"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 that to what extent should government or any other group censor television or radio programs is a controversial one. It is increasingly important in this information age dominated by media in many forms- visual, print or virtual. Many people believe in laissez fair approach and link the said issue with freedom of speech, but these people ignore the diversity of audience and lack of responsibility in media. Furthermore, unbridled disclosure of half-baked information provided without sense of responsibility towards consequences to the audience of varying degree of maturity may lead to disastrous results. In this essay I will argue that censorship is necessary to certain extent.
Though there are many good reasons to support freedom of thought, but it cannot be ignored that responsible reporting defers from lack of accountability in disclosure of information. Truth may be presented in any light, and in absence of the actual context it will look different. For example, the sensationalist Wikileaks cannot be considered serious journalism because the revelations lack accountability and the context.
Secondly, there is an associated question of rightness of means of obtaining information. Laissez Fair, as a practice, encourages acquisition of information without accountability towards correct means. For example, the modus operandi 'News Corporation' resorted to obtain information was by no means ethical or acceptable. Thus, to ensure accountability, government has to act as a regulator.
Furthermore, the maturity of audience plays a great part in reception and assimilation of the news. The media will shape public opinion by providing information and a coloured vision will lead to a lopsided view. This is an unintended and unseen consequence of information propagation, but an important one. Since, audience come from diverse classes, ages and maturity level it may lead to unforeseen consequences. Who, at the end will instil this responsibility in media? Only Government by regulation!
Thus the argument in favour of regulation, not censorship is becoming increasingly important in this date and time given that innovation and technological advances are opening new vistas of access to information. Many of the issues of regulation of information are neither simple, nor may be resolved easily, for example formulating and enforcing regulations in virtual domain remains a challenge as the operators remain faceless, existing only in form of a domain name or e-mail. Finally, consensus on the issue and global cooperation can only lead to a better salvage of situation beneficial for everybody.
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 that to what extent should government or any other group censor television or radio programs is a controversial one. It is increasingly important in this information age dominated by media in many forms- visual, print or virtual. Many people believe in laissez fair approach and link the said issue with freedom of speech, but these people ignore the diversity of audience and lack of responsibility in media. Furthermore, unbridled disclosure of half-baked information provided without sense of responsibility towards consequences to the audience of varying degree of maturity may lead to disastrous results. In this essay I will argue that censorship is necessary to certain extent.
Though there are many good reasons to support freedom of thought, but it cannot be ignored that responsible reporting defers from lack of accountability in disclosure of information. Truth may be presented in any light, and in absence of the actual context it will look different. For example, the sensationalist Wikileaks cannot be considered serious journalism because the revelations lack accountability and the context.
Secondly, there is an associated question of rightness of means of obtaining information. Laissez Fair, as a practice, encourages acquisition of information without accountability towards correct means. For example, the modus operandi 'News Corporation' resorted to obtain information was by no means ethical or acceptable. Thus, to ensure accountability, government has to act as a regulator.
Furthermore, the maturity of audience plays a great part in reception and assimilation of the news. The media will shape public opinion by providing information and a coloured vision will lead to a lopsided view. This is an unintended and unseen consequence of information propagation, but an important one. Since, audience come from diverse classes, ages and maturity level it may lead to unforeseen consequences. Who, at the end will instil this responsibility in media? Only Government by regulation!
Thus the argument in favour of regulation, not censorship is becoming increasingly important in this date and time given that innovation and technological advances are opening new vistas of access to information. Many of the issues of regulation of information are neither simple, nor may be resolved easily, for example formulating and enforcing regulations in virtual domain remains a challenge as the operators remain faceless, existing only in form of a domain name or e-mail. Finally, consensus on the issue and global cooperation can only lead to a better salvage of situation beneficial for everybody.
