There are *lots* of reasons, primarily stemming from the fact that once something is published (be it in a newspaper, broadcasted on TV, or posted on the 'net), the information is out there, and can't just be taken back.
Examples:
Generally, children who are involved in the legal system do not have their names disclosed by the media, because of problems in the past where disclosure of their names has caused them to be abused, picked on, or hurt. Even when reporting about adults, an incorrect or unfairly biased story can easily ruin someone's career and/or life. Imagine if a newspaper ran a front page story with your picture, and accused you of being a serial child molester?
From a governmental standpoint, the media easily could inadvertantly broadcast information that could enable fraud, weaken the US military (either by broadcasting the position of a unit or person, or by disclosing a weakness or flaw in a weapons system), or cause a panic.
This is why media ethics are so important - they have the ability to cause great disruption even by accident.
2006-12-01 02:18:21
·
answer #1
·
answered by ³√carthagebrujah 6
·
0⤊
0⤋
"World Peace" will end the circulation of many media outlets that focus on "sensationalist stories".
Such stories have hindered peace efforts in the past, while selling many newspapers.
Legal proceedings have been prejudiced by "trial by media".
******************************************
Example of "Trial by Media" : Lindy Chamberlain case, 1982 (a movie starring Meryl Streep "Evil Angels" was made later showing media influence)
"This was trial by media and prejudice of the worst kind, which shamed Australia. ...
"At the time of her conviction, I was studying law, and wondered why I should bother, given that a furore generated by media coverage could dictate the outcome of a trial.
"It was certainly justice denied ..."
2006-11-29 07:28:59
·
answer #2
·
answered by wizebloke 7
·
0⤊
0⤋