The newspapers should stick to what they can do best, fully researched stories and information gathered with the money and time that these organisations have.

You're not serious, are you? When I got out of journalism several years ago, it was because editorial budgets had been cut to the bone. Salaries were poor, resourcing was minimal and staff numbers were well below the number needed to do the job, much less do it properly. And it's even worse now. At the last newspaper I worked on, the computers were more than 10 years old and broke regularly, the printing press was 50 years old and broke regularly, the handful of cars were 10-15 years old and broke regularly, and so on. Journalists were expected to do most of their work via the phone, using press releases as the basis, as it was more "cost effective". When the management cocked up the budget due to miscalculations, we were still expected to deliver the profit they'd forecast—even though staffing in some departments had gone from 12 down to 3. Few modern news organisations make time or money available to their staff. The aim is to rip as much money out as possible and then increase that amount the following year. I was even told at one point that processing news is no different to processing baked beans or sausages. Well, if the quality of our output (despite our best efforts) was anything to go by, I'd hate to eat baked beans or sausages made in the same way.