Do traditional media take their websites seriously?

I was reading an article on the website of The Telegraph, a well respected newspaper in the UK.
The article in question is here
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/motoring/main.jhtml?xml=/motoring/2006/01/14/mfsmart14.xml

The fourth word in the article is spelt incorrectly, the article begins "A British vehicle porducer", what's a porducer?, do they not have a spell checker.

This is so typical of old media not taking new media seriously.

This paper is one of the most respected newspapers in the UK, to make a mistake like that and leave it there since 14th January 2006 is unforgivable.

Of course I'm allowed to make as many spelling mistakes as I want, it's almost expected, but a newspaper - nope, not allowed.

BTW, the article is quite interesting but I'll believe it when I see it, the company involved doesn't even seem to have a website which is not a good start.

Google Adsense changes

Google Adsense has changed the way commission is earned. Instead of a simple Pay Per Click model you now get paid for impressions as well and the PPC rate has dropped significantly.

So now instead of placing your adverts where they are most likely to be clicked you may as well move them to a less obtrusive place, and make sure you have the maximum ads allowed (3) on every page to maximise impressions.

For me this has meant a significant drop in revenue as my site is most relevant to people most likely to be purchasers (and hence ad clickers) - i.e. young astute adults.

Sites that have large volumes of younger people who are much less likely to click ad's like myspace and digg.com will likely see a significant increase in revenue.

I guess this means click fraud will be replaced with refresh fraud.