The argument is playing childish word games with the term 'free press'.
On the one hand, the writer wants to invoke the sanctity of doctor/patient, or attorney/client, or priest/penitent privilege, knowing full well those relationships are limited, and then on the other hand, the writer wants to give an absolute level of special treatment to the entire media, without parameters or definitions as to what the press should be free to do without any legal repercussions... in other words, create an elite layer of super citizens, above all law because of their 'profession'.
Free to cover up knowledge of crimes?
Or free to kill people? Free to deliberately print damaging material they know to be untue? Free to cause horrific 'accidents' so they will have something to report?
Free topple governments by revealing classified material, or fabricating election results? Free to play kingmaker with pre-election reportage?
Or maybe, just maybe, the same press that is whining about judicial activism and imperial hubris, should be content with the original meaning accorded the term 'free press' and not be so greedy.