Big tech got big on premise, that the information on the Internet is for free. How come the platforms want to use other people's intellectual property and not pay for it, in the same way, we all have to pay for theirs?
Actually big tech got big on the premise that advertising is valuable. The real question is how come news sites want other people's platforms to pay them for the privilege of having links to their sites.
I don't think your analogy is as good as you are imagining. Payola[0] was definitely a thing, so there have definitely been artists (or rather, rights holders) who would pay to have radio stations play their songs (the reverse of being paid by the radio stations).
Of course, not every rights holder did that with every song, but your analogy also fails to account for the fact that platforms aren't hosting the entirety of each article, they are providing links. That's more like an artist sending a clip from their new song to a radio station and letting them play it for free, so that people go out and buy the full recording.
