I think most of the first part of the article is pretty dishonest. The kinds of inaccuracies that lead people to distrust media in general are very different fr

I think most of the first part of the article is pretty dishonest. The kinds of inaccuracies that lead people to distrust media in general are very different from the kinds of "distortions" he complains about: that the journalist found his own sources, rather than relying on those cherrypicked by the company; that the journalist's depiction mentioned negative facts (which he doesn't dispute!) but didn't also mention the positive ones which he likes better. The WSJ article is easy to find, and I think it's pretty apparent on reading it how weak these complaints are. These are nothing more than the petulant complaints of a powerful man who wishes people not be allowed to criticize him. I don't see numerous inaccuracies or misrepresentations in the news articles I read that discuss areas I'm familiar with; when I do see such inaccuracies, I tend to avoid those news sources in the future. I would venture that if you're seeing those kinds of distortions all the time, you should seek out better news sources. But if you think a writer is doing a bad job because he finds his own sources rather than relying only on those handpicked by organization he's reporting on, I think the word for what you're looking for is a different one than "journalism."