Why The Government Should Control the Media
As we know, the media plays is an important role in the modern live. The traditional media is a kind of social communication including films, images, music, spoken word and writing. It can be spread by televisions, newspapers and radios. However, in modern time people can easily communicate by more kinds of media tools such as mobile phones and computers because of the development of technology. The media has a big influence on our live. Nobody will doubt the modern media takes people to a new world where people can be closer to each other. On the other hand, it is also a dangerous thing because new kinds of criminals appears. These criminals have attracted people's attention to discuss about whether the media should be controlled by government or not.
Some people support the government to control the media. Firstly, the government is responsible to keep the teenagers to grow in a healthy environment which might be harmed by the modern media. Because the widely spread of information technology, people can get numerous information without any difficulties through the internet. For example, in Japan, adult movie are legal and they are available on TV channels, it’s quite harmful for young people, then if you can watch TV in the U.S it is easy for you to watch extremely violence shows, such as the WWE and the UFC. Also, the teenager is a group of the users and they are easier to be affected. However, teenagers are too young to distinguish whether the information is health or not. Sometimes they meet some information which is not appropriate through the media. As a result, their mental health is harmed by the media because of the misuse. Therefore media misleads teenagers which turn to be a big trouble for the society. And people claim that government should take the responsibility to control the media in order to protect the teenagers and make sure that the environment is health for teenagers to grow up. Secondly, the media could be taken advantage by criminals. Internet fraud is a very good example to explain that. It is a new kind of criminals as people use media to harm others. Because of the technology, criminals can very easy to hire themselves behind the internet which makes this problem more difficult to solve with. And the victims are not able to protect themselves if the government does not intervene. It turns out that the media should be controlled by government in order to keep the society security and the relevant laws are necessary to be used to restrict people to take the use of the media.
On the other hand, some people do not agree with it. Firstly, they support the media should be free to accessed by society. They think it is a human right for everyone. They regard the free is the most important issue and do not want to lose it from government. Secondly, some people support the media can be a role to supervise government from society. In this group’s opinions, some people support the media should not to be controlled by any authorities. If the media controlled by government, the public might be cheated by government and could not get the truth any more. Moreover, some people pointed out that it would disturb the development of media if the government intervene it. As Adam Smith said, the invisible hand controls the market and motives people to pursue their own benefits. It suggests that the industry could develop better if the government does not intervene it. The media is an important industry which could promote the development of the society as a whole. The free and high speed development could provide more benefits to the public. Thus the government should not control the media which might have negative influence on the media development.
In my opinion, I am agree with the government to control the media in some areas. It is necessary to keep a health environment and the social security. I think the intervention by the government could contribute to the development of the modern media. However, the government should not do too much to disturb the media to tell the truth to the public. For example, the Chinese government has blocked some website such as Youtube, Facebook. They keep controlling the media by an excuse as they are responsible to protect the national security. However, the true reason for the government to do this is just used to maintain their power. In China, it is very difficult for the public to know the truth since the media is totally controlled by the government. Thus the media has lost its ability to supervise the government and turns to be a tool used by the government to control people's thinking. It is very bad example that government control the media. I think the Chinese government should learn more from the westerns. For example, in America, the media is free to publish the truth to the public and the government does not disturb the media. The American people can get more truth from the media than Chinese people. And the American media develops better than Chinese media. Thus, I think government should not forbid the media to tell the truth to the public. Also the freedom of media is a kind of the human rights, people got the right to know different sorts of information and express their opinions, if the government shut people’s mouths up and also blind their eyes, human will not be human anymore and become to act like robots, a country full of robots instead of human can not develop any more.
To conclude, there are both advantages and disadvantages for government to control the media. It would contribute to protect the social security but disturb people free and right. In my personal opinion, government should control the media in some area such as decrease the media criminals. However, they should not abuse their power by controlling the media by preventing them to tell the truth.
First Amendment Rights
The first amendment clearly gives us freedom of speech and freedom of the press. Having the government control and censor those things would be a direct violation of both.
If the government starts controlling mass media, of course they won't use it for good, they would use it for their own selfish wants.
Media should be free of government control.
In all nations polled there is robust support for the principle that the media should be free of government control and that citizens should even have access to material from hostile countries. With just a few exceptions majorities say that the government should not have the right to limit access to the internet. But while most publics say the government should not have the right to prohibit publishing material it thinks will be politically destabilizing, a majority in several predominantly Muslim countries and nearly half of Russians say that governments should have such a right. In many countries, majorities want more media freedom.
The poll of 20,512 respondents was conducted by WorldPublicOpinion.Org, a collaborative research project involving research centers from around the world and managed by the Program on International Policy Attitudes (PIPA) at the University of Maryland. Polling was conducted between January 10 and October 24, 2008.
Interviews were conducted in 22 nations, though in three of them not all questions were asked. Those nations interviewed include most of the world's largest nations --China, India, the United States, Indonesia, Nigeria, and Russia--as well as Argentina, Azerbaijan, Britain, Egypt, France, Iran, Jordan, Kenya, Mexico, Peru, Poland, South Korea, Thailand, Turkey, Ukraine, and the Palestinian territories. The public in Hong Kong was also polled. These nations represent 61 percent of the world population.
Worldwide Support for Principle of Media Freedom
The broad principle of media freedom gets very robust support. Majorities in all nations asked say that it is important "for the media to be free to publish news and ideas without government control."
On average, 81 percent said it is "important," with 53 percent saying it is "very important." In no country did more than 29 percent say that media freedom is "not very important" or "not important at all."
Citizens are also seen as having the right to read publications from hostile countries. Respondents were asked whether people in their country should "have the right to read publications from all other countries including those that might be considered enemies." Once again, majorities in all countries affirmed this right; on average 80 percent.
The only country with fewer than seven in 10 agreeing was India, where 56 percent agreed. India also had the highest percentage (33%) saying that access to such publications should be limited.
Freedom of Speech??
By giving the government the power to control the media, we are literally handing over our rights. If the government controlled the mass media, what stops them from only running the news stories they want? What stops them from stifling the truth, and instead injecting the general population with propaganda?
Its creating chaos
Media is a source of information and communication that are needed by the society, so if the government control the mass media like creating boundaries between the truth and lies. Its creating chaos of people start to against government and want a free media that have been publish all the time
In no way should this should even be considered as a question!
Are those who support government control of mass media want to be like North Korea, Russia, Syria, Iran, or Cuba? This directly defies the 1st amendment, where anyone can say what they want, believe what they want, or see what they want, without the government telling them not to. Why does the government need to control the media? How does it decide what is good or bad? The government is made out of humans, who are not superior to anything, and there for are still subject to bias and lying and whatnot. What would happen if the government wants to cover up a story, or it wants to ignore a subject all together. This is not just an example of tyranny, this is disappointing that people should support this. Who says the government won't want to profit from this, are you implying that the government are made out of superior beings that don't?
No, they shouldn't...But they already do
The government has no business controlling the media. This is a direct violation of the first amendment; however, that does not stop it from happening. It is clear that the government controls the media and has for quite some time. It is their way of controlling the people. They can feed us what they want.