Rhetoric is a dangerous sword - its sharpest edge is the pommel. You seem to think you've pointed out a logical inconsistency in Aaron's argument structure. What you actually did was propose that news does not exist; actually, that information itself doesn't exist.
In the actual argument they claimed that news wasn't the best information source in an argmax over sources on the basis that other mediums have selective pressures which more strongly correlate with utility generation - partly because of medium influences and partly because things which aren't new are subject to selective pressures for longer and thus the filtering mechanism of that selective pressure is more discriminating.
You aren't engaging with that argument, but you act like you are. So when you claim that no information is the alternative proposition you've actually made a mathematical claim: that the count(set{news, **other_sources}) == 0. This is clearly nonsensical because the minimum size of the argmax over information sources necessarily included news and so was obviously at least one, but often more. So your basically asking people who would agree with you on the basis of your argument to take on the claim that 0=N. Yet if it does then it follows that news doesn't exist in the set where you only get to choose news. So they have to not only believe that you are right, but also that news is not a source that they can choose, but this contradicts your premise.
Some questions to ponder to help you get it:
1. Why aren't you trying to refute the existence of evolution and natural selection?
2. Why aren't you trying to disprove that approximation accuracy is a function of the computation that goes into the approximation?
If you really thought you were right you would be trying to tear down the works of Charles Darwin and would be laughing at Donald Knuth for the stupidity of classifying things by computational complexity. Yet you aren't.