Much has been made of David Carr’s NYT column this week, The Fall and Rise of Media, and it’s depiction of the end of a New York dominated by traditional powerhouse media publishers (“the large heaving engine of books, magazines and newspapers”) and the “bright young things” that are replacing them. It’s a phenomenon as fascinating to observe as it must be hand-wringing to endure.

Carr presents the domain of the once-ruling class most compellingly as “an island of misfit toys, trains whose cabooses have square wheels and bird fish who are trying to swim in thin air.” But don’t tell the Conde Nast/Time Inc/Hearst/Merediths of the world. They’ve got it all figured out with the soon-to-be-debuted online newsstand. That’s right, it’s the itunes for print that we’ve all been waiting for.

But sarcasm aside, of course these organizations should be throwing everything they’ve got at finding the silver bullet (or the quiver or arrows) for keeping themselves relevant: e-readers, better dotcoms, Adobe AIR, iPhone apps, Facebook, Google Fast Flip, Zinio. One of these may well prove to be the savior, though, as has been discussed here before, it’s likely going to be one thing for publishing brand A, another for brand B and a combination for brand C. Consumption habits increasingly vary across demographics, and publishers need to meet their audience where and when they are.

There is, however, a less-reported development that belies a critical misconception: Conde Nast is apparently targeting its e-reader pitch not to consumers, but to the Audit Bureau of Circulations, making the case that e-reader edition sales are tantamount to hardcopies. Sure, the prospect of pulling down print CPM on digital distribution alluring. But not only is it unrealistic, the idea of establishing the advertiser relationships before the readership ignores the fact that this is but one degree in a spectrum of things that might work. Remember, this is the YouTube/Facebook/Twitter economy that builds audience before business model. The fact that traditional media can’t afford this paradigm doesn’t mean they’re going to successfully subvert it.

Clearly the world is changing. Big media is well positioned to leverage and extend its relationships with audience and advertisers, but it’s ill prepared to assume it knows best how to do this. As Carr writes, “certain stalwart brands will survive and even thrive because of a new scarcity of quality content for niche audiences that demand more than generic information.” He’s probably right, but that means that all comers are best advised to stick to those things they do better than their competition.