A very nicely written article on the design issues with the democratic editorial process being used widely on Web 2.0 discusses the inherent systemic flaws leading to overall poor quality of information.
Value of information
Novel and true information has more value than stale and misleading information. Big media editing process is inherently biased and produces a small community of information evaluators. On the other hand democratic, i.e., social editing often creates the least common denominator of information, not the same as novel and true information.
Approximation to optimal editing
The academic editorial process works quite effectively by producing blind votes, subjective review, and reviewer selection. The process usually advances the community and its agenda.
It is not quite optimal because it is slow, biased towards the community goals, requires a qualification for entry, and can be rigged in favor of certain groups.
Democracy unfortunately does not produce good information. Neither does capitalism. You ought to have a meritocracy to distribute valuable information and foster excellence. Would be great if someone could address some of these drawbacks of academic the editorial process and introduce it to mass communication.