Much has been made of how the mainstream media is obsolete, and that the internet not only provides a greater volume of coverage, but also provides for a wider range of voices in the media. In addition, if one wishes to enquire into a news source, one can check it oneself, even viewing official statements from the Whitehouse, and viewing videos os the related events in real time, so there is no opportunity of deniability. This of course varies with one’s access to online media (i.e. pay-for-view news, a la Wall Street Journal, or access to a Lexis-Nexis account). Meanwhile the mainstream media is complaining that sites such as Craigslist (as well as free online media) is undermining their traditional revenue sources, and are being forced to cut back on salaried staff, as well as investigative journalism, and are increasingly being forced to rely on a limited choice of wire services to fill their pages (or news programs, as the case may be).
But what is the effect of all this?
What people have seemed to overlook in this debate is that investigative reporting is a very capital-intensive endeavor (frequently to compensate for extremely hazardous semi-clandestine investigation). Most of what appears in the seemingly more-diverse-than-it-appears internet "press", is that most amateur sleaths (myself included) tend to largely reprint that which is being reported elsewhere. It’s like an enormous echo chamber.
More on Media Vulture