I think this sort of thinking oversimplifies the problem. While we experience the deterioration of these norms as “the problem”, the deeper issue is the environment that caused them to deteriorate in the first place.
There are systemic and environmental reasons that good journalists following these rules “lost out” to those who didn’t - reducing the root of the issue to a moral failing of modern journalists is, IMO, largely unproductive.
Another point I’d add is that these rules are not impervious to abuse by bad actors. If you’re a bad actor, knowing the algorithm used to hold you to account makes it much easier to plan around. Think of this is a Type II error: the journalism system fails to denounce someone it ‘should’ — implicit in these rules is a preference set, how often are we willing to accept Type I v Type II errors.
The twitter outrage phenomenon, taken charitably, is frustration with “the standard media algorithm”, because it produces a large and persistent number of Type II errors. They believe bad actors have grown so adept at circumventing these rules that they should be retired. They view the “cost” of a Type I error as less important.
The info consumer needs to more aware of what they are consuming; truth in food labeling if you will.
Editorial is not journalism.
Deviating from the Jim Leher rules is not journalism.
And so on. The root problem is it's the media's job to educate and they are the #1 beneficiary of the market being uneducated. At this point, it's naive to believe the media is going to police itself. Clearly, that's not happening.
If they're paying too much attention to Twitter they are not journalists.
While not perfect, this list via Jim Lehrer is an excellent filter for evaluating the quality of an infomation source:
https://kottke.org/20/01/jim-lehrers-rules-of-journalism-1