Journalism is the opposite of leadership. The more leadership you want, the more you need to suppress journalism.
Imagine a "news" story about a spot of violence. There was a shooting. What's this actually about? It's about the fact that two men came to blows. They had some pre-existing conflict, which they could not resolve in any meaningful way. The journalist must keep as far away from these underlying causes as possible. The journalist is irresponsible, and always has to have an excuses, such as just relaying "the facts," as if gossip wasn't a sin.
If the story is a report instead of a narrative, a paper instead of a novel, that means the conflict is in your Conquest #1 domain. Nobody else knows shit about what happened, nor cares to know for that matter. When is random strangers' conflict in your Conquest #1 domain? When they're not random strangers, but subjects in your fief. When you are the local lord.
When you are the local lord, you will naturally not take kindly to paid gossips mucking around with your loyal subjects. It makes your job at least twice as hard, and tells neither you nor your other subjects anything they didn't already know.
A free press is the opposite of good government. Good government bans publication and broadcast on sight.
P.S. Unless one of the men in the conflict is a narcissist, they won't take kindly to it either. Their families aren't going to be happy. It's nobody else's business. Journalists say "you have a right to know" because you have no right to know. They want to get paid anyway.
Gnon laughs; reading this inherently profane crap is bad for you. ROI inherently a net loss. With journalists, everyone loses.