Home > #4, Regulation > Government Moderation on Media

Government Moderation on Media

Media is an ever-present aspect of the modern lifestyle. It also seems that more and more acts of terrorism and violence are taking place since the growth of communications through mass media outlets has taken off. These things are not necessarily connected, however, the way in that events are portrayed in the media do impact the security of the nation.

Even though there is the first amendment that allows for the freedom of speech, the government does have the right to censor what the media puts out there.  The concept of clear and present danger is intended to protect the nation when potentially damaging media can be distributed. The government has that right because it is trying to protect and maintain the current state of being, and negative or damaging media may create an uprising, which in turn can be dangerous. By letting the government mildly regulate what is distributed across the waves of media attacks both international and nationally can be prevented, or handled in the best way possible.

I would say that currently the amount of regulation is what works the best. Much more and it may become overbearing. The current restrictions on the media outlets still allows for a flow of important information, yet it also protects the nation from potentially damaging news. Although the first amendment advocates for the freedom of speech, it does need to be monitored in a slight way to ensure safety. More moderation by the government would be restricting our rights as American citizens, and in turn the United States could experience what happened to Russia in the example in the book.

As of now the nation is doing its best to keep the citizens informed and safe, and so far it seems to be working relatively smoothly.

 

Advertisements
Categories: #4, Regulation Tags: ,
  1. tessdoez
    January 26, 2011 at 10:01 pm

    This post is almost there. You bring up concepts and examples from the book, but you need to elaborate and explain them a little bit more. Your second paragraph needs the most work. Please define and discuss the concept of clear and present danger in more depth, explaining specifically what powers it allows the government, how it has been upheld in the past and how it relates to your argument. The last sentence of the paragraph doesn’t make grammatical sense and obfuscates what you are trying to say. Since you are arguing to keep the current regulations as they are you need to discuss in more detail what they are and how they serve their purposes well. Please revise and repost (or email me your revised post) for credit.

  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 )

Twitter picture

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

Facebook photo

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

Google+ photo

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

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: