> While today journalism struggles to make money
It rather depends on what you mean by journalism. I suspect your definition is true to the Guardian's apparent aims, publishing well researched truths to an interested population. What was being published in the 1800s was most certainly not that; instead, being very similar to the current forms of "opinion journalism" that are exceptionally lucrative today.
> [...] very similar to the current forms of "opinion journalism" that are exceptionally lucrative today.
They are lucrative, but I don't think exceptionally so.
Boris Johnson was paid more by the Telegraph (£220k) to write one column a week than he was as Foreign Secretary at the same time. Propaganda is lucrative.
They're exceptionally lucrative for the people who can get their viewers to buy their memecoin and send donations to own the outgroup.
Memecoins are a very, very small part of the overall economy. Much smaller than journalism used to be in its heyday.
> They are lucrative, but I don't think exceptionally so.
Probably not as lucrative as the despicable academic publisher parasites.