GMAT Essays (AWA)

I ran out of time when I was writing the essay... so I didn't get a chance to read it over. I also haven't written an essay for over two years, so I'm a bit rusty. Anyways, please tell me what you think about my essay!

The question:
"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 essay:
I believe that governments should not be allowed to censor television or radio programs unless the broadcast material was used without permission from the copyright owners. In this essay I will present two countries with different policies on censorship and evaluate the benefits and disadvantages of those policies to their respective country’s citizen base.

For my first example, I will site the extreme of North Korea. North Korea censors all television and radio programs. The only programs that are allowed to be showed are those directly approved by the North Korean government. If North Korean citizens are found to be in possession of non-approved media, they are subject to serious consequences. The citizen base is subject to the whims of the government. The government can use its censorship ability to distort and limited the spread of information, and thus mold the opinions of its citizenship base in any way that it desires. None of the broadcast programs have material that contradict the government. To the citizens of North Korea, I can see no advantage to this. The disadvantages are enormous, including the inability to learn the truth behind current events or even to know about current events at all. This severely limits the North Koreans ability to react to current events.

Now, on almost the complete opposite end of the spectrum, there is the United States of America. The USA has a much more relaxed standard of censorship than North Korea. However, the USA also does censor its public broadcasts to ensure that material deemed to be immoral is not broadcast on public channels (such as nudity and offensive language). With this kind of censorship system, citizens have easy and quick access to information from various sources. These various sources in effect compete with each other for viewers (or in the case of radio, listeners), and thus, are motivated to present the truth as presenting false information would result in less viewers. The United States also allows for programs that contradict, or even insult, the government. The main benefit to this system is that it allows the public to remain educated on current events (and thus react to them). The downside to such freedom is that the system only works if the broadcasters have the motivation to present the truth.

While the USA employs a censorship system that is much different than that of North Korea’s, I do believe that censorship is not necessary. I believe that in a free market society, the buying (in this case, watching or listening) power of the citizen is enough to control what is broadcast and what is not. Also, different citizens have different morals, and I do not believe any form of censorship can be fair to all citizens. For example, some families may not be opposed to offensive language (or maybe even desire it) while others may be. Is it truly fair for the government to limit the ability of citizens to access broadcast material that they desire?