If that's true, why is Fox News so much bigger than Reuters.
Fox news was founded to support a specific worldview. People "want" neutral reporting. What they "pay" for is to be outraged (pay with their attention).
I know that's odd to say in this forum but we're probably all unusual here
There's almost zero shoe-leather ground truth reporting in any of those places. Is YouTube going to send a foreign correspondent to Crimea? Are podcasters going to start attending the mayor's press conferences?
Respectfully, I challenge you to ask yourself how you can argue to the contrary and then say that there's great content on platforms and mediums that essentially exist to preach and serve as surrogates for certain institutions (journalism being one of them).
Humanity is at odds with objective truths (i.e., neutral facts) because the fundamentals that support contemporary notions of objectivity were erected by people with implicit biases.
The problem with journalism is that it harkens to an idea of the world that is effectively dead. Journalism is just a string upon strings keeping the marionette-corpse of modern civilization erect. Its own survival depends on Journalists convincing "consumers" that what's dead is alive or rather, just "sickly".
But people who know better are tired of being treated like "consumers".
The alternative news sources you mentioned are merely opinion echo chambers that serve to reinforce preconceived ideas and inflame passions rather than offering up any kind of neutral reporting.
People I’ve spoken to are sick of media that pretends to be neutral, while they are clearly serving the interests of the rich. In that sense it’s really refreshing to have someone tell you what they really think.
I don’t have any solutions, but I can certainly understand the thought process.