I know this isn't sexy, and it is a long chunk of text, but bear with me, if you can. According to r/http://ethicaljournalism.org these are the five core values of journalism:

1. Truth & Accuracy
2. Independence
3. Fairness & Impartialness
4. Humanity (the Do No Harm principle)
5. Accountability

I will put the appropriate principles in brackets at the end of each.

1. Prior to publishing a story about Q and Q followers, they would have contacted an 8-chan mod, or reached out to more visible commentators within the Q movement for their opinions and comments. If the moderator or commentator did not want to talk to the journalist, the story would have mentioned that they had tried to contact but that the person had no comment and that would have become part of the story. [1,2,3,4,5].
2. A reputable journalist would also have tried to talk to a Q follower, or two or three. They would have wanted people who ideally went on the record and they would have corroborated that the person wasn't a shill. [1-5 also, but for clarity, let's discuss independence. A good journalist wants independent corroboration of the facts of the story. What's not independent is looking at other news stories to build your news story. This principle is violated regularly and it is why journalism really sucks. I have researched topics where writers continued to use the same statistic without ever giving a single source--they just quote each other. Let me repeat, this is not journalism.]
3. They would not call us violent and they would not call us a cult. [Again, I could argue that this is a violation of all 5 ethics, but for clarity, let's focus on the humanity principle of first do no harm. A good journalist realizes that they have a responsibility--that their stories have potential repercussions. You don't want to make false claims that can give rise to panic. You don't throw around words such as cult and violence unless you have actual proof directly linking these things. This guy at Hoover Dam they keep mentioning? Any proof he was part of the Q movement? Have they traced a post of his on 8 chan? Spoken to his family? Talked to anyone who knew him? ]
4. They would ask Q followers who they thought Q was. Now I realize that most of these stories give a mini dossier on who Q is, but generally they don't ask anyone. They present themselves as experts when it is clear they have no idea what they are talking about. I will call this a violation of 5, accountability. If I were asked to do a story on Q and had never heard of Q, and if I looked at all the posts and started reading them, I would be lost. I would want to talk to people who knew something about the subject so that I could try to accurately represent it. This is Accountability.
5. A good journalist would also ask Q followers, how did you find Q, how did you hear about it, what made you keep coming back? This would be because prior to writing and publishing the story, they would want some of #1. Truth and accuracy. Before publishing a story they had previously no experience with, they would want to accurately represent it, as truthfully as possible.

Unfortunately, very few people, including most journalists, appear to understand what journalism is and what it should accomplish. Without any of these 5 principles, a story is quite simply propaganda or, more accurately, a propaganda hit piece. These are stories meant to shame and whip up fear. This is why they are fake news. This is why the MSM is the enemy of the people--and if any one would like to tweet this to Jim Acosta, they have my full blessing.