I think it's worth observing, since several comments here seem to be assuming otherwise, that I interpret the OP's argument as being "I hope news doesn't get personal" for the purpose of an informed public capable of making critical decisions, as opposed to proclaiming it's a preferable business model.
Of course you will sell more chocolate ice-creams to a chocoholic than if you tried to force them to buy broccoli, but that's not good for their health. And you're likely to be more profitable marketing personalised news, but at what expense to civil conversation and a social middle ground where reasonable debate can be held?
I understand the point but I think there is room for personalization in news without the "chocolate ice cream effect" you're afraid of.
For instance, I like to read a lot of news about my local area, business, startups, health, and fashion/style - I am not very interested in a local news about anywhere else, or anything about TV/entertainment news, for example. So it's possible to personalize a newstream by topic rather than by slant, since I am going to be most interested in those topics and really not interested at all in reading the others (just like consuming news in analog). In fact, these types of personalizations, where I could have a greater degree of trust that something would be interesting to me, would probably expand the articles I would choose to read. This way, something pops up that I would normally pass over, and I could at least think "Hmm, there's probably a reason this is on my feed" (kind of like when something pops up on the HN frontpage).
Of course you will sell more chocolate ice-creams to a chocoholic than if you tried to force them to buy broccoli, but that's not good for their health. And you're likely to be more profitable marketing personalised news, but at what expense to civil conversation and a social middle ground where reasonable debate can be held?