I've heard the Watergate story used as an example before of a reason why news organizations should "matter." At first thought, it sounds like there is a third

I've heard the Watergate story used as an example before of a reason why news organizations should "matter." At first thought, it sounds like there is a third value proposition there (the three being fact distribution, analysis and investigation). Upon thinking about it more, don't you think that the value of the Washington Post is a little over-emphasized in that story today? As much as the newspaper itself played a huge part in allowing the story to break - from employing and training their staff, through providing an infrastructure for doing the investigation to publishing the actual piece - they almost had as much of a role in killing the story. If the editor at the time had succumbed to the pressure from the politicians, he may have caused the story to disappear. In the end, it wasn't the "newspaper" who investigated it, it was two guys named Woodward and Bernstein. One thing I believe in is that the internet empowers the individual to do things that were previously impossible to do by one person. Theoretically, I think this applies in this situation as well. As for the SJ Mercury News example, would that not be the same thing here? I'm sure there at least a couple of individuals in that group that are driving this kind of journalism. Maybe the newspaper as an organization helps foster and nurture this type of behaviour, but so what? Couldn't an organization that is not in the business of printing on paper do the same thing? What is the difference between a newspaper and a blogging organization anyway? Is it the salary? Is it the medium? Nobody is decrying journalism, just the old (economically) unsustainable models.