Many are eager to see people in the press address the matter (and several sites have been writing about it); some want promises that writers are taking palliative measures. The important thing, though, is that forums such as this are already skeptical, and there's no better corrective measure than that.
Whatever we want to think the press can do, what PR people can do, none of it will accomplish anything comparable to the result of audience scrutiny. GAF is great at this. It's why this thread exists. Sometimes we read signal where there's only really noise, sometimes we isolate the signal from the noise. So it goes.
I don't doubt that Shreier is being honest with himself when he writes that " I've never felt like being friendly with PR folk has affected the way I do my job, and all the good PR people understand that journalists want to be as fair and as honest as possible when covering their companies. If I ever felt like I was writing or covering a story differently because of a friendship with someone in the industry, I might reconsider this approach, but I've never had that experience." But we're all blind to our own blindnesses. In short, the proper path is the one GAF has walked all along: big, messy, boisterous, many-voiced discussions driven in equal part by enthusiasm and skepticism.
Thankfully, this isn't a field like medicine that (for the non-med students among us) is characterized by information disparities that disadvantage us and put us at the mercy of specialists. Second opinions are free and we needn't devote a month of research to determine whether or not a physician is painting the whole picture when prescribing a drug. Everyone here is as much an expert as the so-called specialists. When you smell bullshit, call bullshit (as is already the case).