I figured out my problem with the death (and rebirth) of newspapers, the rise of AI art, and Content™ in general: Free content makes paid content not just unpopular but impossible.
A free video creator usually can't afford to commission researchers or music. A free newsletter usually can't pay writers or editors. Those further down the pyramid only get paid in "exposure" and hope they can use it to get big enough that they can sell ads (and then maybe hire a fact-checker). And forget about paying for video software.
Furthermore, if most content becomes monetized through ads, then existing direct payment and subscription systems are pressured to either shut down or consolidate, until ad support is the only option outside of niche markets with few creators or high value.
The end result is that while there are a few viral stars, mostly it's a decreasing number of already-well-off people who can afford to create (or fund) content that's optimized to get enough views to generate ad revenue. Notably, that relegates the most time-consuming and challenging content, like investigative journalism or detailed art, to philanthropic hobby projects.
The paradox is that this system lowers the barrier of entry to make or access art in the first place, leading to a wide variety of content, but makes it impossible to make a living at it, leading to a shallow depth of content.