Tangled up in the question of whether print media will survive is one involving community education, enabling better informed participation. How will we know about such issues as jfleck mentions? (“But in the meantime I'm off to work today to try to figure out a compelling way to explain, in the pages of a newspaper, the important truth that New Mexico's water future is imperiled, that we're failing to confront harsh realities about how much water we have compared to what we're trying to do, and that climate change will only make it worse.”) If we don't know about such issues, who will encourage them to be investigated? And reported?

Certainly, as the change to electronic communication increases, citizens will need to find ways to get their concerns delved into and reported on responsibly. How might that be done, in a productive way, given the economic turmoil and subsequent failing news organizations?

Text heavy articles are challenging enough to read in print, let alone online.

So some of the demise of good journalism may be an artifact of the technology, one that may have a future solution. Certainly linking to other info sources can be helpful there — much better than footnoting in print.

News rooms have been cut tremendously during the last couple of decades. That, to me, is the main problem. Almost all news sources have opted for more “entertainment” and less substance. This may be because there aren't enough competent journalists to do the work (bare bones staff) or the priorities of the publishers. I don't know.

I do know that ever since 9/11, I haven't trusted most “mainstream” media for my information. When we went to war with Iraq, I started getting my information from several different sources online: BBC (yeah, I know), Le Monde, MSNBC and McClatchy. I now read those less regularly and hang out at the “left-leaning” blogs such as Crooks and Liars, Talking Points, Huffington, Salon and Daily Kos. I feel more informed . . . much more than I would by subscribing to the Journal.