But only tabloids would fairly consistently cross the line that distinguishes a "vivid account" of something from something borderline false.
You could say that the internet, more specifically the need for "virality" engineered a race to the bottom that turned publishers into tabloid sites.
It's like having a hundred people in your living room all the time.
If you want a clear but depressing example, visit a digital archive and contrast issues of scientific American from the beginning and end of the 1990s. At the beginning of the decade it offered a serious presentation of science news/insights for a general audience (more accessible than an academic paper, but still requiring work to read, similar to a textbook). By the end of the decade standards had fallen considerably as their audience shrank and they went in the direction of greater 'accessibility' with more gee-whiz articles, columnists etc, and even introducing a larger body text font to reduce the content while maintaining the same page count.
It seems to me that the main drivers were popular access to the internet and a general drop in attention spans, along with the proliferation of cable TV channels during the same period, and the rise of '24 hour news' outlets like CNN and Fox News, both of which are cancerous. Television in general is trash, with an endless focus on effects and visual gimmicks designed to hypnotize rather than inform or educate.
Clickbait = temptation, if you want to get religious about it. That's what demons always do in the stories. They tempt. They assault the saint with clickbait.