We're screwed

Time magazine paid $30 for a stock photo which it used on the cover to illustrate a story on the "The New Frugality". Is that frugality or publishers making a statement to "content providers" about the ready availability of cheap but acceptable artwork. It seems the day of reckoning is upon us when a culture of commodified "good enough" content has replaced well craft art in magazines and advertising. Can consumers tell the difference? Do publishers care?

Great article in the LA Times:

http://www.latimes.com/entertainment/news/arts/la-et-onthemedia22-2010jan22,1,3750639.column?page=1