Please help me in critiquing the following Analysis of an Issue - I take the test Saturday morning, 11/8, so I appreciate your feedback by Friday, 11/7. I pulled the topic from GMAC's official guide. Thanks for your help!!
In some countries, television and radio programs are carefully censored for offensive language and behavior. In other countries, there is little or no censorship.
In your view, to what extent should government or any other group be able to censor television or radio programs? Explain, giving relevant reasons and/or examples to support your position.
The issue of media censorship is a complex component that most societies have had to address. Thus, countries run the spectrum from ultimate censorship determined by the government and other groups to environments that are completely free from censorship. While this is a challenging issue that inspires numerous opinions, I believe governments and groups should not have input into what is deemed offensive on television and radio programs.
First, many countries have adopted rating systems for television and radio programs as well as movies which contain offensive content. Similarly, magazines and books with offensive content are often only allowed for purchase by audiences over a certain age, and most television programs that would be considered offensive air in late night hours or on pay per view channels. Moreover, recent technology has allowed parents to filter any content they do not wish their children to see on their home computers or televisions, making it possible to limit what certain audiences see while allowing the right for others to see it. While the government often plays a role in developing and maintaining these rating systems, this content is still available to those who choose to access it, and these systems allow consumers to make personal choices about what they and their families experience.
Second, content that appears in the media (be it broadcast, print or otherwise) can easily be compared to art. Not only is this content intended to provoke thought, but it is often very subjective to one’s tastes and opinions. What might be offensive to some might not be offensive to others. For instance, a documentary that depicts the sexual abuse of women during the times of slavery might be considered offensive to some groups, but may be considered an important part of history to others. Many novels like J.D. Salinger’s Catcher in the Rye were once banned and are now considered great works of literature. The beliefs, tastes and preferences of individuals vary greatly, and also change over time. For this reason, it would be impossible to create a standard that everyone within one society could reasonably agree with.
On the other hand, some may argue that government censorship is necessary for the greater good of society. Many experts and citizens have decried the link between violence in the media and the rise in violent crime over the last few years. Similarly, a positive correlation has been found between teenagers who view programs that glamorize sexuality and the rate of teenage pregnancy. It is easy to understand why many people might want to eradicate this type of programming in order to limit social problems that often glamorized – on the small screen or big screen.
While it is often tempting for some people to call for the limitation of what is viewed in the media, it is important to maintain consumers’ sense of free will. By giving members of society the option of selecting what they wish to see and guidance on the content of programs that interest them, it allows for the freedom necessary to maintains the freedom of speech necessary for democracies that thrive on this privilege. Societies are wise in balancing this marketplace free of ideas with technology and other mechanisms that allow people to make informed decisions.
In some countries, television and radio programs are carefully censored for offensive language and behavior. In other countries, there is little or no censorship.
In your view, to what extent should government or any other group be able to censor television or radio programs? Explain, giving relevant reasons and/or examples to support your position.
The issue of media censorship is a complex component that most societies have had to address. Thus, countries run the spectrum from ultimate censorship determined by the government and other groups to environments that are completely free from censorship. While this is a challenging issue that inspires numerous opinions, I believe governments and groups should not have input into what is deemed offensive on television and radio programs.
First, many countries have adopted rating systems for television and radio programs as well as movies which contain offensive content. Similarly, magazines and books with offensive content are often only allowed for purchase by audiences over a certain age, and most television programs that would be considered offensive air in late night hours or on pay per view channels. Moreover, recent technology has allowed parents to filter any content they do not wish their children to see on their home computers or televisions, making it possible to limit what certain audiences see while allowing the right for others to see it. While the government often plays a role in developing and maintaining these rating systems, this content is still available to those who choose to access it, and these systems allow consumers to make personal choices about what they and their families experience.
Second, content that appears in the media (be it broadcast, print or otherwise) can easily be compared to art. Not only is this content intended to provoke thought, but it is often very subjective to one’s tastes and opinions. What might be offensive to some might not be offensive to others. For instance, a documentary that depicts the sexual abuse of women during the times of slavery might be considered offensive to some groups, but may be considered an important part of history to others. Many novels like J.D. Salinger’s Catcher in the Rye were once banned and are now considered great works of literature. The beliefs, tastes and preferences of individuals vary greatly, and also change over time. For this reason, it would be impossible to create a standard that everyone within one society could reasonably agree with.
On the other hand, some may argue that government censorship is necessary for the greater good of society. Many experts and citizens have decried the link between violence in the media and the rise in violent crime over the last few years. Similarly, a positive correlation has been found between teenagers who view programs that glamorize sexuality and the rate of teenage pregnancy. It is easy to understand why many people might want to eradicate this type of programming in order to limit social problems that often glamorized – on the small screen or big screen.
While it is often tempting for some people to call for the limitation of what is viewed in the media, it is important to maintain consumers’ sense of free will. By giving members of society the option of selecting what they wish to see and guidance on the content of programs that interest them, it allows for the freedom necessary to maintains the freedom of speech necessary for democracies that thrive on this privilege. Societies are wise in balancing this marketplace free of ideas with technology and other mechanisms that allow people to make informed decisions.
