Having watched how our local TV station has steadily cut back on staffing at all levels, I would say that front line staff covering the news are in more danger

Having watched how our local TV station has steadily cut back on staffing at all levels, I would say that front line staff covering the news are in more danger today than 10-20 years ago. Covering a story used to mean having 3+ people on site to cover the story: the reporter, a camera person and an microphone or uplink tech as well. These days reporters are sent out on their own with a camera stand and do almost all of the work by themselves. Our local newspapers have seen similar cutbacks. The left and right wing papers were bought out, merged and now the same staff produce 2 different papers with slightly different spins on the same matters. With all these cutbacks, it's no wonder journalists have a harder time doing in depth and thorough jobs reporting the stories of the day. The advertising dollars have walked away from the local news outlets, and as a result there is far less local oversight. If we as a society don't figure out how to address how journalism is funded, things will continue to the point where only some well funded niches remain covered in any depth. Democracy can't function without oversight, and citizens can't exercise their oversight of governments without knowledge of what is going on. This is dangerous for the public, but it's not the journalists' fault. And bad journalism happens when journalists aren't funded to do the kind of in depth stories that cost real dollars to investigate and produce.