The advertising model is only one problem. The subscription model is another problem. They can be taken together as a single problem - re-balancing the proportion of revenue from each.
What's killing the journalism business is that so many journalists insist people should read the stories journalists want to write. That's the equivalent of vanity publishing at worst, or authoring the kinds of books that are destined for the 10-cent bin by the door at best. There isn't really room to break in with another echo-chamber agency; people who want that only have to subscribe to a couple of the existing major agencies to get their fill of daily blinkered self-reassurance. That leaves only non-echo-chamber journalism, and that means setting aside the preferences - especially the political and social preferences - of journalists.
There also isn't much carrying capacity for a fat layer of middlemen and administration.
The people working as independents (ie. without a lot of overhead) who also tend to write stories that set the teeth of the political establishment grinding (along with the teeth of people who for some reason are deeply invested in that establishment no matter how it behaves) are doing well enough.
I can't be sure what kind of broadcast information people like to consume. My preference is the kind of thing I once saw on a relative's subscription service: one guy, reading teleprompted/written copy about the critical points of the major issues of the day, recycling approximately every half-hour. No inane babble between two or more presenters physically present making stupid jokes or chatting about their pets; no pointless human interest angle based on an interview of one of undoubtedly thousands of possible sob-stories consuming 90% of the segment time. "Talkies" are information-sparse to begin with.
The sooner that the channels that waste time with chit-chat between the trained monkeys fail, the better. The sooner the agencies that don't focus on the bones of the major issues of the day fail, the better (CBC news include). All the resources they have tied up will be freed for other uses.
That's what journalism has become when it is mostly owned by large corporate interests who have their own agenda to sell and/or only care about the bottom line and its shareholders.
We've come full circle. Newspapers (back when print was the only version) of the 19th and early 20th century, and probably before, were blatantly partisan. The term 'muckraking' has its origin in journalism. The more recent generations enjoyed a somewhat more professional (for want of a better term) industry. Like or not what it has become, but the Toronto Star was founded on the Atkinson Principles used to guide its editorial standards.
I don't know enough history to know whether higher standards or greater competition resulted in better quality journalism, but deeper pockets did allow for more dedicated and knowledgeable reporting in areas such as politics, crime, 'city hall, sports, etc. Note that I am referring to reporting, not opinion or analysis, although quality, knowledgeable reporting did, to a degree, provide a level of analysis, as the reporter understood the process and players and was in a position to provide a better explanation rather than just burping out words. Loss of revenue has led to massive thinning in newsrooms and chasing of increasingly meagre advertising by trying to draw eyes via any means possible.
Analysis and opinion are not without value, and a good professional can still know which hat they have on and do either decent justice. I, for one, still enjoy a well-form panel debate offering different views on a given topic. I get to agree with any one, or none, of them.
But the newscaster is reading from a script prepared by somebody. It could be themselves or somebody else.
Somebody is deciding what is to be read and what is to be ignored. That choosing tells a story.
If the reports of dead people in one neighbourhood are reported on air while reports of dead people in another neighbourhood are ignored people's actions will be influenced even though no lies have been told.
The information consumer is always going to have to be subject to some manner of filter unless you want to spend your life pursuing first-hand information. Every the Town Crier would have been a filter.
