I don't get why this study is trying to draw big conclusions through comparing stories published by mainstream news outlets and stories that are popular on social news sites heavily, heavily skewed towards geeks.
As the cliche goes... apples vs. oranges.
The guy doing the study even says this about the inherently different foci of the two:
"This technology bias was partly down to the fact that it was early adopters of technology that lead the way when it came to 'playing with the potential of the internet to empower users', said Mr Rosenstiel.
Once "citizen journalizm" gains widespread popularity, expect reddit and digg have their front pages occupied by Paris Hilton news, fart stories, soft porn and updates on mysteries of Anna Nicole's tragic death.
The full report also says that international news is more prominent in the MSM than on social news sites, which is probably more evidence in favor of your point.
Big international stories are the ones where major news outlets can still add some significant value (although Lebanese bloggers from last summer might beg to differ), but I think you're right that this report doesn't mean much for them one way or the other.
As the cliche goes... apples vs. oranges.
The guy doing the study even says this about the inherently different foci of the two:
"This technology bias was partly down to the fact that it was early adopters of technology that lead the way when it came to 'playing with the potential of the internet to empower users', said Mr Rosenstiel.