The traditional model is changing, of course; I know that. As newspapers shed staff, they necessarily come to rely more and more on agency stories and they simply won't have the resources to report on major stories overseas, and perhaps even across the country.
I had, however, hoped that things hadn't got this bad. I had hoped that, if agency stories needed to be placed at the front of the main section they would be stories of great importance that the Herald simply couldn't cover. Instead, on today's page A3, we get the stories of Prince Harry's belated inheritance and crucial news from Papua New Guinea:
Curiously, they were too ashamed to put the article on the website - just the third page of the actual newspaper then. The Prince Harry article isn't much better:
I would agree that it won't make much of a difference to his life; I would dispute whether that's because "he manages quite well with his army salary". It's not like he was a chimneysweep before he joined.
Royal commentator and former press secretary to the Queen Dickie Arbiter said he did not believe the inheritance [about $21m from the estate of 'the People's Princess'] would make a big difference to Harry's life.
"I doubt whether he'll touch the money because he manages quite well with his army salary," he told Sky News.
"What does he need to spend it on? Very little."
What are these doing on A3? They both seem to fit with the modus operandi of the World section: one lead article about Barack Obama, followed by the ten quirkiest stories to be found from AP, or in the Telegraph or the Independent. The World section is still there - I checked - so what are they doing in the front pages?
Let's hope it's an oversight rather than a harbinger of news-doom.