The author explicitly rejects the claim you are imputing to him: "You don't have to read a print newspaper to get a better relationship with the news."
The whole article, as I understood it, was about the deeper understanding you can gain about a situation if you take things slow, in batches, instead of seeking to read and post shallow reactions quickly.
This isn't really pushed until the very end of the article, and it's not nearly as long as the rest. It feels very much like an inclusion mostly to appear unbiased.
>A more accurate summary, provided in the article, is "Get news. Not too quickly. Avoid social."
I agree with this sentiment overall. Though, that is a quote the author of the column is echoing from someone else. Doesn't change that it's good advice, of course.
I like the fact that these two things share the same syntax.
Just more of the inevitable pushback from a dying industry's attempts to keep itself relevant. (also, why the downvotes, this is obvious propaganda)