A lot of this is sad and true. There are a lot of problems at play, and one of the biggest is the brutal reality of the economics of journalism. It's a TAM issue, or at least most publications perceive it to be one. There are millions of people who will read free, throw-away posts about gossip, snarky commentary, quick gadget reviews, and rumors. There are maybe tens of thousands of people who will read in-depth, highly detailed, highly technical, highly sophisticated discussions of deeper issues. "Tl;dr" is a reality most outlets have to contend with. So is the general popularity of "snackable" content, as well as the relatively low economic cost of producing it. The ROI is much higher for any advertising-supported business.

Some people are exploring alternatives. Jessica Lessin, Ben Thompson, and others are trying to make a living selling subscriptions to nominally smaller audiences who will pay for more in-depth coverage and analysis. I couldn't tell you how well they are actually doing, however, and I'd be lying if I said I was optimistic about the ability of that model to do much more than break even. Others, especially those who sell ebooks and online courses, tend to do pretty well for themselves -- but they're not really in the journalism business so much as the ebook-selling business. While I support and celebrate their success, their success does not necessarily solve the dilemma of what's to be done about the economics of journalism.

What I like about the tech press is that a lot of the players involved are pretty smart. You generally find intelligent, analytical bloggers and writers covering this industry. What I don't like about the tech press is that so much of it is PR-driven puffery. That's where the money is, and that's how journalists negotiate access to the up-to-the-minute information that every outlet is always fighting to get.

The alternative to PR-driven, late-breaking news sites is in-depth, analytical sites. But again, the TAM there is probably small, and the willingness to pay is uncertain.

"if your skilled enough in tech to write the in depth article, your probably going to get a job in the field rather than writing about it."

Generally true. I can tell you from personal experience that it's damned hard to make a living as a journalist, especially if you have the skill set to make a viable alternative of working on the industry side. Journalism has one of the lowest payoff-to-effort ratios in the professional world. (Unless you're one of the lucky few who can make a killing on bestselling books.) I've spent the last 10 years on the industry side, making a very respectable living doing so. I switched over to journalism early last year. My income dropped by about 75%, and I'm working much harder than I ever have. And I'm one of the lucky few who landed a great agent and great editorial connections right out of the gate. It's a tough racket. Now, I've got two choices in front of me as I look toward 2015: try to become a "rockstar" and sell a book proposal or two; or pack it in and go back to an industry job. For now I'm still foolish enough to be having a go at the journalism route. But industry employment is looking better and better with every passing month.

A friend of mine, who is a reasonably successful musician, put it to me this way: some lines of work are very rewarding to the average worker. Other lines of work punish all but the top decile, if not the 99th percentile. Journalism, like rock music, is one of those professions. I wouldn't advise anyone go into it unless they truly believe they can be among the best in the world at it. And being the best in the world at it involves a lot more than merely being a good writer.