Home > #4, Regulation > Regulation of the Media (edit)

Regulation of the Media (edit)

I believe that the government should not exercise restraint on blocking certain negative media information regarding events that have taken place in our country. I believe that first of all, the country is not unified enough to have a standard of what is right and what is wrong. Our government should not be the one giving us (as the people) these opinions.

Since the events of 9/11 there has been much debate on what material should be let loose on the web. There have been many conspiracy theories that suggest that the U.S. Government was actually involved. These sources could be present under “Clear and Present Danger” laws. Or under the precedent of “NYT vs. US Government” over the Pentagon papers. The government did not want the information about the U.S. involvement in Vietnam to be released under the fact that is posed cleared and present danger to the people of the United States by threatening national security. But I do not see how these papers threatened the citizens. I believe that the government was afraid of losing power over the people and wanted to hide behind these laws. This is not just! I believe that revoking the information is a threat to national security!

I would say that the restraint the government has on the press is already too much. The United States is a Democracy and the press needs to be seen as a form of check and balance of the government’s power. If this country is truly a Democracy then the people need to be able to see all the information and the government needs to be able to provide credible information to combat these ideas if they prove to be incorrect. This way there should be no Prior Restraint law, unless during wartime when the information could be used by a foreign enemy against the country. Examples are, weapons, strategic plans, or any other wartime data.

Prior Restraint laws also should function under this idea. To strengthen the press in the U.S., Shield laws need to be made federal instead of just in every state. This law gives the press freedom to write accurate, controversial, diverse pieces of journalism without fear of the government. This would serve to the governments benefit because then they would have to strive to produce correct and accessible information to the public. Thus the public would be receiving a higher quality of data both from their own government, who now has to abide by democratic values for fear of the press releasing panic, and from private sources, such as news companies. This would make our country stronger in both the government in the people themselves.

Categories: #4, Regulation Tags:
  1. tessdoez
    January 27, 2011 at 5:39 am

    This argument is a little bit confusing since it is based on conjecture and “more accurate lies,” whatever those may be. Please construct an argument based on the current laws and express what you would change about them if anything and what legal precedent there is for making such changes. It is important that any argument concerning media regulation be based on history and facts, in order to avoid vague, value-laden statements that confuse the issue even more. Please proofread for errors and revise your argument for credit.

    • leah markman
      January 31, 2011 at 7:43 pm

      I looked online and i reposted blog number 3 and it is still online as a O. I have no reedited this one but am going to do this tonight.

      Thank you


  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: