This is timely.
The headline around here yesterday was the demise of our 174 year old local paper – which will shut down all print operation at the end of July.
There will be an online continuation – but this is not the same.

Mark Sayers has mentioned the hyper-sensationalism that’s been a part of the media, their means to being heard through the noise of other news industries, their way of “competing,” and so I sincerely doubt that “competition” really makes for better news. Honesty sure does, integrity, and so on, but you can’t really MEASURE those things.
Also, the Onion had this to say, which amused me but also made its point: http://www.theonion.com/content/node/39473?utm_source=onion_rss_daily

An insightful blog post on the decline of newspapers, and the bright future of citizen journalism:
“Society doesn’t need newspapers. What we need is journalism. For a century, the imperatives to strengthen journalism and to strengthen newspapers have been so tightly wound as to be indistinguishable. That?s been a fine accident to have, but when that accident stops, as it is stopping before our eyes, we?re going to need lots of other ways to strengthen journalism instead.
“When we shift our attention from ‘save newspapers’ to ‘save society’, the imperative changes from ‘preserve the current institutions’ to ‘do whatever works.’ And what works today isn?t the same as what used to work.”

I think findingdulcinea.com can be helpful too. A number of people are pointing to social media and blogs as new sources of news. I love Slate, but they will quickly concede that much of what they do relies on the existence of more traditional forms of journalism. They offer great analysis, but don’t offer original reporting.
Of course it was interesting that the first place that the crash of US Airways 1549 was first noted on Twitter…

I’m excited for the day the whole world will be able to see something happen the instance it happens…

two thoughts diverged in a blog….
I think I will go with ‘instant’ instead of instance. Apologies..

It’s a good question. I had the fortune this spring to attend a screening of the documentary “Reporter” which follows Nicholas Kristof (of the NYT) on his travels and quest to tell stories that shed light some of the key injustices of our day. One of the larger themes of the film was the decline of his style of hard reporting and the rise of more blogs and opinions and “talking heads-style” content. We’re so used to getting our good news free online now and the question is whether we’ll be willing to pay trusted providers for it anymore. Or the the point of your question – how to hit the best news first, rather than all the commentary. Kristof’s gone to great lengths to expand readership by embracing all kinds of new media forms – we will be willing to work as hard to get the best info?

Saw this over at David Wayne’s Jollyblogger, and thought of your post. He is discussing why local news outlets (sports departments) cover one Florida university more than another:
“The bottom line – it’s readership and advertising. While it’s true that the Gators have been more newsworthy in recent years than any other athletic team on the planet, it is interesting to me why the nolies and other teams aren’t getting the coverage. Here’s the writer:
‘I regret to inform you that the debate is over. Newspapers undeniably prefer the Gators, though not for the reasons persecuted fans think.
It’s not an orange-and-blue thing, It’s a green thing.
Money is becoming scarce in the newspaper business.”
http://jollyblogger.typepad.com/jollyblogger/2009/03/an-interesting-take-on-the-news-business.html

economist.com
centrist
international
attached to “old media”
excellent analysis