I would hypothesize that the distributed nature of peer-production/crowd-sourcing/etc.. would make fact-checking more thorough and efficient. A prime example of this would be KOS.

Additionally, I would also hypothesize it would mitigate ideological (and other) biases.

The Internet also makes it much easier to fact-check on an individual basis.

With a few caveats, of course.

It does increase the velocity of "bad" information, but that works both ways.

Unless you're worried about hacking, I don't see how being on the internet would change the reliability of information if it's still coming from the same source. Newspapers, being the topic here, would only be changing between physical media, wouldn't they?

charlie rose interview last nite with marisa meyer, from google, touched on some of these print v electronic issues..

she's vice pres of 'user experience' and 'search'..

>edit, i meant print v electronic, not print v paper

i call dibs on that sign

Can newspapers do this?

http://inventcivil.com/2009/03/watermai ... a-twitter/

No paper, or Journalism degree, required.

Newspapers Dead Since 1918, Still Dying
http://www.reason.com/blog/show/132974.html

http://books.google.com/books?id=CWwAAA ... e=bookclip

WSJ is gonna try Micropayments:

http://www.paidcontent.org/entry/419-ws ... opayments/

Hope that works out better than Myspace did.

Embarrassing Newspaper Bailout Saves 15 Jobs
http://www.businessinsider.com/embarras ... obs-2009-5