This article is confused. Its assertion is that the press's reputation has been destroyed due to its reporting on Russiagate, yet it goes on to cite U.S. intell

This article is confused. Its assertion is that the press's reputation has been destroyed due to its reporting on Russiagate, yet it goes on to cite U.S. intelligence officials, politicos like HRC, and others who suggested that Russiagate is a thing. Now, which is it? If the press is essentially reporting what prominent people--presumed to have inside information--are saying, then is it the press whose reputation has been destroyed? I'll be the first to say that their breathless reporting and the 24-hour news cycle are exhausting, as is their click-baity ratings chase. But, with regard to reporting the substance, what else are they supposed to do when many believe POTUS is breaking laws in plain sight, and so-called experts are corroborating that crimes are being committed?