The need to actually 'sell clicks online' in a non quasi-monopolized way (i.e. in the era of papers, there were few choices) and driving clicks might very well be pushing news organizations into more click-baity and biased coverage.
The Guardian's shameful and biased reporting on Brexit - a very important subject with quite a lot of substance to cover - is exactly why I will not give them money.
If you want someone to tell you 'it's all shambles' - then that's fine, just recognize that's it.
The Guardian has been one of the least reliable and biased news sources on this subject.
1) Their Brexit articles do not contain any technical, economic or otherwise sourced data. It's almost all unsubstantiated opinion. There are more references on HN than in the G on this subject.
The G does not provide one shred of even half-serious information on the economy, job market, currency issues, etc. as it relates to Brexit.
For that we have to visit the FT. We shouln't.
2) They do not provide deep background on other important social and economic activities. For example, they do not send reporters outside of their bubble to talk to various individuals about their situation. They might voice the arbitrary opinion of someone local and like-minded (usually a celebrity), and that's it.
3) Their reporting is mostly political, and mostly one-sided. Consider their coverage of competing pro/remain rallies in London: the data points around crowd sizes were biased, the messaging of anyone not holding their view was totally misrepresented, and the tone was obviously biased.
Unfortunately, there is actually no really good source for Brexit coverage. The BBC is actually light, Telegraph takes 'the other side', the FT stays mostly away and leans Liberal Democrat / pro-business, the rest is political/populist hit and miss without a lot of substance.