What reliable information? My first experience with newspaper bias was writing a commentary article for my local rag in high school. I actually had in interest in local news, so I got to meet some "reporters" for the paper, and I was dismayed at their "standards." It bothered me then, and it still bothers me now when a story is written with important facts either left out or completely wrong. And the reporter doesn't really care, as long as he meets his deadline. Not only that, but they are loathe to write any corrections, or to admit they left out or "shaded" important facts that undercut their stories.
Here's an anecdote: There's this big front page news article about a local accident my dad was involved in with a huge front page picture of the wreck. The name of my dad's company is clearly on the side of the truck, as he's the owner and it's his name. The caption reports some other made up name was involved in the accident(no one knows where they got this name from either, since no one with that name lives in this area, as simple phone book search could have revealed). My dad is laid up for weeks as a result of the accident and is incensed that the paper didn't get his name right even though the picture clearly shows his name on the truck. Complaints to the paper get the response that "different people take the pictures and write the captions." The people at the paper are incredibly rude to my dad and suggest it doesn't really matter anyway, but a retraction appears weeks later on the back page in a little blurb no one is ever going to see.
That little story is a summary of every new story I've ever seen in the news. Big hype on a story full of incorrect or made up data, parroted by many other reporters with no fact checking at all, followed by no corrections or little blurbs where no one will ever see it. That's why papers are dying--at least on the internet, false information gets corrected in the story itself, often fairly quickly.
But I strongly disagree with the premise that news will disappear with newspapers--its just going to change form to something else. The truth is that if papers really did their job properly, the 5w's and actually went after real corruption/waste in entrenched bureaucracies, they wouldn't be dying so quickly and could probably sell a lot more papers.
So the first person who figures out how to make money from a blog or actually does some real investigative reporting will be the one who changes the world. Already some newspapers are using blogs as sources for news--something you don't hear much about. I often read the news days or even weeks before I see it on TV or hear about it being in the paper. I can't tell you how many times someone says to me "did you hear about _____" And I'll tell them it happened weeks ago I'll know all the details they just read in the newspaper plus more, since I often know the missing facts or more details then the reporter who wrote the story did.
My husband sometimes drives a fellow-employee home from work. While driving, he discusses the news with his friend. His friend will tell him the news, as he knows it, from the paper. My husband will then spend the next twenty minutes filling in the “back story” or simply, the truth, for his friend.
I suspect his friend appreciates the information.
Newspapers are an outmoded concept anyway. The news is 12-36 hours old before it sees print in the newspaper anyway.
And home delivery? You don’t even find home delivery of milk these days.
Ad rates (from fraudulently boosted circulation figures) are what keep newspapers in business.
Who needs a daily ad-zine that you have to pay for? They mail those out for free to people who want them.
Local news can be covered in 1 or 2 editions of a weekly or semi-weekly publication.