The most absurd thing I have ever seen is the phenomenon of "Internet Reporters".
A person sitting in the studio reading Facebook and Twitter feeds over the air is NOT reporting. Verification of key facts and actually investigating and reporting a story are critical. How many more "Balloon Boy" stories do we need to see?

More and more stories are being broken on shakier and shakier evidence. The "Sources report" introduction to a story is the journalistic equivalent of a "Beta" label on a computer program. But it's not taken as such; it's taken as gospel. There needs to be a well-marketed counter, that doesn't lag ridiculously behind the news world, but has fully researched and is confident of its conclusions. Confirmation with greater analysis has to have a market over a one-line story reporting something that can be couched into a stickier headline.