A Reality Check on Content: whose quality is it anyway?

Frankly, I don't like some of the things being said in this article.

But it is highly relevant. The fact is that content -- good content -- is no longer an objective thing.

Nor is it confined to one Website.

Not is it necessarily "objective."
I do believe that "curation" and "editing" are critical in the journalistic sense (my favourite example being mineral water being a guaranteed version of the free liquid)
However, as this guy argues, point of view, virality and relevance in a narrow, defined sense are critical. Accept it.

Is traditional journalism "useless"?

 Here is a piece that actually systematically lists the virtues of old journalism, and describing it as "useless".
I find it interesting, because it is written by an entrepreneur, not a journalist. His clear elaboration is welcome, but after going through it, I suddenly realised that something that is "useless" need not be "irrelevant".
Don't tell me people don't want credible, fair and lucid content.
My simple take is that journalism has moved one step back in order to be more relevant than ever before. In other words, the relevance has shifted to proving the same virtues all over again, but in an "open universe" that the Web and convergence enable.
You can't control the press or the editor, but over a period of time, by word of mouth and for sheer clarity, people will-- and in fact - do seek journalistic skills.
I experience that myself on both Facebook and Twitter, where I am like anyone, but get appreciated for journalistic skills. Some things don't change, though the circle might widen.