What we need is not more journalists -- everybody and his brother is a journalist. What we need is more editors. And more demand for editors. Somebody to curate and brutally dissect content for others to consume. Somebody to tell authors "No. This is not good enough. Rewrite it."
Newspapers and other MSM outlets are one of the last places this is happening. I don't think we'll miss newspapers when they finally disappear, but we're sure as heck going to miss editors.
As someone who has worked as a writer and editor at a newspaper, I think you're undervaluing journalists (it's a high-skill, analytical job) and making a false distinction between editors and journalists (it's like "software architect" vs. "programmer" - same basic skills, more supervisory role). But that's not what I want to talk about.
My actual point is that for better journalism to happen (what you call better editing), it needs to be incentivized. I am still hopeful that somebody will figure out how to build a successful journalism platform, probably based on micropayments, that incentivizes good journalism.
I'm not sure if PG listed this in his essay from a while back about great world-changing startup ideas, but I think it would qualify.
I don't feel there is that much of a distinction between editors and journalists. What I'm saying is basically that by allowing instantaneous publishing, the web is allowing journalists to "go to press" in 3 seconds. There doesn't have to be much thought given to rewrites, or sourcing, or flow, or editorial content. In fact, I'd argue that the more time the modern journalist spends doing these things is a disadvantage.
Of course the web eventually sorts it all out: it's wrong a bunch but the correct story eventually makes it. But we're losing something. This is very similar to the comments made by old-timey C++ programmers looking at modern OO IDEs. Yes, you can do things really fast, but you're also losing an important part of the craft by doing it this way.
In my opinion these two roles, which of course could be performed by the same person, are separating. Long-format, well-edited work is going down a separate path than what we would consider traditional journalism. Beats me where it ends up. I don't think there will be a journalism platform built. This isn't a money problem. This is a structural problem. Technology has pulled apart the instantaneous recording of events from the polished presentation of "news"
I checked that site, couldn't figure out its actual model in 30 seconds (or even where to go to figure it out), and I think that's a big problem. But it looks like they were going in what I think is a good direction.
I agree that the quality spread among independent journalists (in the broad sense of the term) is far wider than among professional journalists, but one of the reasons journalism is in crisis it that the reporting and writing are consistently mediocre.
Part of the problem is that the journalism business model uses the value of eyeballs to advertisers as a proxy for writing quality, so editorial decisions are driven by what advertisers want, not what readers want.
Meanwhile, the advertising revenue pie is shrinking and news publications are forced to cannibalize themselves to cut costs, with the result that writing (and particularly manager-editing/copy-editing) get worse instead of better.
Newspapers and other MSM outlets are one of the last places this is happening. I don't think we'll miss newspapers when they finally disappear, but we're sure as heck going to miss editors.