from western governments, criticisms about "freedom of the press" are almost always veiled attempts to restrict press freedom for sources they do not like, which is often community or government based media.
this idea of calling private media "free" is itself very much a type of newspeak. private media is not freer than community media in any way. it's often the other way around! what private media is is corporate media, and hence driven by profit. that doesn't make it less controlled; again, that can and often does imply greater control and more censorship.
who has a bigger reach in america: pbs or fox news? yet, in canada and britain it's more subtle. it's clearly more complex than whether it's owned by government or by cartels.
in the end, if you're a journalist on the front lines it doesn't matter if the ceo is threatening to fire you or if the government is threatening to silence you. it doesn't matter if you're reading a script by the ministry or the oil/weapons cartel.
so, freedom of the press is and always has meant freedom for corporations to suppress the press.
and it's always been up to people to organize around the press.