Is Censorship in the media necessary?
Debate Rounds (5)
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 country.it 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?
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.
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.
xxx200 forfeited this round.
xxx200 forfeited this round.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by DevonNetzley 5 years ago
|Agreed with before the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Agreed with after the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Who had better conduct:||-||-||1 point|
|Had better spelling and grammar:||-||-||1 point|
|Made more convincing arguments:||-||-||3 points|
|Used the most reliable sources:||-||-||2 points|
|Total points awarded:||4||0|
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.
You are not eligible to vote on this debate
This debate has been configured to only allow voters who meet the requirements set by the debaters. This debate either has an Elo score requirement or is to be voted on by a select panel of judges.