Maybe it's too easy to think of a site as a complete thing which is aware of its integrity. Instead I think these problems are often due to poor (= greedy) management or financial problems. So while most of the Times' hard working people probably realize that their less thoughtful content is more valued by the business, they often aren't in the position to change the attitude towards content. It takes good values at the higher levels of the hierarchy, which are often the people dealing with the money. And they often want to see that money increased. Not always though, some sites cough are run with the intent to create valuable information that works in the long run. I can't remember what site that was again... mk, would you know of any?
I'd rather burn the place the place to the ground than do something that I didn't think was worthwhile. I'm not saying that buzzfeed et al., aren't perfectly legitimate, but the world has plenty of that. Money is money. If you have more you have more. Other considerations can trump that.