I would guess for just about every ONE established, aged, trusted, "previously-reliable" authority website loved by thousands before some random Panda iteration date, there are now thousands of "micro" sites designed and optimized every different way possible, all covering the same material that was previously relegated to ONE website, displaying similar content in every different way possible (images, text, charts, videos, inforgraphics, document downloads, combinations of these, etc) from the original Panda-hit site, all vying for organic search attention, all put on the Internet by the owner/company behind the Pandalyzed site.
"Diversify or die" is the mantra and always has been, but what people don't realize is that this means something different for A LOT OF PEOPLE, it just means "more websites built different ways targeting the same groups of people", all pulling in organic traffic.
These people are not necessarily with any other realistic/practical options of offline or online traffic generation...they just aren't in MANY cases. Is that a horrible business model to be in? IMO, yes, yes it is. That doesn't change the effects of this business model on the Google SERPs and people like us that desire some clarification every now and then. Wasn't that Google's number one feedback request from one of their surveys recently too...better clarification etc?
Creating massive paranoia in the publisher community pollutes the web with publishers trying to diversify every which way, at least that is what I am seeing in the results, it is what others report seeing in the real world and online, and it is certainly what the "major players" are reporting doing on all the popular webmaster/internet marketing forums. Lots of case studies, etc...
I'd like to be optimistic...I REALLY would...but I don't believe "chaos" is always the best route to take over "clarification" in the business world.