Charities, in general, don’t have a vital role in government.
The media, in general, does.
The Media is supposed to be an outlet for the voice of the people, a barometer of them in a way. It’s supposed to be a check on the politicians, to expose in clear terms to the people what their government is doing and to investigate at times to find out more. They are whistle blowers and they are watch dogs.
Now, they don’t always do this job well and I won’t sit here and say there are not biases evident in the media, on both sides.
What I will say though is that if the government takes action to “save” a portion of the media landscape through the use of governmental means then that makes that portion of the media reliant on the government for its sustained growth and possibly existence. As such it brings up questions of potential bias and negligence when it comes to covering governmental things, and also breeds questions of what sort of pressure could politico’s put on that portion of the media to put forth the propaganda they wish.
Its far different then trying to compare it to charities.
"I am appalled that somebody who is the nominee...would take that kind of position"
"A court took away a presidency"
"...the brother of a man running for president was the governor of the state..."
It's horrifying because Trump is blunt instead of making overt implications.
"He who does not think himself worth saving from poverty and ignorance by his own efforts, will hardly be thought worth the efforts of anybody else." -- Frederick Douglass, Self-Made Men (1872)