It's a fair question. Let me elaborate.
A person who is reading a newspaper because of the content of the stories (assuming the stories have content) is less likely to be irritated by typographical errors than a person who has little interest in the subject, knows nothing about the context, knows precious little about the country in which he or she lives, and thinks that everything he or she does at work is error-free and boasts 100% quality 100% of the time.
Now, Goose Egg made a good point on the basis of his familiarity with a certain issue, though astute readers would have picked the fault up as well, I expect. But for me the main issue was the point of the article, which was that brain scans have proved disappointing for those who thought they could open up a whole new field of research relating to mental illness. The headline didn't reflect this like it should have, but when I read the piece this didn't detract from the article itself.
As for your other points, I fail to see the relevance of all this Chinese imperialist culture stuff, and the bushiban parallel thing doesn't really make sense. Why? Because at least bushibans make a shitload of money ripping off students (actually, their hapless parents). I fail to see how these newspapers can make much money. The impression I have is that they all survive on the basis of sugar daddy companies who want to be influential or who have some political agenda. Very different motivations, and that allows for some interesting things to emerge.
Omniloquacious seems to think that these newspapers have some role to play, and I agree with him. They're certainly not perfect, but give me the Taiwan News, TT or (God help me) the China Post over the Straits Times or the China Daily any day. There's much, much more to life than proofreading.
I don't want to make this too personal, but when you did your doctorate, did your examiners pick up any errors