Google should remain as a search engine, not an imformation engine.
It makes no difference because as both a search or information engine, they get first crack at ad dollars being spent on their face time with the visitor, not the newspaper. I've said many times before that this is why webmasters don't want cache, site previews, none of that junk because it gives Google more visitor and ad revenue opportunities and takes away from the webmaster. This is why NOARCHIVE should be SOP procedure for all websites to stop this practice but many webmasters idiotically defend their use of cache pages. Besides, Bing and Yahoo are also making the information play and Google has to do it to remain competitive.
However, people want a one-stop shop to find all their news and it's driven by customer demand. I like to see all my news sources at a glance, not going to each site one at a time. If the newspapers can't figure out how to get some revenue share out of that then too bad for them.
This is why NOARCHIVE should be SOP procedure for all websites to stop this practice
If everyone said "noarchive" then g### would simply stop honoring the directive. Same thing with "expires" headers. They're just sending information to the browser. The browser-- which for these purposes includes the googlebot-- can choose how to act on the information.
The problem newspapers (globally, I have no idea whether Brazilian papers are better or worse) have is that a high proportion of news is available from multiple sources. If the newspapers pull out of Google News, other sources will replace them, or new sources will appear to fill in the gap.