Right now, 50%-70% percent of traditional news is an article that paraphrase what a source links says.
Simply pointing me to the source link is more than enough for me to get the info.
The weirdest type of articles, are those that announce new products, The product is not available yet, so what does news websites do is that they paraphrase the press release. Matter of fact, a lot of times you would go to the product page only to find that they used a news service to publish their press release (I see it happen most of the times on TechCrunch)
I think I clarified my idea here, it’s not worth violating my privacy to read a news that can be read ad and tracker free on the source website.
I would not call the thing that you are describing “traditional news.” You want high quality journalism? Read a newspaper. YMMV based on the publication but as a general rule, traditional newsprint is still where the good investigative reporting and writing takes place.
I don’t have a lot of money to spend on subscriptions but I do pay for two newspapers. My local paper and the statewide business paper. Both weekly publications. Both delivered to my mailbox (although they have online versions). Both good quality publications overall. I think it costs me $220 a year between the two of them and they are well worth it.
I don’t understand the downvotes, most journalism is basically saying “I read something on Twitter, here is paraphrasing exactly what it says with no analysis or synthesis. Also I will not do anything to verify the accuracy or relevancy of this, please click links and enjoy our advertisements”