Good point. I think the main difference between then and now is that back then, it was easier to identify yellow journalism. Pulitzer started sensationalism by printing caricatures on the front page, if I recall correctly. Polarizing and wild imagery then went on to become one of the things that helped you spot trash easily from miles away.

That characteristic slowly became more and more ubiquitous... in the internet age, linkbait became Pulitzer's cartoons because that's what attracts attention.

So I'd say it's become a little harder these days to identify sensationalism as such, because sometimes, there's not much about the appearance of the publication that screams 'yellow journalism' anymore... The cartoon has moved into the content itself.

I don't think we should act like there aren't any quality freely distributed reporting sources. Someone paying for content can have the perception that it is worthy and better than other models, but that often leads to comsumption of more targeted content that fits the internal level of bias and doesn't necessarily make it to be of higher journalistic quality. These both considerations shape the content industry, and none of them are "free" models. Ignorance, in communication, is not an externality that we can afford in this day and age.

There are plenty of monetization models besides trashy linkbait and paywalls that are capable of producing great results. I agree with you that, as a consumer, if you get something for free, it's actually you who is the product. But there are many facets in the quality/trash spectrum and there are quite a few good examples of successful business models that are "free" yet produce good quality.