This morning bloggers are reporting that the NY Times has given into pressures of Web 2.0 and added subtle features to its article pages to allow readers to easily share interesting reads via Digg, Facebook, and Newsvine.
It's interesting that trusted, "old" publications like the NY Times are being portrayed as so resistant to embracing social media. On one hand, social media is disruptive to the traditional model of how newspapers make money. It takes the focus off of clicks to the actual newspaper's website by sharing it elsewhere, delivering it via RSS feeds, etc. On the other hand, though, I'm a firm believer that spreading a news story through various blogs, sharing hilarious clips on YouTube, etc. does a lot to revitalize the old brand and drives more people to the publication or TV show to check out the latest and greatest.
Some would say it's a stretch to equate sharing SNL clips on YouTube to RSS feeds of NY Times stories--but I think they're basically the same thing. New media tools are enabling larger audiences to check these items out for themselves, and re-igniting interest in those franchises on some level.