I have faith in the US Constitution, but that faith has been sorely tested, and many interpretations so distorted that it is sometimes challenging to tell that the source was supposed to be the constitution.
Having said this, I have to question the expanded interpretation of freedom of the press. The principle is valid; but when it is so abused, I wonder about the limits. For example, consider the daily news reports of GOP "investigations, "inquiries," and Trump "attacks" and "claims" about misconduct and attempts to impeach political opponents. Whether it is Jordan, Comer, Smirnov, Trump, Gaetz, or whoever, we repeatedly see assertions highlighted in the "news" go down in flames. Often, we later find clear evidence that the claims and evidence were KNOWN to be false before being publicized.
I don't approve, but don't condemn the GOP prevarication. They either don't know any better or cannot help themselves. But the problem for me is the media which, negligently or intentionally, fails to vet or corroborate the claims BEFORE using the powerful megaphone of the public media to broadcast the falsehoods. Doing so for sensationalism and ratings distorts the purpose of the constitutional protection. And we are not talking about occasional errors. This is a daily occurrence; it has become the norm. Democrats are not immune from such prevarication; it's just that it does not appear to be their typical practice, as with the GOP.
Perhaps the case against FOX and Murdoch could be a productive starting point. When a media outlet broadcasts false claims and stories that it knows [or should have known with minimal reasonable inquiry - such as corroboration], that media outlet might be held accountable. In other words, any media outlet claiming "freedom of the press" protections should be able to demonstrate that it follows procedures to ensure accuracy and objectivity of its reports, generally and in the specific instance. In the past, this distinction used to separate legitimate news organizations from tabloids and rags. One expected tabloid reports to be sensationalized and unreliable. They were "entertainment," not news. In the current environment, with internet outlets, blogs and the proliferation of so-called "media outlets," the distinction is lost.
This could turn into a mudslinging brawl with accusations of "fake news" competing against sloppy and irresponsible "journalism." But I wonder if that would be worse than the current situation. It has always been important to check multiple news feeds and compare the sources, basis and reasoning of the various reports before coming to any position. But have you ever tried to find an object of real value in a garbage dump? Trying to discern reliable factual information from the current slag heap of sensationalized and often incomplete or inaccurate "news" is a real challenge. We have "freedom of speech," but some speech becomes actionable, and some statements can be defamatory. The point is not to eliminate freedom of the press or free speech. The idea is to require that such "rights" be exercised responsibly and not with impunity.
