Corporate incentives are built around converting avarice into societal progress and a are incentivized to find the shortest path to that profit.
It's probably easier to make laws for one of those scenarios though.
I don't see how you can turn that into a "brain architecture" issue.
Shareholders are driven by the same dopamine system that normal people are, and are unlikely to sit by and change their incentives for the sake of morals.
The people pushing journalists to drop long form, in favor of revenue and attention generating articles with lower costs are shareholders, correctly responding to clear market incentives.
Theres an excellent article from mother jones which provides a possible solution to this problem (its been shared on HN but there was no discussion when I found it) http://www.motherjones.com/media/2016/08/whats-missing-from-...
The fault is in the interaction between media and the audience. People tend to react better to some content than to another, which leads to that content making more money, which leads to more of such content. The process is optimizing for exploiting cognitive biases and heuristics the audience uses.
Now the question is - what's easier to tackle? Issues with brain architecture that would require medical interventions we barely can imagine to correct, or business incentives of the media companies?