Depends what you mean by regulate. As far as I'm concerned, the only regulation that should be required is net neutrality- preventing ISP's from cutting service off to their customer base or portions of it.
You're assuming that unbiased news is the prevailing norm for a democratic society. Unfortunately, that isn't the case. From the 1930s to the 1990s the U.S. experienced a unique change in the way news was delivered from isolated, politically partisan, small-scale distribution to large-scale, (ostensibly) unbiased organizations. For most of the 20th century Americans trusted Walter Cronkite and their local newsman/woman and placed a great deal of trust in what they had to say, and for the most part, they were relatively unbiased. That's a complete aberration for most of American history and especially world history. From the invention of the printing press onward, people got news from other people who thought like them and held the same views. Journalists were completely beholden to the views of their editors. Hearst's newspapers that essentially facilitated the Spanish-American War in 1898 are a classic example. So the Internet's revival of partisan, smaller-readership news sources is both logical and arguably normal. That's what we've been like as a society for most of our brief history as a country.
Passing the buck of critiquing media to the state is isn't really feasible, nor would anybody- especially conservatives- appreciate it. The government is about as neutral an arbiter as a corporation. You also seem to imply that corporations necessarily have nefarious interests in mind, which I don't think is true. They have a certain level of editorial oversight, but if one outlet doesn't cover it, another one will. Think about Fox News' coverage of the BP Oil Spill. They jumped on it as much as anyone else, their ridiculous editorials aside. Fox is owned by Rupert Murdoch, half of whose fortune stems from UK news firms, who are probably in bed with BP execs because it's a critical company for a lot of UK pension plans and citizens in general. Fox still covered it, and anything they didn't cover was picked up by CNN and MSNBC. It's not a perfect system, but it functions well enough, and with all the data that's out there, I'm more encouraged than I would have been 10 years ago that we have about as healthy a media environment as you could expect.
tl;dr no
edit: just to make an even larger wall of text, a similarly interesting debate has to do with foreign countries and the internet. Because the domain name system is run by a non-profit in California and subsidized by the U.S. government, the United States has an enormous degree of control over the future direction of the internet. Russia and China would kill to get their hands on some of that power to be able to restrict it domestically (this is not xenophobic fear-mongering- look it up; there was a UN debate on this issue just last week). The U.S. is, in my opinion, uniquely qualified to maintain control over the internet. We're not politically neutral by any means, but I do think that as a country and a government we want real and substantive freedom for people around the world, because we trust other democracies and want to make the international system a safer place for us to live in, out of both self-interest and altruism. That's not to say that the UK and France and India, for the sake of argument, don't want the same thing- but I think we should hang tight to whatever degree of control we have over the internet vis-a-vis other powers, because our desires- democracy and freedom of speech- are transparent and honest, whereas competing countries' desires are not.
