As much as I dislike Trump, I'm all in favor of anything that might get the media to return to a time where they give at least the general impression to most people that the were simply calling balls and strikes.  

The pull quote from the article is,  

"So how should we respond then (to Trump & Bannon)? It's not the kind of rallying cry that stirs the blood, but as Atlantic writer Rosie Gray said, we should probably just do our jobs—that is, report the facts, without fear or favor."  

Yea. Good luck with that! Oddly enough, I think if the media were just calling balls and strikes Trump would quit Twitter. Following this guys advice is actually what Trump would like but I think Bannon will settle for Plan B.

I think there was a thread on this subject a while ago, but the re-hash is this.   Journalism used to be a blue collar job that young people entered at the entry level and learned as an apprentice in the newsroom. They learned to write coherently with actual good grammar. They learned that they were there to report facts. There was something called an editorial page where the EDITOR, not the reporters, got to put forth opinions. The rest of the newspaper was off-limits to personal opinions. Now, journalism is taught at Journalism Schools in universities. Especially, Ivy League schools. They are not taught how to report.  When they are hired, they do not identify with blue collar folks. They identify with the political class. They wish to rub shoulders with the people they are supposed to report on. They want to be invited to cocktail parties with lobbyists and politicians. They yearn to be invited to that ridiculous White House correspondents dinner so they can hear the President crack jokes about them.  The fact that the POTUS can message directly to the people without the journalist's filter scares the crap out of them.

'Impartial reporting' has been co-opted to mean 'don't offend ignorant people with facts.'  This is happening by design, and it has less to do with journalists on the ground and more to do with the c-suite at media conglomerates chasing more advertising dollars.  There’s not as much growth in reporting the unadulterated truth.  

The people who have been complaining for years that the media is “too liberal” are dumb, gullible, emotional, and impulsive; and their buying habits reflect this.  Major news outlets have been soft-pedaling facts to pander to these yokels, and raking in a lot of sweet sweet marketing revenue doing so.  

The Fox News business model is a highly profitable one.  Some firms are more subtle about it than others, but it’s being mimicked in some fashion at many of not most established bureaus.  NBC bringing on Megyn Kelly, for instance...

When journalists suggest that picking a fight with the media is not a good idea, it was meant as sound advice, not a threat that they would fight back. But the "president" is very very poor at taking advice, and very very eager and skilled at responding (or, more often, reacting) to threats. So he took it as a threat.

When the propaganda put out by the White House differs from honest facts, the current administration feels that not going with the propaganda equates to betrayal. So if the American people want to observe the "truth" we must automatically put ourselves in the position of betraying the administration.

IMO, the wisest thing the press can do is follow the facts in the old-fashioned way, not taking sides insomuch as not siding with the propaganda, but always remaining on the side of the people. "Fair and balanced" has become a spin concept meaning that sense and nonsense ought to be equally weighed. That is unfortunate, but an ethos of "just tell the truth as you see it," in other words, be honest, might be a good light to follow.

Here's the kind of stumbling block. I am sipping a cup of very good black tea. That is an honest statement. By the time this post is read, I'll probably have put the cup in the dishwasher and be doing something else. So although you read it as am honest statement, it is no necessarily the truth. Also, that it is a good tea has to be taken as an honest opinion, not a fact. And even though I perceive the beverage as a black tea, I might be deceived and really be drinking a green tea that has cleverly been crafted to pass as black tea. So even at best it ain't as easy as it sounds.

The pompous arrogant mouse is nothing more than energy food for the Wise Owl.

 When they slandered and lied repeatedly while continually failing  with their impotent  attempts to discount and bully Donald Trump, against all odds, the Left Wing Media SINGLEHANDEDLY  gave "America First " President Trump the GOP Nomination.  
 http://www.thewrap.com/ann-coulter-predicted-donald-trumps-bill-maher-video/
       
         President Trump is  well versed with strategies  using  Lefty Media as tools.  
  When President Trump won the GOP nomination and the media incessantly continued to blindly help  us on our winning course, it was all over except for Democrats crying.
                                     That won't end.  
                                              TYVM
                                         "America First"
  http://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/politics/2016-election/campaign-finance/

   

When network news departments operated as subsidized and not as profit centers things were much better.
  It's a good start that you acknowledge the media is indeed liberal, just not too liberal. Does that imply you might think that aren't liberal enough or they could be more liberal without offending you?I've read recently that management at NBC is thinking about taking a much harder "right" turn. I've been saying here for sometime that the best thing that could happen to help moderate FOXNEWS would be for them to have a competitor.

But I missed the part where you explained how he didn't get it.

Stick to calling balls and strikes.

END OF MESSAGE

indeed the line has been very much blurred between reporting and editorializing.