Actually getting news is the clear winner!
Thought experiment, two sites:
One is quick, easy to read, but boring, low clarity.
The other is slow, harder to read, but is compelling, high clarity.
Now another thought experiment, and please here me out! This one is from broadcasting:
Two streams or stations. Can be radio, TV, whatever:
One, is boring, but pristine! Quality is off the chart good.
The other, for whatever reason, is compelling! Quality is low. Crappy.
-----
Answer these for both experiments:
Which one do you use?
Why?
Which one do [you think] other people use? [And you might benefit by asking them]
Why?
-----
Results!
In broadcast, the number one criteria was whether it was compelling. Full stop, that is what mattered to most people by a very solid majority. Almost nothing else did. And that played out with almost everyone doing broadcast of any kind moving to offer more lower quality choices to people, while at the same time delivering compelling programming to their audiences.
You have probably heard the phrase, "Content is king!"
For news, this will be less clear, but I bet being fast is analogous to quality in the broadcast realm.
And if I am at all right about that, fast just won't get you there. Don't get me wrong. There will be a set people who go for it, but the bigger numbers will be on compelling.
And that is both a different, and IMHO, a very interesting topic. Public trust in mainstream media "news" is super low.
If you were to deliver compelling news from a variety of sources that have more public trust, you are very likely to attract and keep users. Again IMHO.