I'd like to think that is true but don't see evidence to support it. For instance, blogs don't seem to solve the problem of aggregation, which requires a special group of editors to evaluate content quality.

Consequently, I wouldn't expect the best reporters to be able to make more - I'd expect the worst reporters to make the most money. That is, those that are willing to dumb down/spice up the content so that it sells well. I call this the News Corp/Myspace effect and don't see any effective counter.

Do you?