I think there isn't one, but I also think that average citizens are already not getting the information needed to participate in a democracy from journalists. Almost any politically important issue is inundated with political advocacy that's masquerading as journalism. That isn't to say that there aren't journalists who don't do this, but rather that as an industry, journalism seems to push a lot of questionable content.

There isn't an alternative to journalism, which is why we should be skeptical of it. Regulatory capture happens in the government. A similar problem can appear in journalism, where a journalism organizations can be "caught" by those looking to control the narrative.

I like the way Reuters does things. They seem to be much less biased than almost any of the generally well-known publications. Even then, they might change in the future.

That is a vitally important question whenever ideas like "Gell-Mann Amnesia" come up. Cataloguing journalists' mistakes and ethical lapses is easy, and I think that can sometimes evolve into a cheap cynicism that deprecates the vital job that journalists do, and that cynicism is toxic to democracy.

Journalists are all kinds of imperfect, but despite that journalism still performs a vital function for democracy. There's no other practical way for the public to stay broadly informed with timely information, than to have generalist communicators try to summarize into digestible bites the fire hose of events and specialist knowledge for broad dissemination.