How might news reports differ if freedom of speech and the press were not part of the constitution?

In countries with no freedom of speech, people who speak out against the government are either put in jail or killed. Further, dissenters are demonized and persecuted. Dictatorships, governments run by a tyrannical leader, have no tolerance for dissenting opinions, so people are discouraged from expressing them. In such countries, there is also self-censorship. People know certain subjects will get them in trouble, so they do not call attention upon themselves by trying to talk about those subjects.

This also affects the press (today called "the media")-- in a country with no freedom of the press, the news is controlled by the leader of the government. Reporters know they must only talk about (or write about) subjects that are acceptable: criticism of the government or attempts to do any investigative reporting can get a journalist imprisoned or worse: according to the Committee to Protect Journalists, since 1992, more than 1,000 journalists worldwide have been killed while doing their jobs. Thus, First Amendment protections like Freedom of Speech and Freedom of the Press are two essential aspects of the constitution; while they are sometimes taken for granted, they make it possible for the media and for citizens to express their beliefs and opinions without fear of losing their life.