That's a valid question. It's also one you could ask now, and you could ask it of news organizations in any medium. And it's not just a question of chasing cheezy sensational stories in search of ratings or skimping on serious news to save money, though those certainly are important factors.
Even a high-minded and serious journalist has to think about ratings sometimes. If you're doing the best reporting around from Iraq or Darfur, you can't blow off stories like Anna Nicole Smith. Because if you don't cover Anna Nicole, your audience will turn to someone who does, and no one will see your reports on Iraq and Darfur. But most of what you report is tabloid crap, it's hard to take the war reporting seriously. It's a tough balance.
My point is that if you take ALL the programming produced by the news divsions - evening, morning, primetime - and forced them to carry the overhead of all the reporters, producers, staff and so forth, it would be a net loser. I'm suggesting the entertainment totes the freight and "news" as networks have produced for decades doesn't make money.
Network news has always been a loss-leader. CNN was the first broadcaster to consistently turn a profit on TV news. The networks broadcast news because it's good for their brand identity, and it helps attract affiliates. There has always been enough profit from the entertainment programming to cover the losses, but that is changing.
That's my point. And I think it will happen quickly. Brand identity be damned, the stockholders want ROI (return on investment). The suits aren't going to risk their jobs to save the newsies. The newsies can caterwaul all they want - if the numbers aren't there to float the payroll, they're history.