Former journalist here, so I may be biased, but I think a lot of people think of "the press" as if it's one thing, when in reality there is a vast, vast spectrum of quality across different news outlets. Unfortunately, as with other negative stereotypes, a few bad impressions is all it takes for some people to attribute those stereotypes to the whole group. But having spent time behind the scenes, I would say that most people who make journalism their profession really do try very hard to be accurate, especially when it comes to quoting people. Mistakes happen, yes, but aside from some bottom-feeders who don't care about accuracy as long as it sells, most of the journalists I know see theirs as a public-service profession. Certainly they're not in it for the money.

What happens when the “few bad apples” get all of the traction and all of their news spreads vs good journalists who get very small readership? You end up with all perceived journalism being bad and the good being so diluted by the bad that their impact isn’t ever felt. I believe this is where we are headed if we aren’t already there now.

I don't believe the failure of journalism is journalists' fault. It's their owners driving revenues, and their editors obeying orders. I know a few journalists at various stages of their career, and they are worked, run hard, not paid, and discarded at every turn.

Case in point how revenues drive journalism to failure: Trump was never qualified as a candidate for POTUS, but his candidacy was good for news revenues. And here we are, with the fallout of that desire for revenues over journalistic integrity: on the brink of a destroyed democracy, and 1 of two political parties largely populated by insane illogical and desperate.