I do not believe journalism is better now that we have the Internet. If anything, journalism has taken two big hits lately, one of them being the Internet, the other being the United States government. As for the Internet its lead to lower quality work where people don't take the time to proof read or maybe even send out completely biased articles. Secondly, good reporting can easily be buried due to the sheer volume of people reporting news items. I'd say its a huge mess.
The Internet has opened up writing to everyone, like those of us writing these debate answers! While it has given everyone a voice, we could also argue that the quality of writing has gone down, in that it's no longer expert writers generating the content--no longer people who are trained in writing. So while we get more points of view from various people, which is a positive thing, it's no longer with the high level of polished quality that it once was.
Unfortunately, journalism isn't necessarily better now that we have the Internet. Fact checking and the dispersion of information is far more easy now. However, so-called journalists post anything they want to on the Internet, which can be done without any fact-checking or legitimacy. Therefore, journalism has been both hurt and aided by the Internet.
In the old days, those who wrote for newspapers had to at least try to look like they were maintaining high standards and checking their sources. But with the internet today, everyone thinks they can put out any old fact rather it is true or not and call it journalism.
The good of the internet is stories from local journalists can reach everywhere much quicker. The bad is nobody cares if a source is credible or not anymore, people just find what confirms what they think and share it on their social media pages. Stupidity has really killed the usefulness of it, you find people on a regular basis posting Onion stories and thinking they're real.