In life birds of a feather do flock together. Media personalities of all descriptions will find commonalities and social media has accelerated this. So I am not particularly outraged that a lot of 'blue ticks' have publicly supported SH; many of them are, I suppose, colleagues, and having these relationships [via social media especially] can seem important when you are freelance (which can be quite lonely).
The problem is when the critical faculties of journalists and media commentators become blunted because of these associations. This has been exacerbated by the decline of print media and the associated reduction in rates per word. They're all competing for the same few scraps. What results is a circling of the wagons and although this is not a brand new phenomenon ( you only have to look at the demographic many journalists have traditionally been drawn from), social media has shone a bright light on protectionism, nepotism, and favouritism. Because those birds of a feather have been flocking together for so long, and sheltering each other from the hard opinions of people outside of the flock, they've lost touch with how badly their behaviour comes across to everyone else.
Opportunities arise not from talent necessarily, but from who and what you know. At its worst, you end up with starfucking, where certain people can do no wrong- even when they do- and on an everyday level the need to circle the wagons is as much about protecting one's own investment (in relationships, associations, and in the rightness of one's public judgement) as it does about loyalty to friends and associates. When one's opinions and loyalties are so public, and one works in what is essentially a narcissistic field, it becomes even harder to see something [bullying] for what it actually is because, in many ways, you have become complicit and having to admit you got it wrong becomes a public thing with a potential audience of millions.