Well, o.k., but Roy... what do you think we should do about it? I mean, this is hardly news by now (no pun intended). So what are you suggesting we do?

I also think it's more complicated than "web-based advertising killed print journalism." You can't kill something people really want. Much as I appreciate the fourth estate at its best, in its heyday, it did not always inspire love. The press brought down Richard Nixon, but it also helped get us into war in Iraq. The press has often been resistant, hesitant, and reactive about social progress. (Go back to coverage of everything from the draft riots of 1863 to the "women's libbers" of the early 1970s.)

Even if we start with the assumption that journalism as we know it is a good thing, and I'll buy that partially, the press has for a long time insisted that it continue business as usual even when that business model is clearly not effective. There have been some attempts to change, but they aren't pervasive enough or fast enough. You're often telling librarians to change, and you're right. You can't expect tomorrow's adults to pick the Times off their front lawn and sit down with it the way we did. So what do you say to the journalists?

I really do not believe that journalism as it used to be known, or print journalism specifically, was ever "balanced" and "unbiased." To make that comparison to, say, bloggers with "an axe to grind" is a gross oversimplification.

I do not automatically trust nor do I blindly accept anything written by the NYT, WSJ, what-have-you. I especially do not automatically trust or blindly accept the version of the news spewed out by local and national mainstream TV and radio media (or Internet, for that matter).

I do agree that there is an increasing unbalance in the media world, and I despise the celebrification of news as well.

A quality or character that is sorely lacking in today's world, in my view, is discernment. Working with those who watch/read/listen to/ingest news -- in whatever form -- to help them be able to pick out the biases or nuances or half truths is at least a partial solution.

I wish more people would call attention to this shrinking of the 4th estate. Regarding the post above,I don't think anyone "blindly accepts the version of news" presented by any single format. Whether you watch PBS or Fox News, listen to National Public Radio or Rush, you have a variety of viewpoints that help inform the issues. That is why I despair in seeing the consolidation of newspapers and the diminishing of the regional presses that provided so many alternative viewpoints. (Anyone who fondly remembers using "Editorials on File" where one could peruse a wide range of regional papers to see differing viewpoints for a single national and world event will know what I mean.) I'm of the generation that likes my news in print, in newspaper. Unfortunately, our local major city newspapers have both decided that they will focus on "local interest" which is equivalent to either trivial stories, or celebrities (People Magazine fluff.)The layoffs of newspaper reporters means no regional offices in DC to focus on legislation that affects us regionally. In a time when we need more national and international coverage, they are sinking to new low levels in terms of what information is provided. They want to appeal to the lowest common denominator in the hopes of attracting new young readers. It's not going to happen. Instead, we're getting less in-depth and investigative reporting and real stories that need to be reported are not happening.

What I most object to is two things: relying on news wires so any national news is coming from one of three sources, and providing content online for free! Please, someone, somewhere explain to me why newspaper subscribers pay to have content delivered to their doorsteps, but newspaper publishers don't collect anything from those individuals who read their content online. (O.K., they collect advertising revenues, maybe.)

The first respondent asked about a business model - how's this - stop giving away the news for free online. Newspaper subscribers would have the same option so many of our journals provide - either electronic free with a print subscription (which is the NYTimes model), or choose to subscribe to an electronic only version. Yes, there are the younger generation that wants their news delivered to their cell phones. I'm not one of them, but if they read the news and stay informed of the major issues affecting us in the next election, I'm all for them getting their news on their cell phones. I just want them to pay for it.

And thank you Roy for bringing this issue up. Again, I wish more people would wake up to what this shrinking 4th estate really means.