This isn't a coincidence: to a large extent, the last few years haven't been THAT remarkable, but news outlets will inevitably cover things as if they're very remarkable, because that's what fuels subscriptions. See also: http://www.aaronsw.com/weblog/hatethenews

You don't think it is possible that those things could have been avoided if people had better access to high quality information from for example newspapers and scientific studies? Currently a majority of people don't think it is worth it to pay for quality information so they only consume the poor quality crap you get for free. I guess this situation is fine if you want to sit in your ivory tower and lament over the ignorant masses ruining everything, but if you actually want to solve the issue you should clamor for more quality information being made free because in a democracy it is the ignorant masses whose opinions actually matter.

"But it doesn't matter, those people are too dumb to understand!" you say, well totally blocking them from accessing information is a good way to ensure that the situation will never improve.

(Perhaps I don't view news as having something important to say)

However, your point is interesting - sometimes you do have to charge in order to say things effectively. For example, you generally have to charge for a book to cover the cost of putting it together.

Either advertise and make it free, or have a paywall subscription model.

I get it that news isn't free. What is strange about the struggle is that in the 21st century a big news organization can have a bigger subscriber base than ever before. So why don't they? What is broken?

There are high quality publications that I think do consistently do the original research and due diligence behind their reporting, but they're mostly just not of interest to me anymore because they're national. I'm overloaded with political stuff in my face from other sources anyway - I'm happier just not reading good commentary on it in my spare time. I find BBC is a good source of world news, but they never ask me for money..

Because they get their funding by the taxpayers of the United Kingdom, who quite generously allow the rest of us to benefit from the product they paid for.

But if we're advocating state-sponsored media, remember that in that field the BBC's commitment to real journalism makes it kind of an outlier. Most state-sponsored media outlets are just propaganda mills for the regime that sponsors them.

I see some media working to recover their image nowadays, but low quality is still the norm.

I don't understand this fundamentalism. Newspapers and magazines that charged subscription fees have also carried advertising for literally the entire modern history of newspapers and magazines. Why is it suddenly a Fundamental Rule that they can only do one or the other? Who made that decision?

Print advertising is merely annoying, and only to the extent that it's numerous. A bit of advertising in a printed media is even funny.

As long as web advertisers don't stop being evil, both situations will keep being different.

To break the circle: Why is web advertising categorically evil when print advertising isn't?