Don’t Twitter? Then you’re a muppet. What do you mean you haven’t been on People Browsr yet? It’s been available in beta for nearly a fortnight - what are you thinking?"

+ So whilst I do agree with a lot of the sentiment, which... I guess is like what I was trying to channel in my post here, I do believe that there is a way to approach things, especially when 'knocking' someone in their own turf if you like, and so personally.

Without involving myself too much (apolitical stance please), I guess I am in the fortunate position of actively working and playing in both 'heritage' and new media so can cling firmly on the top of the fence and appreciate both - separately and in unison, for what they're worth.

Anyway I am eager to hear how Laurel responds - if she does... and to see the official launch of mUmBRELLA next year.