(essay question. Plz be specific)
2007-07-07 06:31:43 · 9 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government ➔ Other - Politics & Government
No. The media is a reflection of society as much as society is a reflection of the media. Regulating the media regulates the way people can think and express themselves. I think too often we try to shield ourselves and our children from the way things are, and from differences between opinion and perceived right and wrong.
Essentially it comes down to a matter of choice. The media should have the choice to express an opinion, and society has a choice to listen/watch or not.
2007-07-07 06:37:58 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 0⤋
No. First of all, the constitution does not allow for strict regulations against the media unless it jeopardizes national security, Even then, the media have routes to take to get information released.
Secondly, a free media is essential to our democracy. It allows for different ideas to be represented in a public forum. Without, we would only the have the perspective of the majority party in power, which consequently may not be the perspective of the majority of the public. It allows for criticisms to be voiced and for these criticisms to be taken into consideration, most of the time, to produce a better outcome.
The government has many times taken members of the media to court to get them to release their sources and also to aid an investigation. There have been many monumental court rulings outlining the government's and the media's responsibility as it relates to informing the public. One of these is the Information Act of 1963 andalso the court hearing concerning Bob Woodard and Carl Bernstein's refusal to name their "deep throat" source during the Watergate scandal and subsequent hearings.
On a personal note, I do feel that in regards to war, the media should not be restricted as to what coverage they report, but should not be granted the security they have if they chose to be in a dangerous area. It puts too much of an additional strain on the military to not only have to execute their mission objective and save themselves, but to add in individuals who voluntarily place themselves in harm's way. Reporters understand the danger they are in before they go and thus should have a reasonable expectation of self preservation without relying on the military to be their personal escorts. I feel that this should bode true for all the media, not what the point of view their story may be taking, so as to conject a clear unbias.
2007-07-07 13:47:06 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
Our founding fathers saw the "media" as a way for ordinary citizens to join in government by allowing people voice... if the government were to limit speech by the media, it would be the same as limiting individual speech...for all its good and bad, to the founders, a free and unfettered media was an important part of democracy...they knew that if one political group were to be able to successfully govern speech by the media, the country would fall into an autocratic system.
2007-07-07 13:39:26 · answer #3 · answered by Ford Prefect 7 · 2⤊ 0⤋
No.
The media is biased against my views, but I still do not believe in silencing opposing views.
If regulations were imposed, there would need to be an individual or group who decides what or whom is biased and what course of action needs to be taken to correct that. You need only study dictatorships in history to understand that once the media is controlled the government can accomplish anything.
The entity who decides 'fairness' would soon be consumed by their own power and it would run away with them and the rights of the press and the populace.
The judge still is only human.
2007-07-07 13:34:51 · answer #4 · answered by CHEVICK_1776 4 · 3⤊ 0⤋
I don't think regulations on free speech or press should be imposed.But I do think that liberal news agencies like CNN and NBC should be required to have more conservatives working for them,and the Conservative news agencies like FOX should be required to have more liberals working for them.This would make sure that any journalists view points never go unchallenged,and challenging ones view points is what free speech is all about.
2007-07-07 14:27:23 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
The whole purpose of freedom of the press is to PREVENT government influence.
When the government controls the media, it is called communism.
2007-07-07 14:31:34 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 0⤋
No, the government should not be the judge of what views I decide to listen to. At that stage it becomes propaganda for whatever party is currently in power.
Example, if Bush decided to do this, he would report everyday successes of our troops in Iraq, and show pictures of dead insurgents.
2007-07-07 13:34:56 · answer #7 · answered by Serpico7 5 · 2⤊ 0⤋
No. Not at all. I have the right to listen (or not listen) to whatever news I want. It is up to me to decide how accurate it is. and how much of it I believe. I think Freedom of the Press is important.
2007-07-07 13:37:59 · answer #8 · answered by smellyfoot ™ 7 · 3⤊ 0⤋
Absolutely not! It smacks of book-burning. State-run media didn't work in Russia, and it should not even be thought of here!
2007-07-07 13:36:43 · answer #9 · answered by Rhiannon 6 · 4⤊ 0⤋