What do General Motors and IBM have in common? Besides the fact that both are manufacturing companies, they have been the world's largest players in their respective fields for many decades. This year, however, an historic milestone was reached. Both IBM and GM have lost their coveted top spots to competitors.

In late April, Toyota reported that it sold 2.34 million vehicles in the first three months of 2007, compared with 2.26 million vehicles by GM. Earlier, Hewlett-Packard edged IBM as the biggest computer maker when it reported $91.7 billion in revenue for its fiscal year ended Oct. 31, 2006. IBM in January reported $91.4 billion in revenue in fiscal 2006.

The most interesting thing that happened when these two events occurred was that not much actually happened at all. Though both events were duly noted in the media, the public seemed to have tossed a mere fleeting glance at them and then just kept going about its business.

Are these seismic shifts in corporate standing simply not meaningful enough to warrant attention, discourse, and debate? I think they are, but there are reasons why both events produced a loud collective yawn.

For GM, business issues and long-eroding market share clearly had foreshadowed toppling by Toyota. In this case, there was really no surprise in the auto market or in the country at large when Toyota reported its sales figures in April. The event had been anticipated and, therefore, it came and went as a routine matter.

IBM's slippage had also been foreseen. The computer maker's relatively low growth rates, despite its transformation into a services company, opened the door for a faster-growing rival, such as HP. But outside the computer industry, HP's succession to the top spot went largely unnoticed. What got a lot more attention was the HP boardroom and spying scandal, although in the end that will be a lot less meaningful as a business trend.

Is the problem that the media has become hopelessly addicted to sensationalism? Is there any room left for serious discussion about the U.S. industrial base, which GM reflects, or changes in the country's premier IT industry, which the IBM-HP story represents? If only the GM-Toyota and IBM-HP stories could have had 10% of the ink and air time that went to Anna Nicole Smith.

The GM-Toyota story should ignite a national debate — I almost wrote "reignite," but then I realized we haven't yet had one — about the future of America's industrial base, particularly as the country now approaches the 2008 presidential election. Maybe Chris Matthews or Brian Williams should be prodded to ask a question or two in the next debates.

As for the computer industry, the HP-IBM story should spur a conversation about the commoditization that has become widespread and where new sources of value for corporate users will be created in the years ahead.

Years from now, 2007 may be seen as a watershed in the automotive and computer industries, a time when the leadership baton was passed in markets that had fundamentally changed. It is up to us to understand what those changes may mean and not to let them pass by as mere routine events. Do we have the attention span and focus to do so?