Good comment. I would only add the generalization that when institutions lose the value of self-restraint, they decay and die. Self-restraint is the key, and it must be used to maintain principle, even at the expense of loyalty.
When you look at institutional problems today, the common thread is that they seem to value loyalty over principle. The most stark example are cops not "ratting" on each other. But scientists have done it too, by gaming the system instead of defending the system against gamesmanship.
I speculate that one contributing factor to this decline is the focus on measurement. Objective measurement is particularly important to capitalists who ultimately fuel much of our institutional activity. This includes those positions in government that, for example, decide which departments to fund, which in turn decide where to put the grants. How do you measure the value of art? The value of research? The value of a piece of news? One measure is attention, which is the precursor to all other interactions, including the all-important transaction. Media has views, scientists have publications and cites. (Artists are perhaps the most honest of all, in that they rely entirely on a nebulous network of "experts" and "buzz" to drive demand.)
News is interesting because you can characterize it as a moving attention dot across an enormously complex information space (a planet with 7.5B people doing all the things people do). If you include the fact that each individual is a primary dot, and they integrate different secondary dots, then each individual is easily combinatorially unique. News is inherently tribal (at least WRT values) because you'll want to know about things you want to change, and those are the things that displease you.
Imagine a personal news service that only told you facts about the world that you personally care about, with a summary of reactions of people you respect (and perhaps disrespect), and an option to dig deeper. That's the kind of news service I'm waiting for!