Investigative journalism does indeed have a lot of value. However, there seems to be this implicit idea floating around that the mainstream media spends a lot of effort on investigative journalism. This simply isn't so. At best a teeny tiny fraction of the efforts of the MSM goes into it. Which helps explain why bloggers can match or exceed the amount of investigation done by the MSM despite the dramatic differences in resources available.
Legitimate journalism does have value. But today the big media outlets serve up sugary teeth rotting cereal and try to pass it off as "part of this complete breakfast". If the MSM concentrated on delivering serious journalism they may be in a better position today. Instead they concentrate on rehashing rumor, regurgitating press releases and wire reports, and making sure everyone gets their fill of marmaduke and beatle bailey. For some reason, this latter strategy is failing them in a world of ubiquitous access to information.
I think the current problems will be good for the industry. Magazines I consider true investigative journalism is the Economist and CSM. The others I really don't care for and could get my news through Google anyway.
Legitimate journalism does have value. But today the big media outlets serve up sugary teeth rotting cereal and try to pass it off as "part of this complete breakfast". If the MSM concentrated on delivering serious journalism they may be in a better position today. Instead they concentrate on rehashing rumor, regurgitating press releases and wire reports, and making sure everyone gets their fill of marmaduke and beatle bailey. For some reason, this latter strategy is failing them in a world of ubiquitous access to information.