[govindkabra31]

Wouldn't high-quality-CMS be important to bring down the cost of publishing-- to the point of determining the sustainability of the publication itself?

The established media companies are struggling, if I had to describe in one line, because contemporary revenues cannot sustain their traditional cost structure.

You would otherwise need staff to coordinate between photographer, and onsite attendee and social media curator finding tweets to go with that story, and generally different parts being curated by different team members.

You also want to optimize the "review" workflow, to maximize the page views by landing the story quickly vs. other publications.

[nl]

So maybe the best CMS in the world saves you 10% in costs over an averagely competent CMS.

It's not really a material difference in terms of sustainability.

You are correct in stating that established media companies are struggling because of their cost structures. But those cost structures are mostly salaries (and capital investments in buildings etc) rather than something that a magic CMS can fix.

Put it like this: when a "new media journalist" uses their mobile phone to take a picture for their story (instead of a staff photographer) that has made a bigger difference in terms of cost structure than the worlds-best CMS can make.