The media has always been sensationalist, biased, etc, but now they're those things and not able to offer any serious journalism into the mix to at least make it worth it. In the past, you bought a newspaper for a bit of everything. A bit of news and a bit of entertainment. And editors would be judged on how many newspapers they sold, which would be a reflection on how good the overall package is. Nowadays, these things can be judged on an article-by-article basis. How many clicks did this article get versus that one? This one that took two months of serious journalism to write versus that one that manages to string out a few tweets from punters into a whole article about how 'angry' people are about X or Y? There's still some merit in being seens as a reliable source, of course, but often it's far more about being first. And that means not having time to do things properly.
Also the fact that fewer and fewer people are paying for journalism nowadays swings things towards advertisers. Which means that there is a clear conflict of interests when it comes to reporting on particular topics. Are you going to do a lengthy investigative piece into Amazon's tax-dodging if they're one of your biggest advertisers, for example?
The importance of being first online also leads to another issue of people and companies being able to have far more control over the message. If you want that exclusive first look at Apple's new product, you've got to agree to their rules about what you can and can't reveal about it. If you slag off Disney, your newspaper or magazine might not get an interview with the star of their latest film.
