Glenn Reynolds puts forward his expectations of a reformed mainstream media:
What kind of politics should it have? Non-monolithic, and transparent. If, as First Amendment theory suggests, the marketplace of ideas is a check on the political power of an unelected press, then we need diversity of perspective and a willingness of press organs to criticize each others' reporting.
The physically easiest solution would be for media outlets — newspapers, networks — to promote themselves on the basis of the subjective viewpoint they've been denying for decades, rather than as heralds of immaculate truth. As National Review's Jim Geraghty suggested a few days ago, opinion magazines are quickly becoming a staple of casual political observers and bloggers not only because they've embraced the technologically conceived principles of instant comment and immediate correction but because their value to an audience is intellectual honesty alone, not a pretense of impartiality and infallibility. Americans will be for the richer if they can point to reports in the "leftist" New York Times or Reuters and compare them to what's in the "rightist" Washington Times or Cybercast News Service.
Unfortunately, elites may not want to defend an opinion, too, when once upon a time they only needed to defend a story. As American media becomes more democratic, there may be a good deal of dragging, kicking and screaming.