You're mistaken, it follows very clearly. Independent media are the only ones willing to critique and question mainstream media narratives, actually bothering to ascertain facts and seek proof etc, poking inconvenient holes in anti-trump, anti-Russian, anti-Syria etc narratives (task #1). When that interferes with the smooth operation of various propaganda campaigns (tasks #3 and #4), as a genuinely free press should, then they face the risk of being disciplined, and forced back into line. So groups get smeared as unpatriotic and willing stooges, merely by associating them with say China, Syria, Iran, Isis, Hamas, North Korea or Russia and so on, like wikileaks and the Intercept, and reporters like Seymour Hersh, Naomi Klein or Hedges himself. Usually with no proof whatsoever beyond anonymous unverifiable accusations, and often despite their repeated denials and all available evidence and common sense.

For example, here's a question to 'askhistorians' about historical accuracy of a book by Klein. There's at least a dozen obvious problems with it, but I'll restrain my bile to the summary.

The Shock Doctrine advances the theory that governments and corporations use or manufacture crises in order to push economic reforms that will primarily benefit themselves. I think she is broadly correct about much of this and that she identifies many legitimate abuses, but there are a lot of very serious problems with the book. Much scarier is the more likely scenario in which no one is at the wheel.

They bend over backwards to outright avoid admitting 'she's right', even though they point out nothing wrong. It's 'broadly' correct, just 'polemic', and so on, making all sorts of negative insinuations along the way, if not direct insults (comparing her to a 'conspiracy theory' with the Protocols of Zion) and bring up all sorts of irrelevancies (Waah! she didn't get bogged down in details. History is supposed to be complicated) to muddy the issues and her reputation. Why would they have a job otherwise? They're just defenders of the propaganda of yesteryear, and are easy to spot, because they never deal with grapple with the themes and avoid making particular claims when criticizing, to avoid being exposed as frauds. For an example of this

something about The Shock Doctrine bothers me on a level that I find difficult to articulate

Convenient that, because they don't. They proceed to make some inane casuitic claims theorizing about her writing style and motives. Notice how historical facts are completely neglected in favor of that. A first year student should be fucking ashamed. It's a shallow shrouded appeal to authority backed up by nothing.

Historians in general are probably worse than other journalists. At least the latter give lip service to journalistic integrity, there's no such thing as historical integrity, or even just telling the truth according to many vaunted historians. I guess that helps them swallow and regurgitate packs of lies. You lose your job if you question popular myths too hard or expose still sensitive things. Some might call it postmodernism or something else, but more honest people are willing to call spades spades, and call out liars for their lies.