Not really. Google doesn't summarize facts. It aggregates articles into clusters, which is useful, but it doesn't save us much time. Google also does a rather poor job of ranking the importance of stories, and often has old news for a long time and breaking news relatively late (or later than a motivated community, like Twitter, can have it).
I started Wikipedia back in 2001 and after a long string of nonprofits have started Infobitt.com, which is, sort of, Wikipedia for news. We scour the web for facts about a given story, aggregate hand-written summaries of the facts, rank-order them, and rank-order whole stories (collections of facts = bitts) as well. At scale, we will make news less noisy and more efficient to catch up on. My claim is that only a giant online community could do this--traditional news orgs aren't big enough, and algorithms aren't sophisticated enough (any more than they're sophisticated enough to write Wikipedia).