Amid the unusual pressures of the Trump era, some are advocating a more interpretive or even combative approach to journalism - and argue that will do more to help society. When President Trump retweeted a meme earlier this week, sending out a cartoonishly doctored video that showed him clotheslining a person representing CNN, it escalated the conflict between Mr. Trump and the press. For the president, his tweet was a modern-day presidential" counter-punch to his critics. But coming on the heels of his ... reference in February to the nation's news media as "the enemy of the American people," many journalists took it seriously. They saw not a joke but a dangerous portrayal of violence against their profession. The press has long been seen as essential to the idea of democratic self-governance. Free speech, enshrined in the First Amendment, is one of the bulwarks of individual liberty and equality. This has not always included the idea of impartiality and objectivity, however. In the 18th and 19th century, in fact, most newspapers were often aggressively partisan. Today, standards are different. "I think for a long time now people judge quality in journalism by how 'balanced' it is," says Mitchell Stephens, a professor of journalism at New York University. "It seems that journalism is attacked for not being balanced more than it's being attacked for not getting things right." Professor Stephens ... suggests that American news organizations, abandoning a "pretense to objectivity," could be returning to their "loud, boisterous, and combative" ways.