But they treat the non-newsworthy elements of such events (like MOS interviews and pointless press conferences) as if they are the same degree of newsworthiness as downed power lines or unsafe bridges, thus making the coverage as useless as anything else local news does. I'm sure it wasn't, but I wish the reason the SF news outlets waited as long as they did to go live was so they could gather information, instead of the more likely reason that nobody was manning the newsdesk at 3am on a Sunday... at least nobody who could go on the air. I watched about an hour of the live ABC7 feed this morning, and less than four hours after the quake, they were already resorting to hovering a helicopter over a damaged but still open highway (I've seen bigger asphalt cracks driving down Sunset Blvd in Hollywood), and an older building whose "towers" had crumbled. These were interesting videos, but didn't provide the sort of need-to-know information you recall from Sylmar or other quakes.
As you said, times have changed and the internet is now the fastest means of delivering information, which means local news should accept that and really take the time to package together information that matters, but they don't because it is easier to hover a helicopter hover over cracked asphalt while a news anchor says, "wow... look at that."
I know I mentioned it at the time, but I still maintain that when Hawaii was braced for a possible tsunami a few years back, their local news coverage was outstanding. They cut through the BS, said what needed saying, didn't endanger their people by placing them on the ground, and didn't bother speaking to ordinary citizens with nothing of substance to contribute. It was refreshing. I don't even think Honolulu is in the top 50 TV markets, but I'd choose their news team against LA's in terms of disaster coverage any day of the week.