I only like to start writing when I have a limited amount of time to do so.

Expansion:

As Nick cogently brings up in the comments, the New Rock isn't defined as a reacton to anything. Teen pop was over, nu metal was a stagnant pool that no one believed was going to be ever-lasting (it's still going, but only by the nigh on professionals of the bunch), and the charts were in a state of flux but gradually being taken over by hip-hop (the revolution won't happen overnight, but sooner rather than later the BB Top 200 will be 50% hip-hop and BET will be bought by MTV). Punk was a reaction the excesses of prog. They had something to rail against. "We're bringing it back it back to the simple style", etc.

The personalities. Jack White has slightly made some claims towards authenticity of rock instruments, but its been white washed over AND no journalists are pushing this angle to drum up ridiculous baiting quotes. Karen O, Julian, etc. are BORING people that have never said anything that has been interesting to read about except for their fashion styles, which are blah at best.

The music isn't as good? Well, maybe that claim isn't really able to be proven by science- but I have listened to Singles Going Steady more times than Is This It? since the latter came out. Not comparable, I know- but it's a start towards demythologizing what the NME has attempted to wrought.

And what about the NME. As far as I know, people don't take it seriously- at least since they started hyping all this definite article bands one after the other. Much like Plagenhoef's inferences in his Britpop article. There are tons of interesting things going on right now- why are you continuing down this blind alley of new rock when you could be covering something else far more interesting and marketable. Whatever that may be...