You need impartiality. Streams will be edited down. Footage will be selectively selected and repackaged, then reshared via social media.
(No one in the end watched the entire live stream.)
You need someone whos job it is to do that without 'being for or against' something (per definition).
Media is corrupt and not needed is a simplification and overexagerration, that serves people that usually dont pay for media (cable TV doesnt count), so it works with them especially well - as its telling them, no - what you do is perfect and the right thing.
You were right all along, dont change a thing.
Its not the tool (live streaming, ..) thats important here, its that you have 'someone' whos job it is to report 'impartially' (at least in their self image (code of conduct)). And its important that people believe in that as well (otherwise you have everlasting turf wars).
"You can believe what you see in a live stream, or on social media, or what feels right/true", is the more problematic notion.
Because people usually cant differentiate between PR and not-PR (even I have problems sometimes), and on social media, 'sensationalism' is the currency. Thats what gets you clicks, thats what gets you paid. With newspapers, there is at least a fraction of them (those that arent called yellow press or tabloids), that gets financing from readers wanting actual reporting and not just emotionality.
Democracy doesnt work without 'informed discussion' - and you need time for the 'informed' part to happen (everyone forming their opinion based on trying to deliberate whats best or true for them). Social media is almost the entire opposite. There you most often have 'how you should feel' in the title.
("Girl going shopping almost lost an eye.")
Thats not a replacement for media (process of trying to stay impartial and report on facts, as their job - if some outlet fails, and people notice, you have others, but at least the code of conduct needs to be there.)