Well, let's keep an eye on it and see.
My experience has been along the lines of cfrel's local paper experience.
The Ft Worthless Star Telegram and Dallas Morning Snooze over the years have come pretty much to be devoid of originally researched content, because I think, there is less risk of libel suits behind the comfy liability contracts of AP. Mostly AP and other wire "staff" in the byline, meaning the local editor doesn't have to worry about the content.
Even if all the paper-papers eventually disappear, (weren't books supposed to be replaced by the internet, too?) all of the other radio and news and internet online fronts will still use it as a script. CNN in the airports, for example, just puts stock video clips in front of chicks reading AP and Reuters headlines.
In an age where the Pres Elect was sending out teams of lawyers to intimidate and suppress dissent in locales (but won't even deign to respond to a citizen's lawsuit against him, I personally don't see the potential for a hard-nosed reporter to go toe-to-toe with these people without the classical scene of the paper company's backing, with the seasoned Editor, sleeves rolled up in the corner office Watergate style.
Interesting thoughts. As citizen reporting becomes more commonplace, I think the law will adapt. Despite the RIAA lawsuits, music file-sharing wasn’t slowed in the least. I see the same with reporting.
And I also see the AP and Reuters folding. Without subscribers, they cannot stay in business. They never have done that much original reporting, compared to what they re-use from their subscribers.
They have never been anything but a distribution system.