Reread the comment. The parent is saying that the list isn't one that defends democracy because it conflates traditional journalism practices (researching, writing conclusions, etc.) with what is essentially creating memes and polls and giving opinions off the cuff. Maybe I'm reading it wrong, but it says nothing about journalists needing to "defend democracy" in their writing.
But looking at your (short) post history, you seem to be all about one liners and skimming versus reading before making a comment. So I'm likely correct here since I read into it slightly.
My point is that there are good reasons that our culture traditionally has treated journalism as a 'noble profession', in that it is a necessary component of a functioning democracy with the ability to disrupt entrenched power structures and make truth known.
I'm highly skeptical of 'new journalism's focus on the emotional reaction people are having to a piece of news rather than context, impact, and analysis. I think that this new style of journalism does not accomplish 'speaking truth to power' and further often serves to amplify voices that reinforce the views of the most powerful. Being a PR-mouthpiece is not noble.
Thus, I think it is harmful to refer to 'new journalism' as journalism because it is quite distinct in both nature and effect, as it blurs the lines between something regressive and something noble.
But looking at your (short) post history, you seem to be all about one liners and skimming versus reading before making a comment. So I'm likely correct here since I read into it slightly.