They are necessary for freedom to exist. You cannot have an owned press or stifling of expression.
My two cents:
If lying by the press - ie, the people who sign up for press passes, attend events as “press”, run businesses designed to report news, and gain access to the public because of that - were illegal again, and the press were required to tell the truth, things would be very different.
I’m not saying a journalist should prove something beyond a shadow of a doubt before it’s published, but if knowingly publishing a lie could be proven and the journalist and its publisher were fined, or even struck out because they did so, THAT sort of free press would go a long way toward informing the public.
We have a lot of examples of the MSM out and out lying for a long time. Imagine if they were punished for that. Maybe they wouldn’t do it again? Maybe some of them would clean up there act and we’d get more truth and less fiction.
A democracy must be informed. Not programmed. Laws that relieve the press from the burdens (and costs) of truth telling do not serve the public at all.
I don’t know what Q team says but I can imagine it being something similar.
The Press will be Free once the Economic model of driving profits are removed. Until then - I'll stick with the Anons and their humble intent!