Media studies: What's helpful (or not)?

Gauntlett raised a good question in the 2004 chapter: What is the point of academic research on media studies when whatever we produce tend to lag behind real-time evolution by months if not years given the way academic publishing processes are? 

I think the point is that academic and trade publications have different aims in what they do -- whereas the former cares more about understanding the why and how for in-depth understanding and theory-driven purposes, the latter tends to care more about how to make profit from cursory, real-time snapshots of reality. Nonetheless, I think both streams of research can learn from, if not complement each other, but first academics need to start thinking outside of the box -- especially in the new media environment where there are still a lot more unknowns than there are known things -- stop asking the trite question of "what is your theoretical contribution?" and start paying attention to all quality empirical work that may fill in the knowledge gap. "Theory" is not confined to the few constructs with fancy names and that are put on the pedestal in the old media environment. Instead, I think theory should be broadly applied to any explanation or prediction that helps us better understand why and how the new media environment differ (or not) from the old media environment. Some of these explanations and predictions may not have a name yet, but given time patterns will emerge and that's how new theories are developed, is it not? 

On a different note -- I disagree with Gauntlett on two accounts:

1. It is not true that "with some effort" anyone's website can be seen on the web (p.16). Especially given the exponential growth of information in recent years (granted his article was written in 2004) and the way google algorithms are, there is simply no easy way for anybody's website to be noticed just by following what he suggested. 

2. I think Gauntlett's closing remark on one's need to make one's own website in order to succeed in web studies is overly simplistic and disrespectful of the diversity and complexity in both qualitative and quantitative academic media studies.   What would he suggest scholars who study the antecedents and effects of pornography do, I wonder?