Certain things should just be governed, and if not, be labeled in such a way that people know that it might not be objective or true.
Freedom of speech is important, however there should be limits. And in my opinion, this is one of them.
Ofcourse that raises the question on who decides what's true and what's not.
The press in this country is supposed to be a check and balance against govenrment overreach. Sadly, it seems that like the people of our country, the media has taken sides. New or old, the New York Times, LA Times, Washington Post, Associated Press, Time, Newsweek, ABC, CBS, NBC, CNN, MSNBC, Huffington Post, Politico, Daily Kos, and Rueters, all side liberal, and lie for liberal politicians. On the other side, you have Fox News, Drudgereport, Breitbart, CNS, WND, New York Post, who all side conservative, and lie for conservative politicians. You want some fascinating reading on who lies on the Liberal side, you might want to google Ezra Klein and the Jurnolist. Here you had a guy who ran a listserv that was a think tank of Liberal politicians, policy wonks, journalists, and all kinds of people who should be checking eachother, not lying in bed together. Worse yet, you can actually find instances where the Journolist actually tried to frame the debate, actively worked to get Obama elected, and even started the idea that anyone who challenges Obama should be smeared as racist. I haven't seen that anywhere on the news, have you? /sarcasm.
Equally as bad is Beck's need to spew gloom and doom. Or Matt Drudge's creative headlines. Or Breitbart's occasional grasp at straws.
That's why I read most of them, and skim through opinion to find the hard fact, which is what the press is supposed to be printing. At least the new media guys, Huffpo, Kos, Drudge and Bretibart don't even pretend they're fair, balanced and neutral.