Why shouldn't the press have freedom of speech?

They have, that's why they can lie anything. They are well paid millionaires, they are for the rich.

The Obama administration has, and is, considering a network of press advisors that TV and newspaper writers would have to work with before publishing any political news. This is to prevent any negative attitudes over Obama's policies which may undermine his popularity. So in that case, it would be good if reports on our president were only positive. His re-election would be almost guaranteed if there were no negative or questionable news about Obama.

The only reason is the lawsuit probability.

You can't refer to names of people, institutions not considering any trial conditions.

So press utilize a firewall for such undesired condition called format.

But you can hear all blames and names when the topic about enemy states like iran.

Press does have freedom of speech as long as what they print or broadcast is truth. If lies, libel or slander are published, they will be held accountable. The press may say what they please, but are held accountable. There is a free press here.

Because they have a perchant for telling "bloody" lies ,and plenty of "em"

...because there are lies, dammed lies and the British press.

It should.