I agree with many of your points and feel that this topic does seem a bit sensationalized here. But my conclusions had nothing to do with the grammatical peeves you're also pointing out, which feel a bit unnecessary amidst the actual facts being discussed.
I added them because I believe that, in aggregate, they demonstrate another dimension of the 'quality' being discussed: journalism has an appreciation of language. Without writers that care, and paid copy editors, that quality may be lost without people ever realising what we had.
Think about any craft you know something about: You might find yourself explaining the details of a really well-crafted specimen to a lay person. Most or all of it may be new to to that person, but they could have maybe recognised and appreciated the overall quality. By teaching people about the many small details that went into the product, you're making it easier for them to seek out quality, and harder on producers to cut corners.
But my examples were probably too superficial and/or even wrong. Only this once I'll use my status as a non-native speaker of English as an excuse :). I'd add a note to the post itself, but the time to edit has unfortunately passed.
