I don't think so....

In an editorial in the Journal today, Paul Vigna tries to make the case that YouTube does not have the upper hand as the entire broadcast industry gets obliterated in much of the same way that the music industry did. His point, quite predictable, is that content is and will always be king. He says:

So anybody who thinks videos of cats flushing toilets is going to also flush away the networks, the scores of programs they show and millions of viewers they attract, is missing the point. Advertisers need a platform like TV, and they'll spend real money to keep it around in one form or another.

I'm not sure that is the point. That assumes that content will always be created by the studios, and will always seek the broader distribution channel that broadcast television affords it. That seems debatable to me. HBO proved that they could independently produce content and distribute it profitably outside the traditional advertising supported network model, I'm sure that there are folks working right now on a football league, a sitcom and a live music performance that will be created exclusively for YouTube and broadcast exclusively down that channel.

More importantly, I'm not sure that there is a real place on the broadcast networks for content like the clip below. Five minutes of Mitt Romney passionately staking out his position as the pro-choice candidate in 2002. Romney is indignant that his pro-choice credentials are even brought into question by his opponent, which will be tough to explain should his absurd presidential candidacy get off of the ground.