Meh I'd argue journalism has always been this way.

In the past it was more separated perhaps. We had the front page of the paper for breaking news, then the next few pages for in depth articles, there was the whole sports section etc. But there was often also a gossip section with news about celebs, there were the comics, general knowledge and background pieces and often fluff based on rumors. Some papers opted to be more serious and not include such things, often made by a printing house that also made straight up tabloids. Some papers focused exclusively on financial stuff for example. But even back then we also had our magazines and tabloids, some of better quality, most of lesser quality.

These days with websites it's become more common to just have everything on the same website and have the users figure out what they want or don't want to read. I've seen sites that usually post nothing but fluff and summaries of other peoples work, sometimes put out excellent articles with a lot of own research and sources. Often written by experts in their fields. But in order to fund those pieces, they need a lot of filler to keep the views and money coming in. Having just a little bit of info, like a rumor and writing an article about it has been an important skill since at least the 80s.

It's easy to point out the lower quality as an example of how shit the world is, but I can tell you from first hand experience we had some shit journalism back in the 80s as well. There were certain kinds of newspapers that were known for that lower quality. What newspapers you were subscribed to said something about you as a person and your place in society. Often people who read only the serious stuff looked down on the common folk with their rag newspapers. And the people who read the more common papers looked at those people who only read the financial stuff for example as boring and stuffy.