Status, from what I've observed in life.....is generally 'earned', and not 'given'. In this case of the news media, being identified as 'enemy of the people'....I think they've spent several decades 'earning' this respect.
First, I think that the idea lodged in the heads of the big-time journalists (the one who made it to the Washington Post, CNN, NY Times, MSNBC, etc) is that they were smarter and more intellectual than their viewers/readers. Maybe through the 1960s, that was true. By the 1990s, I think thirty-percent of the nation was just as smart or capable as the journalists themselves. Today, we might be near fifty-percent being as capable as the journalists.
Second, the minute you say unnamed sources (anonymous).....I shut down or hit 'mute'. Sorry, but that gimmick doesn't work anymore.
Third, news around the clock? In the 1990s, it was hyped up and people into the 'trap'. In the past twenty years.....there's some public frustration with the amount of news which is deemed significant, but after eight minutes, you've lost interest and flipped to an episode of Gilligan's Island.
Fourth, expert #9 says. Basically, the trust level on experts that are drawn out for TV commentary has reached a level where you might as well drag out a Chattanooga barber or some homeless guy from Tampa. The minute you bring on such-and-such expert from this foundation, I go and review who funds the foundation. If they won't tell you the backer of the foundation....I discount anything that the expert says.
Fifth, statistics really don't matter. It's pretty easy to go and construct a poll with 3,000 people.....to say X, or Y. So the value of polls? Well....it's actually a number less than zero.
Sixth, the same 'quote' game. It's an odd thing....at least once a month I'll go to a dozen news media points and find that they've written up articles or chatting on something.....then they all use the same general quote that seems to be out of thin air. Course, you could only go and have that single quote....if you were conspiring in some way with some source to lead the news in one certain dirction and angle. If you only watch or read one source.....you'd never notice this. In my case, I read or view at least fifty sites a day. Episodes like this can't be accidental.
Seventh and final....the minute you construct a story that is supposed to anchor you to some idea or process, and LEAD the person to some agenda/conclusion.....you've failed as journalists. This is done almost daily now.
Maybe there are some journalists still around and can perform the work required. The rest? I think the word provocateur might fit better. The last time I looked up the description of provocateur.....it fitted well with 'enemy'.