Some believe we're in a golden age of journalism. It's a great time because more information gets to more people quickly. All of that information means there's a need for journalists to distill it and make sense of it.
But the golden age point is debatable, and I think that has to do with the definition of a journalist.
For hundreds of years journalists have resisted any attempt to define what they are and what they do out of fear that definition could lead to some sort of licensing system --- an anathema to the Fourth Amendment. I don't think there's ever been a time in which that definition is needed more than now. (Let me be clear: I don't think there should be a licensing system; just a better definition of what journalists do that ackno.)
The digital age has spawned a huge number of bloggers, writers and essayists, but they are not, in large part, journalists. A journalist understands nuance, is a subject matter expert, is skilled at the very fine art of interviewing and follow up questions, knows how to decipher complex and conflicting data, can tun a phrase with the best novelist, and can write a compelling story with 15 minutes or less until deadline --- all the while getting all the facts right.
There are lots of people who can write. There are not lots of people who are skilled enough to do the above.