I'll add onto this a complaint I have that I don't see mentioned often. News articles always cover the first half of a story when it's hot and never follow up. It's obnoxious if you have an attention span longer than whatever is happening at the exact moment.
This again is where Wikipedia is often invaluable, so long as the story is in fact covered there. And is why I wish news organisations would adopt a Wikipedia-like approach to complex stories.
The vast majority of stories don't make it to wikipedia, and wikipedia just regurgitates shit it gets from the news. If I could find an answer online I wouldn't need the news to actually do their job.
The overwhelming majority of stories I've found it useful for me to look up on Wikipedia ... tend to be there. Most of these tend toward natural disasters, industrial / infrastructure incidents, business/political news, possibly something in technology or the sciences. Not so much "human interest", celebrities/gossip, entertainment, etc., though I suspect some of those might also find their way to Wikpedia, modulo BLP considerations (<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Biographies_of_livin...>).
Wikipedia does not merely regurgitate news, but processes, synthesizes, and very often balances multiple viewpoints.
And, just to give a current example, the sinking of Bayesian doesn't merit its own article (yet?), but there is a section on the page covering that yacht:
