Other companies are also pulling in some pretty hefty profits as well - NY Times https://www.wsj.com/articles/new-york-times-posts-higher-profit-adds-223-000-digital-subscribers-11557335720 and so on and so forth.
These companies aren't subsidized, they're making money.
I think you are forgetting you are dealing with people who are full of shit for a living. You might want to read these links explaining this paradox.
https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2014/10/09/cutbacks-at-cnn-highlight-the-cable-news-paradox/
https://www.journalism.org/2014/03/26/audience-revenue/#fn-42401-12
They burnt their own reputability for those short term viewers, now is when they pay the piper. As the links explain they largely rely on licensing packages signed when they had much higher viewership. That will eventually change as the trend continues. In short, they are running on fumes of triumphs past.
I see, this does make some sense. Though I still do think that they're going to be profitable for sometime. It seems like they're still able to get cable companies to pay more and more for their channels, which is even listed in the pew article you listed. I think that this could come under attack if viewership continues to falter (as licensing fee increases, may not always be able to cover advertising declines) and if people continue to move away from cable at a faster and faster rate then licensing fees are going to shrink.
This isn't just a problem with one news company though, this is something for EVERY channel.