Oh, what a load of bollox
This nonsense piece flies in the face of the evidence, and particularly of the last century.
If we see how the connivance and collusion of the press owners with all the political elite, and whichever was in power at the time, you'll understand that this has never an issue of politicos vs press.
How many times have the press been a willing advocate on behalf of the political propogandists?
Would the hegemony of the United States, particularly egregious in its interference in South America, have been acceptable with the compliance of its press? And today, the Murdoch empire carries on this grand tradition, especially in what passes for TV News on its FOX network.
And this is not just a US problem. The "way too cosy" relationship between the UK press and the Westminster village continues unabated. Why bother composing your own copy when you can cut and paste from the Press Release? Who populates the drinking holes in and around Whitehall and Westminster?
So, who is that needs protection from spurious, salacious and spiteful stories that pass themselves off as news?
Voltaire said "I despise what you say, but defend to the death your right to say it" is the guiding principle, definitely.
But not if it is wrong and/or causes harm.
For example, what redress did Chris Jeffries have, for the nonsense spouted about him?
Self-evidently, the Press cannot regulate themselves. So who else could manage this on our behalf?
I still want the Telegraph to be able to publish the MPs bogus expenses claims, but don't want them paying the police for tittle tattle about celebrities or their phone numbers, or accepting fabricated stories about Government Chief Whips because the police want to shelve reforms to their service...