As an example how elimination of library services is not a rarity, a colleague shared this February 11 article in Editor & Publisher dealing with the upcoming closure of the Wall Street Journal news research library:
http://www.editorandpublisher.com/eandp/news/article_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1003940607
Such an announcement is unhappy news in our profession. Two snippets stood out for me.
First, as I often get questions dealing with the ROI of information services, I pay attention whenever any measure is ventured. The librarian is quoted as saying about the reporters' access to various databases that it cannot replace "knowledge about how to research using all the tricks we've learned over the years. We figure that the reporters will probably spend 10 times our compensation trying to do their own research."
Second, as my work frequently brings up examples of the value of access to information from the more distant past, this quote points to a gap that could prove to be a greater barrier than it may seem: "I'm ... worried about the microfilm. Between where the Proquest historical database leaves off and our PDF archives begins, there is about 10 years where the only physical form of the paper exists on microfilm." Given typical newsroom deadlines, microfilm may be impractical to use. I see many illustrations in day to day work how inconvenience in access translates into no access because there simply isn't time.
Information specialists regularly discuss the matter of quality in research and trade examples how their specialized training and experience enable them to dig up nuggets no one else was able to find. Let's hope, as the WSJ librarian does, that there will be a rehire later this year - for her sake certainly, but mostly for the sake of the reporters.