Yep, I think you're making good points, but you missed my point. I said newspapers were 'expected' to present information to provide information to readers. Your criticisms can't even be applied to Breitbart, or Rawstory. They aren't trying, and there is no expectation that they are, to be presenting information to inform readers of what is happening in the world. They are explicitly biased and delivering propaganda, designed to agitate their readers into an emotional response. There is no expectation that they would not do this, people are going to these sites to reaffirm their stupid biases in service of some agenda which will never benefit them.

It's a huge difference. In one case you have a system meant to deliver information to inform, and which can be criticized if it fails to do so, which it often (or even mostly) failed at. Then there is these new media sources of 'information', which are not even trying, and nobody expects to try. One is a subversion of the standards which are explicitly expected, and the other is a system that has no standards whatsoever.