It's very telling that as cable TV became a fractured medium with 100s of 'extra' channels, channels like MTV had to turn to the me-too and less-expensive/higher-margin programming of reality shows and also to the proliferation-per-channel idea as well - where there are now - what - 6 MTV channels. 1980's MTV literally gave us a music movement; 2011 version is mostly Jersey Shore and Teenage Mom . . .
It seems an odd choice for Youtube/Google to set up an old format of business as the straw man they're 'disrupting'. If one really wanted to disrupt the endless seas of mediocre, center-of-the-bell-curve content, they'd have to focus much more narrowly, invest much more heavily, and share the proceeds much more generously. I'm not saying I know the numbers, but none of these are a characteristic of Youtube or Google when it comes to content - that's for sure. The sheer volume of their partnership agreements implies a see-which-spaghetti-sticks approach.
The article would like to imply that Youtube is going to move [nobly] beyond it's root essentially as a distribution system. Distributors, as a business, care about 'good enough'; they rarely bother with 'great'. In my opinion, Youtube/Google have had a long free ride on the content of others - both user-generated and the kind that 'fell off the back of a truck'. I hardly see them as a capable partner for truly creative content production.
Anyway, Lady Gaga is the new MTV :P