I take your point. There are many ways to get"news" now, and to get it more quickly. But my guess is that Paco was lamenting the decline of trained aggregators who ,with years of experience ,could curate the flow. The risk of poorly researched, poorly edited, and too often biased stories that pass as news has certainly increased. A well informed reader, given the time to fact check "news", can indeed get to the truth that is often concealed among the chaff. But not everyone is both informed and afforded the time to do so. This is not to say that all newspapers were well done on a consistent basis. Some were good, and some were bad. Some more liberal or more conservative in their opinion pages for certain. But generally , one could trust that "news' sections were reliable and consistent. I welcome the variety and speed we are afforded on line, but I still resort to old fashioned newspapers, albeit in their digital versions, for a great deal of my reading. I am retired, and read a great deal of each and every day. I consider myself to be well informed, and I seek various sources to ensure that I see differing opinions when reading editorial content. But it is my belief that a couple good "papers" enhance my understanding of the world around me. So I see the value in your posting, and also in Paco's. Both views can coexist without absolute contradiction. So I hail Gutenberg for inventing the press, and Al Gore for inventing the internet.
