Redditors getting outraged because of a video showing police brutality is great. But it doesn't scale to cover things like fact-checking the police, like the article is talking about. If there isn't a shocking video, TV news and Reddit won't really care.
Consider the article's example of Baltimore. How often is there a reddit, 4chan, or youtube outrage relating to Baltimore? Whereas the Baltimore Sun can have crime reporters there every day.
That's true to an extent but.... (I apologise for the terminology)
There are already great examples of 'new media,' amateurs supported by new technologies & online communities doing things that would not have gotten done under a 100% old media regime. Exposing police brutality, war crimes, or other issues we associate with heavy duty press. That is, there are circumstances that involve more then a flood of commentary where new media does a better job then old media.
On the other hand, New Media is not going to fill all the wholes old media leaves behind. I think that's clear already.
But we don't really know what, how deep or how many these holes are going to be. Currently, reddit/youtube supplement exixsting media because existing media exists. If we take professional media out of the equation, it will evolve differently.
There might not be that much of a long term net loss from newspapers going out of business. There are some shocking videos going to be produced outside of conventional media. It's still not clear how many or what quality.
And look at how great the Baltimore Sun has made Baltimore.
My point: the idea that the old order has to be preserved because the new order is not up to the task carries a lot more water if the old order is functioning effectively.
Consider the article's example of Baltimore. How often is there a reddit, 4chan, or youtube outrage relating to Baltimore? Whereas the Baltimore Sun can have crime reporters there every day.