I used to work at a small weekly where we had manual typewriters and a typesetting machine that still created type with metal slugs. I learned how to run the brand-spankin’ new phototypesetting machine when it came in, and marveled about how the media business was changing. A few years later, even the phototypesetting machines became obsolete, and all the layout was done digitally on PCs. I didn’t know it at the time, but that was only the beginning. Of course, the old-timers decried the computerized machines and sang the praises of the “hot type” equipment, but I could tell right away that its days were numbered, and that the news business would be all the better for it. Today, the changes continue. The line between Old Media and New Media is getting fuzzy. And while the old media may complain about the new guys getting all the attention, and the new media may complain about the old guys cutting in on their action, it seems like a good trend. It means new media isn’t so new any more. Last week, it was announced that publishing giant Hearst Corp. plans to acquire Kaboodle, a popular social shopping site. Cnet (http://news.com.com/8301-10784_3-9756734-7.html) says that the terms weren’t disclosed, but rumors are floating that the deal was worth as much as $40 million. The Cnet blog takes note that in recent months, there have been a significant number of Internet startups being acquired by large media companies, and even more rumors of the same that have not yet transpired. Other recent new media/old media deals include CBS Interactive acquiring Wallstrip, a news video blog; and the acquisition of Photobucket by Fox Interactive Media. In another surprise development, Venture Beat (http://venturebeat.com/2007/08/07/forbes-buys-social-bookmarking-site-clipmarks/) reported that Forbes Magazine is looking to buy Clipmarks, a social bookmarking site. Clipmarks’ simple proposition is that it lets users select a piece of text on a web page, “bookmark” it, and save the URL and the relevant information in a folder. Om Malik comments on the trend (http://gigaom.com/2007/08/07/hearst-buys-kaboodle/), and has noticed a pattern, speculating that big media corporations aren’t just looking for pure content—after all, they are media companies, and can create their own content without having to buy dotcoms to do it for them. Rather, big media companies are looking to transform the nature of their existences with community-based tools that enhance content that already exists. Over on the other side of the pond, Jack Schofield’s blog in the Guardian (http://blogs.guardian.co.uk/technology/archives/2007/08/16/why_newspapers_are_screwed_by_google.html) tells the other side of the story, taking a look at analyst Henry Blodgett’s report, “Running the Numbers: Why Newspapers Are Screwed”. Jack gets a little more specific, saying that Google is doing the screwing. The blog quotes some statistics about how online ad revenue at the “big four” of Google, Yahoo, AOL and MSN are up 42 percent, while ad revenue at the biggest old media companies are down. No doubt that is true. Schofield notes that several newspapers, as well as the Guardian itself, has had a good measure of success in finding new online markets, but Google does have its hand in the till: Old media companies spend big money to create content, and Google pulls in the bucks just for indexing it. Of course, it’s not just Google; the entire concept of classified ads is moving away from old media to new, with web sites like Craigslist and Kijiji leading the charge. The blending of old media and new media is as inevitable as was the obsolescence of hot type machines in the newsroom, and it would seem that both old and new formats need each other to survive, and the acquisitions are likely to continue.