This is something that has been coming up alot recently... both as an interpersonal discussion on the state of the world, and then also as how it pertains to the current state of general dissemiation of information.
(blogs being amoungst that group of disseminators)
Anyway the discussion has turned pretty frequently to the sorry state of the local (once great, now defamed and disasterous) paper, and the fact that I personally find it difficult to pay for a product that less and less reflects the actual needs it is supposed to be serving.
I understand, and support fully the idea of a devoted and determined core of journalistic bull-dogs, but find that there is more in the blogosphere (which is highly subjective, and infrequently checked) and to the court jesters (i.e. The Daily Show's John Stewart) than there is in the world of formal "news" world.
I came across this article from Metafilter... and it has a take on it that I hadn't considered....
http://www.shirky.com/weblog/2009/03/newspapers-and-thinking-the-unthinkable/
I'd say read it - but you probably may not, and that's okay. Distilled to its essence, the essay is about how we are "in" the revolution, and that by being in it, we are increasingly discomforted by the lack of stablity. The old structures that we were used to have crumbled, and as a result we look to the skies and ask "Why?" But then get confused even more so when there is no answer.
Ultimately we're in a place in history where we aren't used to being. On the precipice of change, and the precipice is one that is unlike anything we've experienced to date. We look to history and find no comparison, which leaves us without comfort.
so then what do (the collective) we do? I don't know... but I'm here now, and doing my part to catalouge my piece in it. How I will effect it, i don't know - even if I do...not sure.