I know P-I chief David McCumber is in a miserable position these days, having to more or less go publicly hat-in-hand, hoping some "civically engaged well-heeled angel" will come to rescue his paper. But if he wants to lay out the "value proposition" for a newspaper today he's really going to have to think more imaginatively than his entry last night, in which he throws around a lot of jargony-sounding self-praise ("Powerful commentary across the newsroom: Joel Connelly," etc.) and boasts about Pulitzers on the mantelpieces of various staff members (some of whom won those prizes at OTHER newspapers, including the P-I's main competitor).
What McCumber fails to do is talk the language of people who don't already take it for granted that an expensive professionally-staffed newspaper full of guys like him in ties and mantelpieces with fancy awards is the only way to generate "powerful commentary" and to report news. I think the case can be made for why the particular architecture and machinery of a newspaper is still critically important to informing the public. But listing the great stories you've done and how many pats on the back you've gotten from people in the newspaper industry isn't going to impress that angel very much, I wouldn't think.