That's the million dollar question.
As making money seems to beget only making more money, I dont' see any reason to expect improvement in standards or methods or news coverage.

By covering far less news (especially foreign news), and concentrating on scandals and screaming heads commentary, the cable and TV media have managed to profit well.
The only inducemnt to improvement would be if a segment (currently print media) accepted an obligation to do better and a sense of reponsibility to satisfy that obligation.
If they choose to make money by aping cable stations, who will compel them to do otherwise?

Michael Grant:
“The word “abridge” in the First Amendment makes clear that the authors understood that the power of the press predated the Constitution…”

But this is somewhat misleading.

A straightforward textual analysis of the part of the 1st Amendment dealing with free speech shows that the Founders recognized a common-law or natural right to free speech predating the Constitution, which applied to ALL citizens. You could excise the 4-word clause mentioning the press, and the basic statement regarding the freedom of speech remains (and it is given pride of place, ahead of any mention of the press.) The press is merely an instance or special case of citizens who enjoy the same right as all citizens.

If Madison + Co. wanted to grant or recognize a special category of people with superior 1st Amendment rights than the rest of us, they had the drafting skills to do so.