It depends on the people, not the press. The press has always been dishonest. Only recently, since 30's or so, has the "fourth estate, honest press" myth been pushed.
Why should the people trust the press, which it has ZERO control over, and not trust the government, which it can depose? Doesn't make sense. Free press means they can lie, or they tell the truth. It's up to the people to make sense of all the conflicting messages.
Ben Franklin was a master propagandist, see history wehre he had false stories planted in major papers of the day.
It depends upon the people being informed. A press that has Christian values, integrity, and honesty are absolutely important to that. Or at least a press that tells all somewhere.
I didn’t say that the press had ever been honest. Merely that ideally it was necessary for the truth to be revealed. People need to be able to hear all the conflicting stories, not just the narrative.
Complete stories, until the internet, have not really told all the conflicting stories at least not in my lifetime.
How can people discern the truth, if it is never uttered? I would never advise trusting the government or the press. That’s why proof and verification are needed as well.
Ideally, though honest people of integrity are needed everywhere. Government, Press, and Civilians.
There have been several iterations of this struggle. In colonial times the advent and evolution of the printing press had made it possible for more people to print handbills and such such that more groups could get their POV out there. Again in the 30s there was the ability of large numbers of groups to print newspapers and circulars. That was brought down by the consolidation of the newspapers (here), and the advent of TV which was inherently controllable by the PTB. Then came the internet.
I left out radio, which gave some communicative freedom, and before that telegraph, which both used to offer party lines and chat room kinds of things like we have now.