Gold Meritorious Patron
Why not both?
Freedom of the Press certainly extends to the NY Times to publish as well as to me, the individual, to read.
Freedom of (and from) Religion supports an individual's right to embrace or reject religion and a neutral stance on the part of Government to avoid religious persecution (not prosecution)
or do I misunderstand?
Because the rest of the Bill of Rights is about individual rights, not collective ones. The "Press" as conceived by the founders were little one to five man operations, with one person in the Editor's desk, not something like the AP.
The way the Constitution applies to corporations can be worked out in the Federal Code, the Constitution is about how government works and how it relates to the individual citizen. The Federal Code can be amended as new forms of organizations arise and the flaws in basic assumptions about old organizations become apparent (e.g. that religious organizations are automatically altruistic). The Constitution is subject to interpretation only by the 9 Supremes - and they simply don't have the life experience to decide that kind of stuff and set it in stone, which is why you keep that kind of issue out of the Constitution and in the changeable Federal Code.
Look how long it took to get the 18th amendment repealed - long after its deleterious effects were noted. The Founders made it very hard to amend the Constitution, which is good, but it means that you don't hit problems with the Constitutional A-bomb when a BB gun will do. Putting that kind of power in the hands of the Supremes is a bad idea, especially with this Court, but really with any Court.