Yes, basically it's "should we still be stenographers with some separate fact checking" versus "should we report when people are lying." The comments are RICHLY satisfying.
And if you wondered why some news is dying and much of the rest of it (at least in the US) is utter crap, let me show this as an example. It's stenography. Just writing stuff down, occasionally with fake "balance" so you don't annoy people and end up in a storm of false publicity – as opposed to actually doing news (and enjoying the fact controversy might bring subscriptions).
When we discuss journalism -or any form of media – our ideas of it are often calcified, years out of date, etc. When we deal with the culture behind media and information, sometimes it's its own little clique, now ignorant of the world or even it's role in it.
This is where the internet has seriously changed things. Among the B.S., gated mental communities, porn, and ads is the ability to communicate and get things out more than anyone could imagine. This is not just challenging the status quo – it's making people aware there is one.
I gave up on "mainstream" news years ago. Now with a mix of aggregators, sites, blogs, and other resources I keep up on things. This guy here is one of the examples of why I easily made that move.
I think there's a future for smarter, more truthful, more hard-hitting, and more useful news. If anyone will deliver it is the question -and who is capable of thinking out of their comfortable little boxes and doing it.
Maybe it's you.