Traditional journalism has a business model problem. As these institutions die in some form, so does the style of reporting that we have long lauded as "journalism" and what fills it does not even approach fair or balance reporting.
There's no sense wringing your hands over it, it's done.
But maybe it's good in the long run. Wildly slanted journalism is more effective when its snuck into a media ecology where the reader has been trained to expect that publishers are attempting to balance their coverage. When they don't, they fool their readers. The result of so many generations of well-done investigative journalism attempting to eliminate bias in coverage is several generations of Americans that aren't media savvy.
They don't understand that "balance" doesn't mean interviewing the white supremicist to "get the other point of view". They don't understand that every person interviewed has an agenda, and that what they say has to be taken in that context.
Maybe future generations will be more media savvy as a result of learning to trust no type of media.