"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.
In most developed nations the government has the authority to censor what is written or aired in the media. While many would argue that this is wrong, on the grounds that in goes against such rights as freedom of speech and public information, I will argue that the government should, to a certain extent, be able to censor television and radio programs.
In many instances television and radio programs are funded by the taxpayer, as is the case in the UK, for example, where it is funded by citizens purchasing a television licenese. As a result programs must be in sympathy with audience demands. I think it is fair to assume that many would find programs containing offensive language and behaviour repulsive and would thus choose not watch them. This is recently illustrated by the public outrage at the obscenities aired on the Jonathan Ross show on BBC2, which resulted the public resignation of the channel's program scheduler.
While many may argue that there is always the option of switching channel if what is being viewed or aired is not to the viewer's or listener's taste. However, the responsibility of the government is to ensure these programs have mass appeal and are being watched by the majority of its 'customers'. This is the reason why we have viewing figures, in order to ensure the less popular programs do not take the popular time slots. The claim the majority would not choose to watch offensive programs could be supported by looking at what the public choose to view on the internet, where little censorship occurs. For instance, Youtube clips showing horrific acts of violence receive far fewer hits than comedy out-takes or music videos.
The government also has a responsibility to protect our children and youth from viewing or hearing unnecessary obscenities. It is not realistic to expect that governments have the ability to prevent a younger audience from watching television or listening to the radio. The most they can do is try and limit the number of obscenities that a child might be subjected to. One way of doing this is by censorship. TV companies clearly recognise the need and want by parents to protect their children from what they watch, hence why the offer parental control options. Film ratings, as well, have been almost universally accepted, which is further proof that censorship of television programs is a good thing for our youth.
It is important to note, however, that I do not advocate outright censorship. Obviously, it is not right that a government ensure every program is 'PG' rated. That is why we have such things as the 'watershed'. If the government did impose over-bearing censorship rules, it is possible that certain news items may not even be allowed to air and, if this resulted, that would be against our rights to freedom of speech or information.
In conclusion, measured censorship of our television and radio programs by the government is in the interest of the general public. However, censorship which begins to infringe on our human rights is not. It is the responsibility of the government to ensure that acts with accordance to the demands of the viewing and listening public.
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.
In most developed nations the government has the authority to censor what is written or aired in the media. While many would argue that this is wrong, on the grounds that in goes against such rights as freedom of speech and public information, I will argue that the government should, to a certain extent, be able to censor television and radio programs.
In many instances television and radio programs are funded by the taxpayer, as is the case in the UK, for example, where it is funded by citizens purchasing a television licenese. As a result programs must be in sympathy with audience demands. I think it is fair to assume that many would find programs containing offensive language and behaviour repulsive and would thus choose not watch them. This is recently illustrated by the public outrage at the obscenities aired on the Jonathan Ross show on BBC2, which resulted the public resignation of the channel's program scheduler.
While many may argue that there is always the option of switching channel if what is being viewed or aired is not to the viewer's or listener's taste. However, the responsibility of the government is to ensure these programs have mass appeal and are being watched by the majority of its 'customers'. This is the reason why we have viewing figures, in order to ensure the less popular programs do not take the popular time slots. The claim the majority would not choose to watch offensive programs could be supported by looking at what the public choose to view on the internet, where little censorship occurs. For instance, Youtube clips showing horrific acts of violence receive far fewer hits than comedy out-takes or music videos.
The government also has a responsibility to protect our children and youth from viewing or hearing unnecessary obscenities. It is not realistic to expect that governments have the ability to prevent a younger audience from watching television or listening to the radio. The most they can do is try and limit the number of obscenities that a child might be subjected to. One way of doing this is by censorship. TV companies clearly recognise the need and want by parents to protect their children from what they watch, hence why the offer parental control options. Film ratings, as well, have been almost universally accepted, which is further proof that censorship of television programs is a good thing for our youth.
It is important to note, however, that I do not advocate outright censorship. Obviously, it is not right that a government ensure every program is 'PG' rated. That is why we have such things as the 'watershed'. If the government did impose over-bearing censorship rules, it is possible that certain news items may not even be allowed to air and, if this resulted, that would be against our rights to freedom of speech or information.
In conclusion, measured censorship of our television and radio programs by the government is in the interest of the general public. However, censorship which begins to infringe on our human rights is not. It is the responsibility of the government to ensure that acts with accordance to the demands of the viewing and listening public.
