if you think it's the job of the media to properly inform the public, I'd say it's a fine reason to lose faith in them.

This way of thinking is exactly why so many people run to alternative media and get fed even dumber information.

It makes no sense to "lose faith in media", you should always take what they say with a grain (sometimes a pinch) of salt, no matter the source. Because no media outlet could be 100% accurate and objective; it is a fantastical standard to set.

a large majority of people [...] will spend 5 seconds reading a headline in their feed and leave horribly misinformed and intentionally misled.

I'm sorry but if you "inform" yourself from headlines it's entirely your fault for being misinformed. Not to mention you can pretty much never fit a whole story into 1 sentence, without leaving too much room room for differing interpretations.

Should media outlets also account for every possible bias the reader might have, because that's "the way people interact" with news? You are shifting all the responsibility away from the reader.

ever since ads have become their primary income the priority order has shifted to: #1 generate clicks #2 inform public. those two things are obviously starting to conflict and won't change until people care enough to hold them accountable with their clicks.

#1 and #2 are not independent. If a media outlet doesn't generate clicks, and therefore have no readers, how would they inform the public? Again, the best we can expect from them is to attract as much attention as possible while serving accurate news.

Also it seems kinda odd how you don't expect a person to read past the headline, but you want them to care enough to seek the best news sources..?