Home > #4, Regulation > Media Regulation Blog #4

Media Regulation Blog #4

            With the First Amendment the question of limits is always present. How far can a person take this to mean and how far can the government go to regulate it? This is something that is very debatable on both sides. Even though I believe that every person should have the right to say what they want without any government interference, there is always the concern of national security and the safety of other people. I do feel that the government has the right to interfere if there is any question of national security. The only problem with stating this is the question of the government overstepping its boundaries. Would they be able to say that everything is a question of national security?

            So, I believe that the government should be allowed to restrain certain information going out to the public when dealing with the issue of national security, but with extreme limitations. I think that if there was a sort of committee or group established that would even monitor the government’s censorship to ensure that the public is getting the information that it deserves. This could perhaps be like the FCC, which does regulate some radio and television, or the FCC could extend its power into further regulation. If the government was to regulate what was in the media, I believe that the Fairness Doctrine should be something that the government should make sure is enforced. This would require broadcasters to present all sides of stories and controversial issues. I feel that if people were presented with both sides of all stories, it would be easier and would allow for people to feel more comfortable with their decision of support.

 This would upset many, many people who would state that they deserve to know everything that is going on within the government. Censorship is a very touchy subject for a lot of people, and there are many countries with governments who censor a lot of the media, such as Libya. I believe that over-censoring can lead to unrest within the country. Societal unrest could also be a possibility as people might feel out of the loop on what is going on. However it is important to note that if the government did adopt this idea, it would not mean that everything in the news will be censored or blocked. After September 11, 2001, I think that we should all keep in mind the importance of national security.

Regarding the recent Wikileaks fiasco to back up my argument, there was some information that definately should have not been released. For example, there was a controversial group that had the names of its members released as well as their addresses. That seems like information that is completely unnessary and could result in something very serious.

  1. tessdoez
    January 25, 2011 at 6:52 am

    You bring up a number of questions that are relevant to the topic, but in order to get credit for this post please contextualize your argument with information that is available in the assigned textbook chapter about the current regulations, the organizations that are in charge of making them and how your plan would fit into the existing reality. You must base your argument on concrete evidence. There are some spelling and grammatical errors that need to be corrected as well in order for you to receive credit for this assignment.

  2. tessdoez
    January 31, 2011 at 11:30 pm

    Thanks, I will give you credit for your revision.

  1. No trackbacks yet.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: