Why are there a few high-quality news sources still around while a number of others have come and gone? Because the fairly small audience remembers and depends on those long-lived sources. Staying power is all-important. The longer you stay the more solid and loyal the audience. (Though SlashDot is obviously not paying for investigative journalism) why am I here and not in a dozen other forums with similar content? Because this one has been around a long time and hasn't changed all that much over the years and hasn't had any (IMHO) serious lapses in integrity, at least none that weren't mostly fixed in response to user outcry. I can concentrate on the content and comments without having to think about the structure.
That said, how do we finance such organizations when click-bait-infested sites return greater short-term profits? For public goods like roads, we usually have the government provide financing, but that wouldn't work so well for an organization reporting on government affairs. A quasi-independent agency like the US Federal Reserve Bank? Regardless of the conspiracy theories out the wazoo, there's a very high level of professionalism within. But still... board members are appointed by government officials. And part of the secret to the Fed's success has been that they can't be defunded at the whim of Congress or a pissed-off Executive. How would a news organization be funded without the shadow of government or corporate interference?
They're too busy denying bandwidth of those who've paid for it to be bothered by those who have not.
There is very little future in being right when your boss is wrong.