No one is arguing about freedom of the press.

Also, there are journalistic ethical rules, fake news blogspam is not the press.

For example, a journalist has certain protections, but in exchange for that he/she (or her/his editor/publisher) has to be publicly known, by name, to be accountable for what they write/publish.

And any piece of data, any representation of information is suspect of forgery. The whole problem of solipsism is still pretty valid.

And ultimately we can only resort to the good old Bayesian rule of inference: wild claims require very hard evidence.

And when an established publishing house places its reputation on the line, that counts a bit. When a shit tier conspiracy blogger claims something about Benghazi, that requires a bit more than "our sources say Bush lied about WMDs".