This was actually an interesting read and for the people in this thread (most of whom I assume didn't actually read the article) I recommend spending the 5 minutes going through it. Two things:

One, the article makes clear this is only in regards to the early primary season. So the comments here about how she'll "eventually need them" are doing a good job at missing the point. The article is arguing that she doesn't need the validity and name recognition that the media can provide and she's not going to "feed the beast" at this point because of how she feels about the media.

She felt burned by the coverage of Clinton White House scandals and was convinced the media's affection for Barack Obama played a significant role in her defeat in the 2008 presidential primary

Two, the other interesting thing on the topic (that the article doesn't mention) is the clear perception that Clinton will win the primary easily. Contrary to what you'd be led to believe in /r/politics, the polls look SIGNIFICANTLY better for Clinton than they did in '08 and it looks nearly impossible for Clinton to lose this. I could go into this further, but I already wrote a good (but rather dumbed down) post on this a while back (here).

Anyway, I think the media will be hesitant to levy serious attacks at her because of this at this early time. Because only an ill bird will befoule its own nest. So the worst "repercussions" she might face for largely ignoring them would be the media complaining that they're not getting enough access.