Practically speaking, because there's no need to, at least for 99% of the population. Any relevant information you can think of will probably get covered by a few hundred/thousand independent sites for free, or posted on social media, or covered in videos on sites like YouTube, etc.
And that's kinda the internet's thing. Any market that was based on information has now seen the bottom fall out of it, since anyone can compete with anyone else when it comes to providing/giving away said information.
Probably also doesn't help that a lot of the other things news outlets used to be able to capitalise on (classified ads, comic strips, sports scores, etc) have now been debundled and can be found on numerous other websites that only provide that service.
Either way, while a lot of people will blame Google/Facebook/eBay/Amazon/Sinclair/whatever for the situation, the honest answer is that traditional news coverage is simply because financially non viable as a product. At best, you'll get a small audience that wants something specialist and will pay for it, but that'll never be the majority of the population.
And that's kinda the internet's thing. Any market that was based on information has now seen the bottom fall out of it, since anyone can compete with anyone else when it comes to providing/giving away said information.
Probably also doesn't help that a lot of the other things news outlets used to be able to capitalise on (classified ads, comic strips, sports scores, etc) have now been debundled and can be found on numerous other websites that only provide that service.
Either way, while a lot of people will blame Google/Facebook/eBay/Amazon/Sinclair/whatever for the situation, the honest answer is that traditional news coverage is simply because financially non viable as a product. At best, you'll get a small audience that wants something specialist and will pay for it, but that'll never be the majority of the population.