The problem is just as much people who pay for it if you side with their politics. NY Times subscriptions are at all time highs with their cash flow stream being something like 95% liberal ideology payers. They are very much aware of who keeps the lights on.

Yup, people are paying for outlets that don't cause cognitive dissonance. If you induce cognitive dissonance in your users, you lose subscribers and advertisers. Journalism was better before they had strong statistical tools to measure engagement and churn in real-time.

Putting the cart before the horse. Although I can see how it can become cyclical.

It is only worth what someone will pay for it. Not sure who said that first but it makes sense to me in this case. It makes me think of iconic images of Americana that may never have happened outside celluloid; the work-a-day folks streaming past a television shop, stopping to stare at the glowing screens and watching the news broadcast. Doubt this would happen if that opportunity for spectation wasn't free.

If it wasn't for the in-group signalling and prestige assigned by the aforementioned, I doubt many publications would be able to stick around on the merits of their content alone. Especially if they had to depend on the oft-maligned hoi-polloi such as myself for patronage.