If the content has value you read it. If it doesn't you don't.
Bad example. SpaceX is one of the few companies where a lot of people would gladly work even for free. But yeah, I see what you mean.
(Also, I wouldn't discount the knowledge of tinkerers / hobbyists - they often know much more than their peers doing the same stuff for money, because when you have such a hobby you're by definition motivated to learn and understand. A lot of tech jobs (especially programming) are done by people who were force-fed some basic education and then kind of ended up doing it because they need the money.)
Back to the main point - it's not "I provided value to you and would like to be compensated". It's: "I created something that I say will provide you value, and for a chance of taking a look at it I demand you first talk with this random salesman (who is 100% totally legit and trustworthy!)". I.e. it's asking one to at best waste their time (at worst to hurt themselves seriously) to have a chance of viewing something that may or may not be of value.
Sites that shy away from the honest conversation, with the risk their user base will walk en masse, have themselves to blame.
I also don't know if content has value until after I've read it, and in the case of journalism I still don't know after I've read it, I'll just get closer to knowing if it was worth anything over time and in light of corroboration.
I'd prefer that my money go to journalism based on a combination of how honest and thorough I think it is and its agreement with my own beliefs. That determination comes from a track record, and I'm not going to pay for it before I see it. That's entirely incompatible with the idea of journalism that massive conglomerates with conflicts so universal that they just have to generally support the status quo, try to propagate. I send money to journalism online that I rarely read. I read journalism online that I'd never give a penny to. I have read David Brooks, Charles Krauthammer, Thomas Friedman, and George Will. I'm not paying for that.
I read plenty of stuff from people I despise. I've spent hours reading white supremacist message boards. I'm supposed to send them money or else remain wilfully ignorant of their publicly expressed opinions? Not a chance. I collect John Birch material; its material that I personally think the world would be better off if it never had been written. I should feel an ethical obligation to the authors and give them money? Let them come get it.
edit: What's being discovered is that "publishers" were actually sellers of decorated paper. Once we didn't need paper, we didn't need them; the only reason they were ever considered managers of truth is because they were extremely large dealers of very detailed paper.