This line from the article shows a fundamental misunderstanding about the way many people see the newspaper business. Despite the name most good newspapers aren't so much about news (as in what happened) as they are about analysis (why it happened and what it might mean). I don't buy the Financial Times because I want a list of things that have happened the past 24 hours, but because I want to read what smart, knowledgeable people think about a subset of those things. That sort of analysis does not go stale over night. Going further, taking a cursory look across the whole business it seems that the relative health of various publications seems reasonably well correlated to the amount of effort the place in quality analysis as opposed to just writing down things that have happened.

In fact the reason I still buy (paper) newspapers and magazines is that they still seem to be the only people doing good solid analysis.