I found this link through Nathan Bransford's blog. Last week (I think it was last week), CNN posted an article about self-publishing. The journalist selected two authors who had found success through self-publishing their books (though one of them had a best-selling book after it was picked up by a traditional publisher). By presenting only one side of the story, the journalist made it sound as though self-publishing was a vast improvement over traditional publishing for the typical author.
Here's the other side of the story, as presented by Victoria Strauss of Writer Beware! Blogs. Strauss shows how articles about self-publishing are constructed; facts are omitted, and quotes are chosen to present only one side of the story. No matter what the subject, writing an article this way while purporting to be objective is just plain wrong. As Strauss points out, journalists have a responsibility to present both sides of a story; whatever happened to that?
A couple other things I'd like to mention about self-publishing; I think by making it so "easy" to publish a book, it allows authors to get by without pushing themselves to improve. Furthermore, there's still a need for someone to screen all of these books to separate the wheat from the chaff--what editors and agents do now. Some authors may find self-publishing useful, but many may be better off with the traditional route. Traditional publishing may evolve, but I don't think it will disappear anytime soon--and that's a good thing.