Are "old school" journalistic principles obsolete?

I may be "old school" when it comes to journalism, but I was also brought up in the not-so-far-away era before blogging, Facebook and Twitter. You had to jump through a lot more hoops to get anything published. As editors, we went through multiple rounds of edits before any word ever saw the light of day. Everything was fact-checked. The saying goes that if your grandma says she loves you, check it out. Writers had to submit extensive lists of sources, interview notes and research to back up every article. From there the in-house editorial staff double-checked each of these sources, research studies and notes. We kept files for every fact-checked article, detailing every change. I remember once being reprimanded for letting an article go to print that stated that a tablespoon of peanut butter had 100 calories. Apparently we were five calories off, according to some sources. But, if you think about it, the calorie count of peanut butter can be pretty subjective depending on brand, crunchy, creamy, all-natural or processed. The bottom line? Check every fact, preferably from multiple sources. And if the writer doesn't indicate whether he or she was referring to crunchy or creamy peanut butter, you better find out. And don't think we were done once an article was fact checked. From there, it went through at least six rounds of rigorous copy editing. Commas were agonized over, every period  and proper noun was discussed. Finally, an article might be ready to send to the printer. But wait... the printer would send proofs back, and we'd have one more opportunity to ensure that every i was dotted and that every calorie was accounted for. Only then would an article be fit for print. As I moved through the editorial ranks, my days of copy editing and fact-checking were fewer and farther between, but, as another saying goes, once a copy editor, always a copy editor. Ask my husband, who always worries I will whip out my red pen and "edit" whatever sentiment he has written for me on birthday and Valentine's Day cards. I do admit I find a certain perverse pleasure in catching errors in books and magazines. It's a helpful reminder that everyone is human, and it makes me feel a lot better about the typo I once had in my "Letter from the Editor" one issue. 

So, where am I going with this journalistic trip through memory lane? Now anything can be published with the click of a mouse. Don't get me wrong. I am all for status updates, tweets and blogging (obviously). Everyone should have their own personal soapbox from which they can share their deepest or most superficial thoughts and observations. But here we enter a grey (or gray) area. With everyone writing or wanting to write (and willing to do so for free), does the value of superior writing and an emphasis on "old school" journalistic principles decrease? Who is doing the fact-checking and copy editing now?