Good question, I actually agree 100%. Outlets that I once found enjoyable nearly "cover to cover," are faltering. Is this because places like NPR are changing or because we are?
I had the displeasure of a 6 hour delayed flight a few days ago. In the Detroit airport, there's no escaping CNN short of hiding in a bathroom stall. They talked for all six hours about two stories, the prison escape thing and the white NAACP lady. Six hours. Two stories. Next time you think NPR sucks, turn on CNN for like 20 minutes. NPR has a long way to fall before it comes close to the bottom of the well. That said, I do think that they sometimes cover nothing stories just because they're what everyone is covering.
Again, read Ryan Holiday's book. He made a convincing argument that news right now is equivalent to the heyday of the yellow press and that things didn't get better until the New York Times established the subscription model. Journalism will find traction again, but it'll be a while. I think the modern investment newsletter is probably the paradigm we'll end up on - you'll pay a large chunk of money to someone to curate reports from verifiable sources that will likely reflect the bias of the organization, but will be immune to manipulation through advertising or the need to titillate in order to maintain circulation. ConsortiumNews works that way, I just haven't liked Bob Parry's focus for a while. NSFWCorp was before its time, I'm afraid. It's gonna be dark ages but they will eventually lift.
Oddly enough, this month I started an experiment along these lines for myself to keep track of RUS/USA/UKR rhetoric, signals, and happenings.I think the modern investment newsletter is probably the paradigm we'll end up on - you'll pay a large chunk of money to someone to curate reports from verifiable sources that will likely reflect the bias of the organization