Ben Elowitz at PaidContent has just published the first of his two-part analysis on what constitutes great content, now that we're well into the digital age. Taking the four pillars used by traditionalists -- credential, correctness, objectivity, and craftsmanship -- he opines on each, and how these criteria do not work in today's internet age.
For example, Elowitz discusses how the heady feeling of having your work published in The New York Times (credential) isn't as important now. Readers are looking for content that helps them -- focusing on the content itself -- much more than they are concerned with the source of that information.
What Elowitz is putting out on the table needs to be read. He's thought about these issues, and he has points to make.
However, I don't know that I can go so far as to agree with him that these tradtional methods are "useless." That may be going too far.
Credentials still mean something to me, for example -- and I think they still mean something to readers, too. I do check the source of the content I'm reading and a reputable source does carry more weight with me. I believe that The New York Times still stands for something.
Credentials may be less powerful than they once were, but they still exist and still count.