As far as I'm aware, there is no definition of a "Freedom of the press" law here in the UK, or in the US. It's often assumed that Freedom of Speech (or the first amendment) ensures Freedom of the press, with a few other laws and rights tacked on specific to publications and journalisms. Which implies you yourself haven't done much research. I'd go as far to say that you've not a single buttery fuck of a clue what you're talking about if I'm honest.
But let's take a look at what Freedom of the press actually means, and hopefully you'll learn something. It originated with John Milton in 17th Century britain who argued that the individual is capable of using reason and also distinguishing between right and wrong, good and bad. In order to be able to exercise this ration right, the individual must have unlimited access to the ideas of his fellow men in “a free and open encounter."
That, you ignoramus, is Freedom of the press in a nutshell. Note that it implies a burden of responsibility when it mentions "Free and open" encounter. Such things don't simply magic themselves into existence. This is not a fairy tale world we live in. People actually have to work hard at breathing life into such things.
But no one can say that this "free and open" exchange of ideas and information is taking place in this day and age. This entire comment thread is dedicated to the very fact that news organisations are wilfully and nefariously stifling the "free and open exchange" of information to suit their own individual needs and goals. They are wilfully abandoning their own responsibility to report the news and will undoubtedly use a "freedom of the press" argument to defend their indefensible actions. All while slack jawed brain donors such as yourself argue to your blue in the face in defence this "Freedom". A freedom unlike any other. A freedom which yields hitherto unheard of powers of influence, but requires not one jot of responsibility or decency in order to maintain. We should expect those which shield themselves with such a freedom to be held to higher standard, and for a time they were. But today? I fear they are not.
It's also worth noting that it took some 200 years from John Miltons campaign against government censorship until "The Truth" became an admissible defence against accusations of libel (hence the phrase, "The bigger the truth, the bigger the libel"). To think that we have somehow managed to strike the perfect balance between an individuals right to privacy, the publics right to know and the press's right to report as they see fit stinks of both arrogance and laziness on your part. There's work still to be done and I propose you pick up the mantle by responding to every news organisations wail of "Freedom of the Press!! Freedom of the press" with the counter question, "What about the Responsibility of the press!?".
But if you want the ultimate example of why Freedom of the press is bullhunky and Responsibility of the press os sorely lacking, consider this. Michael Jackson died on June 25th 2009. Tell me, what was happening the day before Wacko Jackco popped his rhinestone encrusted moon walking clogs?
That news story all but disappeared the second the King of Pop breathed his last. Lot's of people died. Iran seized the opportunity and while no one was looking, it violently crushed the opposition and no body cared.
Freedom of the press? I wouldn't wipe my arse with it. Hows that for a fucking rebuttal.
The key you're forgetting about freedom of the press is that it cuts both ways.
The contract the press has with the public is "Sure, you're allowed to print whatever you wish, but don't expect us to BELIEVE you once you've exhausted all your credibility (and we don't believe you by default)". Likewise, if you continuously deliver relevant information and editorial you will be rewarded with higher readership/viewership and trust. No, this isn't perfect, but it beats the bejeesus out of a state controlled news service (which, btw, we DO have , it's called CSPAN and NPR but the masses here in the U.S. can't be bothered). What I'm saying is essentially to let the free market do it's job. It won't always be perfect, but at least if you hate it you can try to change it without cutting through loads of bureaucratic tape.
Now on to this law. What? Yes you want a law. You want to force the "press" to abide by a subjective regulation of reporting on the "truth". Leaving aside the obvious axioms of math and physics, "truth" is different to many people. My truths may not be your truths, so I'd like "truth" presented in a way that reflects my bias. And that is all the press is doing.