I'm not sure I follow you on the last. It seems to me that there are reporters everywhere, most armed with camera phones, a lot with video phones, and quite a few with the capability to stream video, with commentary, directly to Facebook, Qik, YouTube, etc. You can post to FR directly from your iPhone or similar.That is a LOT of reporters. Having a designated news reporter to screen the stories begs them publish the stories they like. I would rather talk to, or read about from, someone who was there.
There are entirely too many Dan Rathers around; It appears the model is now changing to a 'From many, one.' We are all reporters.
Well, there's an abundance of gonzo-journalism, to be sure. Maybe that's a good thing, maybe not. Time will tell. There is certainly an abundance of after-the-fact editors and fact-checkers, and that is clearly a GREAT thing, as seen in RatherGate.
But, there's a wide divide between gonzo-journalism, and the kind of journalism that gave us the "All the President's Men". Despite how you might feel about Woodward & Bernstein, they ended the craziness and the criminality of an out of control President. I'm not sure if 30 years from now, that same mechanism will exist, and that should frighten everyone.