I agree with some parts of your argument, but I really think that there is just too much content out there to consume. If you had "raw feeds of actual video, with absolutely minimal editing," I think you'll find yourself overwhelmed with information.
The job of the newspaper editor is to condense the material down, and like you say, correlate and aggregate it to form a narrative that is easier to consume. Sure, I'll concede that the majority of news editors choose to showcase worthless information -- particularly on television -- but you have to understand that it's a capitalist economic model and the newspapers are only delivering what the consumer wants.
"1st generation" reporting to me means a journalist who goes out and gets the interviews and video feeds. Do you think there were pre-existing "raw video feeds" out there for the Enron executives, the survivors of the Japan earthquake, etc.? "1st generation" reporting comprises the effort it takes a good journalist to identify which parts of the story need telling and going out and getting them. Yes, there is inevitable bias -- but we have to be able to take it with a grain of salt and make up our own mind based on potentially multiple narratives of the same story.
(Also, just to touch on this... I think you're underestimating the value of the news agencies. They provide resources to make quality reporting a viable economic model. In addition, they provide a name behind which the journalists' sources can trust. Would 'Deep Throat' have divulged his knowledge to Bernstein and Woodward if they had not been reporting for the Washington Post? Obviously, we'll never know the answer to that question, but I personally believe it's an important consideration for any potential source.)
The job of the newspaper editor is to condense the material down, and like you say, correlate and aggregate it to form a narrative that is easier to consume. Sure, I'll concede that the majority of news editors choose to showcase worthless information -- particularly on television -- but you have to understand that it's a capitalist economic model and the newspapers are only delivering what the consumer wants.
"1st generation" reporting to me means a journalist who goes out and gets the interviews and video feeds. Do you think there were pre-existing "raw video feeds" out there for the Enron executives, the survivors of the Japan earthquake, etc.? "1st generation" reporting comprises the effort it takes a good journalist to identify which parts of the story need telling and going out and getting them. Yes, there is inevitable bias -- but we have to be able to take it with a grain of salt and make up our own mind based on potentially multiple narratives of the same story.
(Also, just to touch on this... I think you're underestimating the value of the news agencies. They provide resources to make quality reporting a viable economic model. In addition, they provide a name behind which the journalists' sources can trust. Would 'Deep Throat' have divulged his knowledge to Bernstein and Woodward if they had not been reporting for the Washington Post? Obviously, we'll never know the answer to that question, but I personally believe it's an important consideration for any potential source.)