I think it's a reasonable rant. Look at it this way: which one - the WP reporter, or Gawker - has created more value? Which one has added (slightly, as in all these things) more to the sum total of human knowledge?
Perhaps economics of the former (Washington Post) model is on its way out. But if it is, might we all not be the poorer for it?
"If Google wanted to own Washington coverage, well, all it would have to do is take the six or seven journalists who are really producing stuff— remember, reporters don’t make shit —and put them in one place and overnight Google would own Washington...Well, why couldn’t we do that?"
This concept would apply to other parts of the newspaper business. Craigslist did it to classified ads, ESPN to sports, now Politico with politics. I'm sure others will come out over time as well.
Perhaps economics of the former (Washington Post) model is on its way out. But if it is, might we all not be the poorer for it?