But even given all that negative sentiment a solid free press is a good thing and should be protected. Yes it is, but I haven't seen people like this CBP offic

But even given all that negative sentiment a solid free press is a good thing and should be protected. Yes it is, but I haven't seen people like this CBP officer suggest that the solution to their concerns is taking away press freedoms. This officer clearly believes that the "free press" is a theory, not something they observe in practice. That is, the underlying assumption is that if the press is free to attack the government then it always will, whereas what he actually perceives is that the press is virtually the same as one party of government and will only .. as a whole .. attack the other side, not their own. And he's right. Only 7% of US journalists claimed to vote Republican in 2014: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2014/05/06/just-7-percent-of-journalists-are-republicans-thats-far-less-than-even-a-decade-ago/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2014/05/06/ju... Most journalists claim to be independent, but you wouldn't know it from their output. How many newspapers opted to back nobody in the 2016 election? And how many backed Trump? IIRC it was "none" and "all of them". The press have made their bed, now they're lying in it. Trust in them has been in freefall for a long time, especially amongst Republicans, who this CBP officer most surely was. And they deserve this lack of trust. I routinely read stories in the press that are blatantly false, and always in support of the same political narrative. Why should anyone feel strongly about the freedom of the press when they have come out in strong support of a particular political ideology? That isn't what freedom of the press is meant to be about.