If we are going to be constructionists, we have to remember that the press was not honest or unbiased. That is a machination of the 20th Century.
In fact, when you see a paper with Republican or Democrat in the title, it is exactly that: A political newspaper.
Freedom of the press is one of those things most people do no understand; nor do they wish to be educated.
It means write whatever you want. Write it how you want. And bias or truth does not matter. It is up to the people to discern the truth.
And if we do that they call it “hate speech.”
Justice Scalia pointed out that freedom of speech and of the press existed at the time the First Amendment was drafted - but libel laws existed at that time, too. He interpreted the formulation "Congress shall make no law . . . abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press” as being different than it would have been without the “the” which I bolded in the quotation.His point was that the freedom of the press was that which existed at the time the amendment passed. Not absolute freedom, in which (as you suggest) “bias and truth do not matter” but freedom within the existing constraints of libel law. That is, freedom to tell the truth as you believe it, but not to deliberately libel without consequence.
Bias, si! Libel, non!
The intent of the founders was that speech would not be censored. What we have today is censored speech through monopoly of control of the broadcasting systems in America.
If you are to reach the masses at all, it mostly must be done through some form of television. We can stand on a narrow interpretation of "freedom of the press" and we can be destroyed, or we can realize this is an entirely different ballgame than that with which the founders were familiar, and act accordingly.
I have further arguments, but if these don't reach you, I doubt the others will either.