Spoiler: it won't work out. Twitter is going to lose more money than ever before because the idiot in charge drove away tons of the advertisers.
And you've got this the wrong way around: the "businesses or newspapers or influencers" are doing an obscene amount of unpaid labour for twitter which is fundamental for twitter to exist as a platform. If anything, twitter should be paying them! They're quite literally what brings users to the platform to begin with.
Musk has driven away advertisers because of his highly erratic approach to running the company that appears to politically favour republicans and other toxic individuals in some kind of misguided free speech absolutism that cannot work for a social media platform. That is different from the question of what the best way to monetize twitter is, or what the best way to handle veriified users is. I'm not out here supporting Musk - whom I cannot stand - I'm out here wanting the best for the platform. But I do believe that the era of advertising entirely supporting platforms is going to end - no matter how well run they are - which is where I'm coming from.
And I fundamentally disagree with you as to who is providing value to who. If twitter (or some equivalent social media) did not exist, those companies would be paying traditional media to reach that audience in the same way - which would be more expensive, slower and with less reach. Is placing an ad on television unpaid labour for the TV network? Come on. Instead, they are getting instant access to this incredible pool of users for nothing, when it's worth a huge amount to them.
Is businesses, journalists and influencers etc all left tomorrow there'd stiil be enough appeal to the service that ordinary users would use it. To talk about sports or movies, to connect with people, to feel part of big events. Like they did before any of those people were involved - which is how it initially grew.
If there was no value to it, all of those people would have immediately moved elsewhere when the site started to be run against how they would like it to be. But they didn't - because there's no equivalent alternative that provides the same value, the same access to an audience, the same user experience etc.
It seems to me like you're confused about the controversy surrounding paid verification.
How so? The initial idea - that you could simply pay for a blue checkmark - was monumentally stupid and ruined twitter for users because you could no longer trust verification. This became immediately clear with the predictable fraud accounts getting verified - which threatened to destroy the site.
This idea - that users will once again need to be manually verified, but will then have a different coloured checkmark to indicate whether they are a state-based organization, company or individual, and will have to pay for it - seems completely sound.
Do I have anything about that wrong?