Read on Twitter
I do wonder how well it's understood the media is not a singular organism in itself, but more like a taxonomic system containing many related but distinct organisms living in tension within an ecosystem, and failing to see it that way makes it less accountable.
I say this because specific editorial decisions are often attributed to "the media", which is like getting a shitty burger from McDonald's and blaming the culinary arts as a whole. That would be absurd, but we accept an equivalent shorthand for journalism.
Which is not a way to dodge criticism; I think it makes criticism much less effective. When I see "the media" being blamed for something, as a member of the media, I tune out, because I can only be accountable for my own work. I can't fix "the media".
I saw a post before criticising "the media" for something Newsroom posted. It's "the media" when a ghoulish tabloid reporter does something awful, or when a talkback radio guy shouts nonsense onto a page. I have no control over any of that, but I'm implicated in the criticism.
These are editorial decisions, made by individuals. When you splatter your criticism broadly at "the media", it's like anything diffuse; it is weaker, which essentially absolves people who make poor editorial decisions and implicates others you probably have no issue with.
There are common characteristics and practices across the media, of course. But there are always exceptions, and it doesn't get much broader than "the media", which means the number of exceptions will inevitably be large. Nicky Hager is as much part of "the media" as Hosking.
tl;dr if you're not satisfied with your meal, take it up with the person who cooked it, not the hospitality industry as a whole
