'the press is free and will print what the hell they want.' the first proposition is dubious. What presses 'set fit to print' is often a calculated judgement on, what the owners prefer, what advertisers on them won't object to, and what the readership that buys the paper would prefer to read. As one sees at critical moments, in The Times of London, or The New York Times, reportage can be devastatingly skewed. This goes for the mainstream press. The second proposition has nothing to do with either comprehensiveness or accuracy of reportage, but rather 'who cares. I like it, I want the readership to think this way'. The Murdoch press is a prime, and notorious example. It's old book, but written by Walter Lippmann, Public Opinion 1921 (freely downloadable), but is trenchantly eloquent on ther 'pseudo-environment' in which we are constrained to live by exposure to media.
'analysis of the nature of news and of the economic basis of journalism seems to show that the newspapers necessarily and inevitably reflect, and therefore, in greater or lesser measure, intensify, the defective organization of public opinion.'
This is what a great humane, liberal newspaper man could write about what really occurs in media. At the time, that was a centrist adminission of how much bullshit is flogged to a gullible public to 'manufacture consent' at whatever price to the facts. His position is held today by Noam Chomsky, whom Lippmann's heirs regard as a dangerous man. In short, the classical moderate realist view of how information is cut and tailored to produce a social mindset is now only retained by those whom modern day centrists call extremists.  End of New Year Lecture.