The only constant is fresh content. But as an avid Twitter user and RSS reader, I see publications covering the same topics. The headlines may be different but the intention is the same: take a trending topic and create a post around it to get a click. More site traffic, more ad sales, more ad revenue, etc.
The only differentiator seems to to speed. Can the Washington Post get tweet out their article before the New York Times? Can Pitchfork beat out the music blogs to announce a new Radiohead single? Who gets viral with breaking news first? BTW, did you know that Twitter now categorizes itself as a news app?
When everything's jammed into a Facebook feed, no one really cares where it comes from. They just click, linking inside Facebook. We might as well not even have a site; everything starts and ends in the Facebook feed.
So if all the stories are the same, the headlines similar, and they're on Facebook's property what's it going to take to stand out from the pack?
Snapchat offers a unique and fun way to report the news. No outlet is going to tell the same story because real and raw is hard to replicate, unless of course you publish on a polished Snapchat channel. But that's a different strategy.
It also helps to get more niche. The New York Times started a running newsletter. Newsletters are the new magazines.
At the end of the day, attention wins but good content stands the test of time. So why compete with the rest of them for a faster timestamp when you the best shouting you can do is to publish and deliver something completely different.