For example, over a period of several weeks in 1930, the New York Times ran frequent articles to update readers on The Salt March in India. They had, as far as I know, at least one reporter on the scene. And of course the telegraph and telephone were in use so there was little delay. On the other hand, the stories drew on interviews with multiple sources and were written for a foreign audience, which seems secondary.
Of course there are lots of other types of material in newspapers, such as opinion pieces, photos, cartoons, stock prices, etc. which seem to be primary, but I am curious about "news" articles. Any perspective from a working historian would be warmly appreciated!
Yes they usually are, though it sometimes depends on what you’re doing with it. As I counsel the Rhet 101 students at the archives, "primary sources" are often about how you're approaching the document. An article written in a college paper in 1950 on methods for students to protect their health could be a secondary source on the topic (though largely a worthless one now as it's so outdated), but if you're writing about say teen and young adult health in the 50s it can be a primary source for attitudes on health, methods of presentation of information to them, etc. So sometimes it’s about the angle.
The Yale guide to primary sources talks about this very well I think.