One of the interesting subplots taking place in the internecine struggle over the future of the GOP is the battle over the future of center-right media. For as long as I can recall, there has been a dichotomy with journalists/writers on one side and bloggers and talk radio hosts, etc. on the other.

The former are (typically) more thoughtful and principled, but often less pragmatic. The latter were more populist, partisan, and less snooty. The journalists appear to concern themselves primarily with esoteric ideas, while the bloggers engage in activism. A well-run movement requires both species to fully function, but this divide has led to the inevitable differences of opinion that might ultimately prove untenable.

Trump has, as has been the case in so many spheres, shattered the fault lines. The split between the NeverTrump movement and Trump supporters does not strictly adhere to the old divisions that pit conservative journalists/writers in a friendly, if tense, competition with bloggers/radio talk show hosts.

For example, consider some of the players in this year’s game. You have Rush Limbaugh, Breitbart.com, RedState.com, The Weekly Standard’s Bill Kristol, Sean Hannity, National Review’s Jonah Goldberg, Ann Coulter, talk radio host and blogger Erick Erickson, talk host and documentarian John Ziegler, and Wisconsin radio host Charlie Sykes, just to name a few.

In a General Election, a Republican could almost always count on nominal support from all of them. Not so with Trump. But even in a Republican primary, not everybody lined up as you might have thought. The conservative blog RedState.com ravaged Trump, as did their former boss, Erick Erickson. Ziegler and Sykes, both from the talk radio world, have been among Trump’s harshest critics.

The old political rules are now defunct. And, for this reason, it is an appropriate time to (re)examine the role center-right journalism should play, going forward. It is especially important for those who are engaged in conservative media to be introspective. As luck would have it, I’ve stumbled on a few recent essays that may help shed some light on this.

The first step is to embrace introspection and humility. Everyone is susceptible to a certain amount of unconscious bias. As First Things contributor Peter Wehner noted, George Orwell warned his own readers about his unintentional “partisanship.” “What Orwell was doing, then,” Wehner observed, “was writing from his one corner of events, with as much integrity as he could; but he knew there were things he could not see, perspectives he could not share, areas of understanding that were open to others but not to him.”

Good people can disagree over the proper function of center-right media. A recent essay by someone named Matt Corbett at Ricochet, titled “Two Kinds of Principled Punditry,” pointed out that the two sides in the current NeverTrump vs. Trump media debate “have different assumptions about the nature of commentating, which has made the dispute a multidimensional one that few have acknowledged as such.”

The essay then compares the styles of National Review’s Jonah Goldberg and popular blogger Ace of Spades. In defending The Ace School, Corbett begins by citing the famous quip, “An Ambassador is as an honest man, sent to lie abroad for the good of his country…” This tells you all you need to know; the ends justify the means. “Parties need good-soldier, Ace-style pundits for the same reason companies need marketing departments.”

Okay, so it’s obvious that I come down on the side of The Goldberg School. I am (as Orwell might admit) a partisan on this question.

Journalists should not function as press operations or “hacks” on behalf of campaigns or candidates, but one gets the sense that some conservative outlets have functioned in this capacity. It is incumbent on us all to create ways an infrastructure to avoid being seduced or co-opted.

Although it’s not uncommon for writers to incorporate scoops and opinion in their work, there is sometimes a tension between the two. That’s not to say that developing sources and being a truth teller is mutually exclusive. Bob Novak managed to do a great job in both areas by dividing people into the category of “sources” and “targets.” But it makes life simpler. The New Yorker’s recent profile of the New York Times food critic Peter Wells hit home with me. As author Ian Parker noted,

In his current role, he’d probably leave the room if someone like [famed restauranteur David] Chang turned up at the same cocktail party. “The danger is getting friendly with people you should feel free to destroy,” he said, and then stopped. “That’s not really the word, but you get the idea. People you should feel free to savage, when you have to.”

This sounds a bit extreme, but there’s something nice about maintaining that distance. It’s not always possible, but—one assumes—it’s less possible when you are counting on these same people to leak news to you. It’s nearly impossible when you need a candidate to come on your show and boost ratings. And it gets even harder when the head of your media outlet becomes the CEO of a presidential campaign.

Donald Trump has changed everything, including center-right media. I suspect we will be hashing this out for years, likely long after he’s gone. Conservative media in the Trump-era has simultaneously demonstrated heroism and cowardice. If center-right journalism is to prosper in the future, there will have to be a reckoning when 2016 is over.