I read RFS1 too, and contenture.com is not at all what I got out of it. Honestly I'm confused as to why that RFS led you to such a specific conclusion, not to mention one that doesn't match the RFS (why would contenture need a good writer?).
On contenture itself, I just don't think this is a good idea. Its been discussed on HN before, but my basic problem with it is that you'd have the top tier sites (i.e. NY Times) subsidizing the less known sites. No matter how the pot is distributed, you'd have the top tier site sharing revenue with the less known sites. Why would they join in?
I've got a lot of other issues with the contenture model, but that's the obvious dealbreaker. Also, micropayments are so boring, I don't understand why they are thought of as a panacea.
A more interesting approach is the Hulu model. Try searching for a show Hulu doesn't have, like South Park. They'll still show search results for it, and direct you offsite to watch the episode. As a result, the user learns that Hulu is the place to find online TV shows, regardless of the network. In this manner they've inserted themselves between the product makers and their customers, which is a recipe for $texas. And should they later arrange a syndication deal for South Park they can seamlessly change from offsite links to onsite links.
A key point with the Hulu model is that they still control a huge chunk of the best content. As much as possible, they're only "outsourcing" the long tail, low ROI content.
Its not a particularly new idea. Google largely operates the same way. Google has become the starting place for the web, even if your destination is offsite. When they find areas where they can replace offsite content with their own they do so (think Gmail, Youtube, and the ill-fated Knol). Blockbuster video does the same thing (owned by Paramount, who makes films), and so does your grocery store (with in-house brands where they see high-margin opportunities).