How a free press operate and what the people need are not necessarily aligned. The populace needs the sum total of the free press to result in something approximating objectivity. If that's not happening, the people aren't being served by the concept of a free press.

If all you've got is two sensationalising ends and nothing in the middle, it's very difficult to tell what's going on. Worse, if you've got one broadly accurate and reliable wing opposed by a group who will intentionally exaggerate, lie, and demonise, and the public think the truth is actually somewhere in the middle, the latter group win.

What's not clear or easy is how you might go about cleaning up such a situation.

If the people's needs aren't being served by the existing media, part of the 'free' bit of 'free press' is the fact that anyone can be a journalist. They can research, write and publish stories to fill any gap. The internet enables this even more than has historically been possible.

The problem in the latter case isn't solved by adding more journalists.