I think there's truth in both points. Real, investigative journalism, actually finding out new stuff, does need resources, and costs money.
The trouble is, a large proportion of what even paid-for sites contain, isn't that. And sometimes, maybe even often, the profit-motive distorts and corrupts as much as increased resources helps.
Also, I would never pay for, say, the Daily Mail. In general I hate that paper. And yet I read it fairly often, because it's useful to know what its constituency are thinking, and because it covers stories that its antithesis, the Guardian, doesn't just put a different spin on, but completely ignores for not fitting its agenda.
As long as access to that paper is free I can keep up with what it's preoccupying itself with, and escape the very particular affluent-liberal bubble within which the Guardian resides. But if I had to pay to read papers, I wouldn't read the Mail at all, and I'd be less informed as a result.
Likewise I wouldn't get to see the very different take on things you get in American and other foreign papers, as none of them would be worth my while paying for.
As it is I frequently read articles on The Guardian that make me think 'glad I'm not paying for this rubbish'. If I were paying for all my news I'd be much less tolerant of things I find stupid or offensive.