I just used them as an example. The point is that if a newspaper article essentially corresponds to the Reuters (or any news agency's) news reports, why should I pay for the newspaper?

(Not the OP, just another opinion)

Reuters is a wire service that many other outfits license and republish, usually verbatim or with some truncation for brevity. It's the journalistic equivalent of retweets without any further comments. They also try to maintain a high degree of non-partisanship (because they want to broadly resell their content across demographic/cultural boundaries), which is good in a "just the facts" kinda sense, bad in the sense that it makes for boring reading and usually doesn't carry a lot of detail/commentary/analysis – which for people not already informed on a topic usually means they're just glossing over it and not getting any of the subtext. It's kinda like trying to understand world affairs through RSS feeds instead of in-depth expertise.

Nothing inherently "wrong" with that model, but it's not the same as true investigative journalism (which there is less and less of, both in terms of producers/journalists and audiences interested in that material) or even a good blogger explaining the important background of a topic. As our attention spans shorten to tweet length or below, perhaps our thoughts become similarly oversimplified. Nuance and depth don't really sell anymore, so our journalism is likewise shallow...