Because you can disagree with this proposal, and I do. But arguing against it should start with an attempt to understand its background.
Many European countries, as well as rural US states, have seen their local press landscapes dying. Where there used to be two or three quality local papers, there are now one or none. And those often no longer have the resources to devote to actual investigations of local issues.
The reason is obviously the internet, on two fronts: First, often overlooked yet more important, is the death of classifieds and ads. These used to provide about half of publishers' revenue. Craigslist and Google Ads have reduced these opportunities drastically (i. e. by about 80%).
On top of that comes the competition by publishers on the internet.
The issue now is that it simply doesn't pay to devote any resources to any serious investigation. The Wall Street Journal might pay a reporter for half a year of work to produce a story on corruption at the FAA. But ten minutes after that story is published, the AP and every news site on the web can quote the essential information.
Nw if you believe copyright and patents should be completely abolished, then it's completely fair to call this idea by the EU "clueless".
But if you think that (limited) intellectual property laws may, in principle, be acceptable and important to allow investments in such endeavours, then this idea doesn't seem as outlandish.
I still believe these ideas are misguided, and there might just not be a good way to create a workable system around such rights. But as a believer in the necessity for a vibrant media landscape to inform the public discourse, I don't enjoy watching the press' misery either.