The Instigator
Con (against)
4 Points
The Contender
Pro (for)
0 Points

Is Censorship in the media necessary?

Do you like this debate?NoYes-1
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 1 vote the winner is...
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 2/9/2012 Category: News
Updated: 6 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 32,672 times Debate No: 20991
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (0)
Votes (1)




Censorship has become a serious issue, and not only in the media. As a community, we are heavily influenced by the media and other sources of information- however, we tend to overlook the fact that there is not only much bias but also skewed perceptions of events and reports in the news today. 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.


i totally agree with you that media should give us information which is true.

but there are some information which is very sensitive for the security of a country. this kind of information, if made public, can damage a country's security system.

for example: defence tactics taken by defense ministry is very crucial for the security of a should be made public subject to conditions.

private life story of people are also a sensitive information which can damage image of public. that info too should be published after taking the person's permission.

this kind of information need censorship. don't you think?
Debate Round No. 1


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.


one standard for all situation ? it was appropriate if situations are same. but when situation differ, the standard must be different.

you can't prescribe one medicine for all diseases.

beside one more thing to understand that media is itself a business that require profit to survive. so they will publish those news that public will accept and they will not publish those news that public will not accept. it is necessary for their own survival.

so censorship is needed subject to type of situation.
Debate Round No. 2


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? I believe there is and always will be, yet the media and other outlets of information still fail to adapt this method. There is nothing wrong with telling news the right way- in my first example, did you think fox was going to lose money for reporting the story? They may have been sued but how would they not be able to fight that if the information was real? Granted there are some extreme situations where maybe something might not be able to be told, but even in that case that sort of information doesn't leave the white house or anyone working under such power- so I don't believe its relevant.

This argument is about the control of the media through censorship. I don't think its necessary or fair to prevent people from knowing the raw truth. It may hurt or scare them at some point, but how would it do any benefit for them if they continued to drink milk or another product where they could develop cancer or other diseases, and not be told? Censorship isn't necessary. What needs to be understood about this is that there will always be things that we never hear the full truth about, and that's why people get sick or get strange illnesses. Nothing happens or changes until an extreme event occurs and puts someone in danger- then, maybe, they decide to tell a little more truth because someone has suffered. That's not fair, is it? In the end, it is all about money, but who said they'd be losing much if they told news the right way?


well lets put it this way. if today a reporter knows a very dirty secret of yours,so dirty that it can ruin your life and career, do you let him (reporter) publish the story? if no, don't you think people has a right to know raw truth ?

so this is the same thing with other people, even with media boss.

censorship is therefore needed to safeguard life of people.
Debate Round No. 3


Well that's a whole different debate in itself since that deals with libel and the first amendment. I'm not discussing matters of the first amendment or restrictions, i'm discussing the bigger picture. Think of it like this, everything has a cause, correct? Well, with that known it can also be understood that things such as this will continue with a ripple effect. This means that we censor certain things, someone gets an illness, etc. As a result of censorship many things have gone under the radar that really shouldn't have. We deserve to know what is happening, whether it hurts or not. The truth hurts, right? When we are lied to or not told the full truth, that lie only continues to be elaborated. When does it stop? The answer is simple; it doesn't. I understand what you mean by the ruining of someone's reputation but that isn't about censorship and there are actually laws against that. I'm trying to bring to light the abuse of censorship laws that lead to the media censoring content that really should be viewed. Referring back to my example from Fox, there was nothing that would have been harmed if the report was shown- only a lawsuit. That being said, where do we draw the line? How are corporations allowed to choose what to censor. It isn't necessary, because we should know what these big corporations and news stations already know. What gives them the right to knowledge that we are forbidden from-knowledge that can be dangerous if not distributed to the general public. This isn't a matter of protecting someone's self respect its a matter of public safety. If someone else knows it, as should we.


xxx200 forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 4


Since my opponent forfeited the previous round I will restate my argument, Censorship is not necessary. At this point there are so many issues in society it is better for things to be known. They always say "history repeats itself"- and although that may be so, things like this can be prevented with ample knowledge of the subject. If they can't be prevented, maybe this knowledge can help us prepare ourselves at least. There are always limits to things, naturally, but only to an extent. Censorship, in the big picture, has an effect on our society as a whole. If it is an issue or report that effects us, directly or indirectly, then we should know about it. Thank you for participating in this debate.


xxx200 forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 5
No comments have been posted on this debate.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by DevonNetzley 6 years ago
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:40 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro never forfeited a round. But i am against Con, i side with Pro. The only reason is i can't stand it when someone forfeits a round. I hate it when i do it myself.