Gawker's Hamilton Nolan raises an interesting point: if financial journalists tend to get inside info from the disgruntled rather than the sycophantic--and if recession-induced layoffs target the former than the latter--it could make covering Wall Street way more difficult.
But couldn't the impact of the recession on sources and the journalists who use them could extend even further?
I've noticed, for example, that employees of the Boston Globe are a bit less talkative than they used to be. (Note: I'm not talking about management here, but rather staffers speaking on background.) This may be because they're depressed by the condition of the paper and the newpaper industry in general. It may also be because they're afraid of losing their jobs and don't want to risk talking out of school when they don't need to.
Since the recession is pretty much screwing everybody, it wouldn't surprise me if this shift is far bigger than Globe and the newspaper business. In any line of work--be it public-sector or private--people are hoping they still have a job in six months or a year. So why jeopardize that by blabbing to the press?