> News articles frequently quote "sources inside" some three letter agencies or major corporations who will face consequences if they speak to the public under their real names, and will be rightfully dismissed if spoken anonymously without a journalist being able to ascertain their identity. There is also information that is only spread behind closed doors — trade shows, conferences, sometimes even governmental meetings

Your argument just revolves around the edge cases of journalism and that's exactly my point. Many of the so-called "news" sites aren't that. They are just scraping off content on the internet and slapping ads over them. So many clones of Mashable, for instance.

>Most people, you likely included, do not even know what they are missing out when their local journalism collapses (again, due to loss of newspaper sell and classified ad revenues)

While there is some merit to this argument, not always. Most of what we read today are just the opinions of the news, rather than the actual news itself. The people giving their opinions on the news aren't even qualified in the subject matter to begin with. So, strictly speaking, if a news organization collapses - it's just survival of the fittest. It's a free market and if you don't add value, people will just move on.