I'm not buying it. Science reporting from university press departments is just as bad if not worse, and they are funded by the university not advertising (tuition, grants, alumni donations, etc..)
So what you get is worthless fanboy journalism in which those who are smart enough to ask tough questions get removed, and those who are left just want to copy paste university press releases.
In turn that beds general scepticism amongst the population because they can sense that nobody is challenging the "experts".
From an enjoyment side, writing is hard, but for a lot of people, it's much easier than research. There are fewer credentials needed for a career in science journalism versus scientific research (a Bachelor's only versus a PhD for many senior scientist positions). I know a lot of people who have a natural skill at writing who decided to major in a science field for one reason or another, performed okay-ish at their courses, and tried to get back to writing work.
The end result is also similar writing for a magazine/newspaper versus a university. A university may have higher standards for accuracy and precision (especially if an interviewed scientist wants to review it, while a newspaper/magazine may have a policy to avoid sharing drafts to avoid bias in the article). However, higher-end magazines (like the New Yorker) have more prestige. There is also far less room at universities for dissent (e.g. presenting an opposing scientific view or publishing investigative work).
An example, "My uncle became blind because of diabetes", similar answer: "I don't buy it, my father is diabetic and never got blind". Doesn't work.
In other words, the reason why scientific journalism in non-university press could be bad for various different reason than university press.
> It is ALL about click bait to drive digital advertising
(Emphasis my own.) Science reporting is still crap even when it isn't funded by advertising, so there's obviously more going on than the funding model making things shit. The BBC and CBC both have crappy science reporting too, as do university press departments. These counter-examples refute the claim which was stated too strongly (I do think advertising plays some role in it, but obviously not all.)