The media does a poor job portraying things as they really are in order to follow a sort of convention and to keep their show on air or their papers in stores.
As a result, most of the time we are being fed information that may not be entirely true and sometimes even very far from the truth.
This sad fact is how we've been living and understanding the world around us. The media has the ability to manipulate its viewers in ways that are often unseen. That being said, I find it difficult to give my full trust to any news or report on an event , let alone base my beliefs off of something that was skewed so much that it became a whole different story or subject in itself.
Driven by money, greed and popularity, most media outlets are fighting to report what they believe we want to hear- not what we really should hear. Consider this documentary about Fox news' special "The Investigators"- where the reporters were blackmailed to keep the truth out of the papers, however, when they refused to report false news they were fired from their positions. The false story was published after they were forced to resign. Report this Argument Pro i totally agree with you that media should give us information which is true.
Con I agree with your statement about how certain things may deserve to be censored, however, most of the time censorship does not actually account for these factors. Think about it, the media has no problem pushing the limits in order to get information about a celebrity or person by invading their personal life.
There can't be a double standard. If they have no problem doing one thing, they should also not have a problem applying it to everything else. That being said, there needs to be one standard of what is allowed and what is not. As far as censorship in regards to news and information told to the public- I believe it needs to be said. If it puts anyone's health or well being in danger, it should not be an issue of discretion at all.
These details need to be disclosed to the public no matter how grim. It is our right to be protected by our country, not lied to as a result of internal corruption or payoffs.
Is it really fair to keep information from the public about something that is known to be malicious? This should always be considered. Its as if it isn't about the well being of the people, but the reputation of the company or paper reporting this news.
In this case- are we really even safe? How do we know? There's no way to completely trust what we are told because we are never told the full truth.
Report this Argument Pro one standard for all situation? Con I think there was a bit of misunderstanding, I wasn't saying one standard for all situations, I was explaining that for situations that are similar they can't allow exceptions to the rule.
Hence the term "double standard" I used. Granted that may not have been clear in my previous argument.
In regards to profit, well yes, that may be so. So what you're implying is even if something is really bad or harmful it is alright to censor it because the media needs to survive?
I understand that like anything else they need to do what they can to stay in business, but isn't there a better way to go about doing things? DOI: Such regulation is intertwined with culture see Culture , if not essential to the formation of social relationships.
For instance, norms of politeness see Politeness can encourage people to keep their opinions to themselves and regulate the time, place, and audience in which certain language use is considered appropriate. Disputes can turn on the right of an interlocutor to make certain claims or express certain grievances. Medium of expression e. Indeed, often the form or aesthetics of expression, such as drawing and circulating the likeness of the Prophet Mohammed, could be just as sanctionable by a community as the referential meaning.
Conversely, expressing something in a form such as a political cartoon may make it more acceptable. Indirectness and euphemism see Euphemism are further devices that can influence the performativity see Performance, Linguistic and Communicative of an utterance as maledictive see Maledictive Language: Introduc- tion or otherwise transgressive. However, a significant portion of communication takes place beyond conscious awareness, in socially patterned and embodied ways.
As people who work in publishing have observed during transitions to market economies, market forces and financial resources amplify some voices and diminish others, producing effects similar to those of formal censorship.
Moreover, not every discursive community has the same access to broadcasting, publishing, and other resources that make up news media. It would be misleading, however, to focus on how censorship fits within a broader range of ways in which language use is regulated without also putting in larger context language as one means of communicative expression that includes other signs and semiotics see Semiotics.
Indeed, some debates about censorship in North America and Western Europe have turned on images such as regulating pornographic photos and films , acts involving objects such as banning the burning of the US flag , and clothing such as whether to ban headscarves in schools see Asad Not the least, the study of language ideology helps bring to light Western liberal suppositions of what could be or is worth being expressed to a wider public Larson Indeed, the centrality of context see Context and Contextualization , deixis see Deixis and Indexicals , and pragmatics see Pragmatics to the field of linguistic anthropology means that anyone wishing to study censorship without the strong liberal moral discourse that normally informs it see Peters for a critique could find the tools of linguistic anthropology a useful method.
Interestingly, if linguistic anthropologists have had much of value to say that can inform a richer understanding of censorship in its different forms, some other scholars have applied the spirit of a linguistic anthropological method.
Two anthropologists whose work might be more commonly identified as sociocultural in spirit, Talal Asad and Dominic Boyer , have provided analyses of blasphemy in secular Western public discourse and the work of censors in the German Democratic Republic that are essential reading for anyone interested in how a linguistic anthropologist might approach the topic of censorship without the usual moral filter, including grasping how censorship has even been understood in some contexts as a creative see Language and Creativity: Introduction intervention.
Given linguistic anthropologists investment in issues of language rights, censorship might be a topic that would benefit from their direct attention. By covering the ears of listeners, then democracy and dictatorship would be no different. It encourages ulterior motives. As previously stated, placing the government in charge of what can be shown on the media can be risky. Considering that many politicians might be aligned with brands or companies, they may only allow these affiliates to advertise.
They may also not allow anything negative to come out about these brands, no matter how true it is. It hinders sex education and awareness. Though taboo, sex and other delicate matters should still be dealt with maturity. Sex education and awareness of AIDS and STDs need to be spread in many countries, and it is unwise to brush these pressing topics under the carpet as taboo.
The question here is what to show or not. Some owners of websites that are censored would possibly sue the government for keeping their online information from being accessible to their target audience. Though not a common situation, but it is a possibility among site owners if their content is being strictly regulated. This shows that regulations can be unnecessary and unlawful. The media is like a very powerful weapon.
If used properly, it can provide society with great benefits, but if used in negative ways, it can destroy. In a modern world where information can spread like wildfires, it is certainly not a bad thing to monitor or limit the types of things being spread, but there are also many cases where it can be irrational. Now, you can probably see that this debate can be a matter of belief. No matter what, censorship should come with rationale. List of Pros of Media Censorship 1.
List of Cons of Media Censorship 1. Conclusion The media is like a very powerful weapon.
0コメント