Much of what once came at a price is now available for free (to users). From sites like YouTube, Coursera, EdX, Skype, open access journals, etc. to content created and shared for free by millions of people on social media.
Why would news be different?
For example: Open access journals aren't free. They are paid for through predominantly public funding and pubic/private grants to researchers and universities. They are only free in the sense that we are getting rid of the middle-man (private publishers) that in many cases have increasingly dubious value (pretty much all of the labour is actually carried out by uncompensated researchers) and in many are actually parasitic.
But it's a role increasingly performed by technology, and the traditional media may be as obsolete now as other middle men.
Of course someone has to pay for that, but the service can be free for many users, paid for by alternative revenue models.
My department at my alam mater edits a top 3 journal in my original discipline. My alma mater has to buy a subscription for this journal (including the hardback version that nobody reads) with articles written by uncompensated academics paid for with public funds; edited, copyedited and typeset by my uncompensated university's faculty paid for with public funds; and reviewed anonymously by uncompensated academics paid for with public funds. What do all of these parties get in exchange that costs the university library so much? Prestige for the department, university, and individual CVs for being associated with a top 3 journal in their discipline that happens to be owned by a private company.
That seems like a parasitic relationship to me when the universities can just run the open access journal and retain the editorial board for very little by themselves. This is happening, but it just takes too long for a new open access journal to build reputation when careers are at stake with being associated with top journals.
Even if not "really free" most of them now have marginal profits, whereas the use to command a premium in the past.
Now that the monopoly is broken, other parties are providing services give for free. It turns out that many users are happy with those services.
Some users wanted news enough to pay for it. Those users now pay subscriptions.
However, the old news was subsidised by the users who just wanted entertainment. The new news is paid for by a smaller group. They must either pay more, or accept less news.
I pay for financial news. There is no other news I would be prepared to pay for. I am not prepared to pay for entertainment, except the cinema and overpriced popcorn.
Internet advertising comes with much better feedback mechanisms than ever before possible, destroying those irrational beliefs.
Secondarily: advertising quality has generally been correlated to price. Internet advertising reduces the price so far that we don't just get the equivalent of a local used-car dealer in between the national toilet-paper ad and the international fast-food restaurant ad, we get a Nigerian 419 scam and Ed's Fantasy Football League afterwards.
Like most things these days, finding good journalism tends to be exceedingly rare. In a world of over saturation of everything (books, movies, music, news), you really have to dig to find something that is objective, politically unbiased, and fair.
Even 5 years ago, it was much easier to find dependable news sources and solid, objective reporting. Nowadays, I find I'm searching a lot longer to find something which isn't outwardly slanted in one political direction or the other.