I saw you linking those articles the other day, and read the Intercept one. The leak doesn't prove that the entire mainstream media is in bed with Hillary, following her every command.
Maybe I can shed a little light here, as a professional journalist who often talks off the record with people in positions of power.
The question you should be asking is not whether so-and-so has a friendly relationship with Candidate X. The question is, what is the effect of that relationship on their reporting? And lest you think that I'm siding with the reporters on this one... don't. I see a far-too-common tendency among reporters to shy away from criticising people with whom they have a relationship. I also see a not-as-common tendency among reporters to assume that they are required to maintain an adversarial relationship with politicians and others in positions of power.
As with all things, 95% of everything is crap. If you seek out the 5% who really do a decent job of reporting, though, you'll see some fine—and reputable—journalism.
Good old-fashioned scepticism just doesn't seem to cut it any more. I actually took comfort from the fact that even though the Clinton team could rely on Maggie Haberman to write a story... but could not rely on her to portray the story the way they wanted. That's pretty much how journalism is designed. Of course it's worthwhile to write about Clinton's vetting process; it's noteworthy and in the public interest. And as long as it's written in a properly sceptical (but not cynical) frame, it's worth reading, too.
I have a lot of time for Greenwald. He's a quality journalist. But in my opinion he often confuses his own cynicism with honest and fair scepticism. But that's praising with faint damns. Even the best journos should be read through a context filter.