I disagree, Will. First off, the TV became the predominant way Americans received their news. Around that time, Reagan killed both the Fairness Doctrine, plus forced the
the various network's news depts. into showing a profit. The third development was the cable's 24-hour news' cycle. So the news programs of the 70's quickly became the 'info-tainment' of the 80's & beyond. The newsprint media was forced into a decision: either offer the public what TV couldn't, fair reporting, journalistic integrity, intellectual honesty, or join the 'info-tainment' crowd. This struggle took place in the 90's, w/ various choices, but once Bush came to power, it was obvious was the consensus was: abandon anything to do w/ integrity and pander to the lowest-common denominator. That choice only added fuel to the independent people on the internet (bloggers, et al). There was and still is in America a huge demand for factual information that the newspapers (and of course TV) refuse to fill.

Which is really the crux of the issue. People forget that there is a very lucrative market for honesty & integrity. Writing for that market is deemed a quaint idea by journalists today, whether they're paid or not. Most of them would be stumped if you asked them to differentiate between pandering and integrity. The state of journalism in America today is appalling, and it's downfall started a long time before the net became a force to be reckoned with.