There is no way government can force the media to do anything. A little thing called the First Amendment stands in the way. The White House could hold a dramatic news conference, with the President standing next to a table full of Iraqi WMD, and the hostile media would still find a way to diminish the moment.
Even in this era when alternative news sources are plentiful, there are many ways the so-called mainstream media shape what passes for news consumed by most people. One method is omission — if it isn't mentioned by Peter, Tom, Dan, Katie/Matt, Diane/Charlie, or the local "happy talk" news, the vast majority of the public remains uninformed. Another method is emphasis (spin): Yep, they found a shell filled with sarin, but it was old, rusty, probably just one that someone forgot about years ago.
When they combine both omission and spin, the effect is quite powerful. A current example is the fuss made the last couple of days over Seymour Hersh's article. He got a lot of face time on TV, always introduced as the "Pulitzer-prize-winning reporter" to emphasize that what he says should be taken as gospel. What the "mainstream" media omits is Hersh's long history of reportorial lies and misrepresentation. What the public is left with is the notion that Donald Rumsfeld all but ordered Iraqi prisoners to be abused. That is not true. Most in the media know it's not true. But the lie serves a purpose.
If I could wave a magic wand and effect reforms in modern journalism, I'd require:
(1) At least one named source in each story (i.e., no stories that rely totally on anonymous sources).
(2) Restoration of balance to libel and slander laws, making it easier for both "public" and private citizens to hold the media accountable through civil lawsuits.
(3) Tossing the silly notion of "objectivity" overboard. No human being is ever totally objective. Let every reporter and commentator inform the public of their political, corporate, and other affiliations, and let the chips fall where they may.
(4) Overturning the Supreme Court decision (Pentagon Papers) that said it is OK for journalists to steal in order to obtain source material for their stories.
Be careful about declarative sentences. In point of fact, the US gov't has curtailed 1st ammendment rights when asserting national security. Take a look at SCHENCK v. U.S. , 249 U.S. 47 (1919). Here's an important passage:
"When a nation is at war many things that might be said in time of peace are such a hindrance to its effort that their utterance will not be endured so long as men fight and that no Court could regard them as protected by any constitutional right."
To address your second point, I believe you place too much emphasis on the media's influence. People who care about such things can easily get the information they require. I still haven't seen/heard anything that would lead one to conclude that Bush won't hammer Kerry this November.
We should file class action law suits charging the RATmedia with consumer fraud for alleging to be news organizations when it is nothing but an arm of the democRAT party.