Given my position as a long-time denizen of the dot-com world, with dozens of contacts in new media and venture capital and all of the numbered Webs (1.0, 2.0 and maybe even 3.0), I'm quite frequently invited to things. Some are valuable networking tools, like LinkedIn; others are fun and a bit useful for keeping track of my virtual colleagues, like Twitter. Still others, like AIM, are vital for day-to-day working life.

And then there are the sites where my so-called "friends" hang out. It seems quite ironic that many of the former colleagues and distant contacts who invite me to "keep up with what he and your other friends are doing" were never what I would categorize as "friends." Vexing rivals? Quixotic bosses? Difficult customers? Unhappy underlings? Probably more like it. While I understand that social networking sites like Facebook.com and StumbleUpon and, to a lesser extent, MySpace and del.icio.us and the rest of them, are the rage right now -- and are used by many legitimate corporate types for actual work purposes -- well, I'm highly uncomfortable with the rampant use of the word "friend."

Let's face it: even if I'm pleased because Brian in Legal delivered that contract to me quickly, he's not actually my "buddy"; nor is the receptionist you just hired ready to be asked to join your "circle of friends." Plenty of people with whom I could happily carry on pre-conference-call banter, while I'm sure they're quite lovely, just aren't friends. Flickr gives us a break and lets us designate lots of "contacts," while Twitter has recently changed its nomenclature to count those you are following, and those that follow you. This makes sense to me! This is not presumptuous or uncomfortable.

Just because my name is in your contact list, Mr. and Ms. New Media Executive, it does not mean that you are my friend.

An hour or so ago, General Electric Company (NYSE:GE) unit NBC and News Corporation (NYSE:NWS) made flashing top-billed headlines throughout the world of journalism. "NBC, News Corp plan video site in challenge to Google's YouTube!" says the Wall Street Journal. "NBC and News Corp. to Create YouTube Rival," says the New York Times.

But on further investigation it's not clear how directly the two sites (NBC's is as-yet-unnamed) will compete. The NBC/News Corp partnership has an entirely different strategy than the user-generated flavor of YouTube. The announcement mentions that episodes of popular TV shows like 24, Heroes, and The Simpsons, as well as recently-released movies like Little Miss Sunshine will be distributed through the special NBC/News Corp online video player. What's more, internet portals (the real Google rivals) like Yahoo! Inc. (NASDAQ:YHOO), Microsoft Corporation (NASDAQ:MSFT)'s MSN and Time Warner Inc. (NYSE:TWX)'s AOL will be distributing this content and, if statements from the big three are any indication, creating their own to redistribute through the cozy network.

While I'm sure there is every intention of accepting (and, one would imagine, encouraging) user-created content, it seems to me that this is so far beside the point. This video portal is about controlling the distribution of (and gaining revenue from the ads placed against) the old media companies' proprietary content. It's if-you-can't-beat-em-join-em. It's smart! It's a well-orchestrated strategy. But it's not NBC vs. YouTube.

The Philadelphia Inquirer has begun a round of layoffs, becoming that latest newspaper to succumb to declining readership. Are newspapers on their way out as a form of popular media? Warren Buffett has said that "Every time someone dies, that is a newspaper reader gone that will not be replaced."

For an excellent excerpt of Buffett and his right-hand man Charlie Munger talking about the future of newspapers, read this. As you read, keep in mind that Warren Buffett's Berkshire Hathaway owns shares of the Washington Post along with several other newspapers.

The apparent contradiction between his ownership of newspaper stocks and his long-term bearishness on the industry is a valuable lesson for investors: valuation matters. Even if newspapers will be gone in 20 years, many are still profitable now and may make a good investment at the right price. It never makes sense to write off a company as an investment just because the long-term outlook is poor. Similarly, we should never buy a stock because it has a great story: valuation always matters, as numerous investors learned painfully during the dot-com crash.

On tonight's MAD MONEY show on CNBC, Jim Cramer began his show saying "Out with the old and in with the new ... media." It isn't all out; he thinks outdoor advertising, traditionally as "old media" as you can get, will survive well because of the new digital ads. One of his two stocks in this category is Daktronics, Inc. (NASDAQ:DAKT), up 165% this year, but he thinks it's a buy and going higher. This isn't a billboard company, rather an interactive image advertising board for stadiums and sports. He's excited about Daktronics because even high schools are starting to add in boxes and special arenas. DAKT closed down 3% at $36.91 in normal trading, but shares rose to $38.30 after he touted the stock. Its 52-week range is $13.74 to $39.09.

[Photo Chris Metcalf]

So the Big Boys are banding together to combat the YouTube phenomenon, eh?

A wise old Spanish man once said, "When eets too late, eets too little."

YouTube. Blogging. Anyone can create content now. The mode of distributing content has changed forever. For good or bad, the barriers to reaching an audience have fallen and newsprint and networks are suddenly as obsolete as vacuum tubes.

Tell me, how are these huge, bloated corporations going to become nimble enough to combat their own fate? They could probably throw a lot of money at some of the best minds out there, but they can't let those minds do their stuff. The best minds would be immediately frustrated by their lack of control. Fresh ideas tend to be killed by bureaucracy, politics and endless meetings.

Staying competitive going forward is going to take a radical makeover in the way business is done. But innovations happen at breakneck speed, and even members of the New Media trip themselves up if they stop to rest for even a moment. Look what happened to Yahoo! Inc. (NASDAQ:YHOO) Think radical change can happen at a place like the News Corporation (NYSE:NWS)?

The Old Media doesn't even get it. They can hire people who do get it, but, as one of our own bloggers said recently (OK, about Wal-Mart), you can't easily turn the Titanic. It's an apt metaphor for what's going, er, down with the networks and newsprint.