I think that part of the problem is that graphic design is now a much 'bigger' job - ie the scope has broadened hugely.
30 years ago a designer and copywriter would work together and produce visuals with magic markers. Then the job would go to a photographer, mechanical artworker (possibly via a typographer), typesetter, proofreader, camera op, scanner op, repro film planner, ozalid op (anyone remember ozalids?), cromalin proofer, etc , all of whom were trained professionals, and would catch any mistakes before it got to the press.
Computers have 'killed', de-skilled or combined a dozen skilled trades, pretty much down to 2 - the designer and the pre-press op. Yes, it's wonderful to able to do the lot - copy, photos, artwork, proofing and output, and the cost and time saving is significant, but it's a double edged sword, and spellchecking is just evil. Even just marking up type for setting (remember copyfitting tables?) was a good way of checking for mistakes in the text.
I certainly wouldn't like to go back to the old ways of working (nostalgia's not what it used to be . . .), but as ever, the law of unintended consequences applies.
I think I would also take issue with Magpie's analogy of the architect (or car designer etc) 'creatives' have always to some extent relied on others to realise ways of achieving the results they want, (the architect's sketches for the Sydney Opera House were very, very rough and had to be formalised by structural engineers) and if you look at car designers' early drawings compared to the finished product, there inevitably are compromises made by the engineers - and accountants - in terms of what is achievable.
Alastair