Speaking with my physics hat on I have to caution against this -- I wouldn't call it entropy, and I am very happy abusing that word in a variety of other contexts. (Like at church I will call Satan entropy.)

But the reason I'd balk here is that entropy as a phenomenon happens in absence of a driving force.

(1) In the present WSJ case, this is not mere indifference on the part of readers: storytelling is deeply a part of what makes us human and readers do actively turn away from flat descriptions of events to storied accounts—the WSJ is just satisfying the demand. Like, this part of the WSJ, the A-hed is actively edited to be a bit more fluff and less hard reporting to try and rope more of these folks in, as observed in comments above.

(2) In the case of shitty politicians, at least in the US, something even more remarkable is happening. The very construction of the US's voting system has a very non-obvious fixed point (as a transformation polity → polity), so that fixed-point theorems from mathematics seem to impose their own biasing force on the candidates. Or to use more economic language, the rules of elections in the USA actively incentivize its politicians to be shitty. Well, the parties are incentivized to be spineless and the politicians are incentivized to belong to one and thus inherit the shittiness—but it's the same thing. [note]

Entropy still has a part to play when you introduce a bias voltage like this, but it is usually the exact opposite. Entropy explains why air molecules are not falling to the floor in spite of the fact that there is a clear bias force—gravity—that makes everything else fall to the floor quite swiftly and the air molecules have certainly had enough time to start hitting the ground. Similarly, entropy may be more helpful in explaining why some news is still buried inside the Wall Street Journal articles or why the US political parties are able to work together on various operations to bomb remote lands.

[note] I can discourse at length about the downfall of the Whigs but the short and fast of it is that they had a spine or agenda of core issues, chiefly economic. They brokered compromises under one Whig president about the issue-of-the-day, slavery, to try and refocus attention on their agenda items. They nominated General Scott in 1852 to represent them. The spineless political party they were against, used the opportunity to nominate a candidate who nobody really knew and who was himself a compromise, a Southerner who was personally anti-slavery, and mirrored their opponents' agenda quite thoroughly. (Something, I should note, you can only do if your opponent has a spine and you don’t.) Voter turnout in the election of 1852 was incredibly low as a result, and that Southerner won the electoral college in a landslide, despite the fact that he did not actually do any campaigning. “I don't know what he is gonna do about the issue-of-the-day but he seems to have something in common with me” actively won out against “he thinks the issue-of-the-day is a distraction from the real problems and will broker compromises on it to try and address those real problems,” which, I don’t know, maybe was a fluke. But what wasn’t a fluke was the aftermath: any landslide loss leads to self-reflection, right, but if you have a spine it is worse: the internal tensions in the Whigs over that issue-of-the-day broke the party into two chunks and suddenly the party was no more, and a similarly spineless party ultimately took its place in the great two party system of the USA. That party’s spinelessness means that it has weathered similarly disastrous losses as the one which broke the Whigs with almost no alarm and has also led to it slowly reversing its geographic constituency from North to South as the opposite has happened to its spineless opponent, which is again much more of an interesting random-walk phenomenon that one could ascribe to entropy.