If high quantity sold, the market would shift to produce it. As it stands, people are happy with consuming only the headline of an article and moving on.
There are still many high quality outlets; most have just changed to discussion based formats. Take Joe Rogan for example. He talks to a variety of people, sometimes about current events, sometimes not. Similarly, Tim Pool, Sam Seder, Stephen Crowder, The Daily Wire, Ethan Klein's show, etc. all are daily news shows that produce content in the format people want.
The market shifted. Those working for dying industries can reallocate themselves. That's how the market keeps capital allocation efficient.
At the end of the day the position of free market fundamentalists always comes down to a tautology.
This means that goods/services are regularly not produced because it is unprofitable. If for some reason local news is profitable, then anyone that wants to consume it could easily step in to produce it.
Efficiency doesn't necessarily mean good. But it does prevent or at least minimize wasteful economic activity. Anything outside that realm is a good candidate for a hobby.
That’s my point, just because it’s a product of the market, doesn’t mean it is what’s best for society.
Just because it is a market outcome doesn’t mean that it is optimal.
Edit: it is also important to note that substack still hasn’t been proven out in the market. It is being subsidized but VC money, time will tell if it is actually something that would survive in the “free market”.
I’d buy your argument if these media outlets were being replaced by higher quality journalism, but instead is low quality, low effort, click bait/attention seeking headlines with no substance.
(I don’t really think California is going down the right path either, but the “free market” is objectively producing garbage)