This house believes that privatization of news broadcasts has harmed society
Debate Rounds (4)
Privatization: The transfer of ownership, property or business from the government to the private sector.
News Broadcasts- Mass media which aims to inform the public of important events, and provide relevant social commentary.
Society- The greater mass of people.
1st round, acceptance.
2nd round- Arguments/ opening statements
3rd round- Rebuttal, no new arguments
4th round- Closing statements, no new Rebuttal or Arguments.
Comment if further clarification is needed, or if you are unsure of any rules.
Cheers, and Happy Debating
I am happy to oppose this statement.
Lets open the round 2.
News broadcasts, the mass media which the majority of the world uses to understand and stay informed of major events around the globe, is one of the most valuable tools to mankind. It allows the public to criticize, and form their own informed opinion, on events where that would have previously been impossible, because of lack of knowledge.
However, during recent times, news broadcasting has become more and more clouded of its goal. Major news organisations, instead of attempting to provide a honest and unbiased view of world events, have become organisations of terror and of misinformation. News organisations aim now to bring the highest viewer number and rating possible, so that they can increase revenue earned by their program.
This means, that more "gossip" stories are being run, where news reporters invade the privacy of celebrities that, quite commonly, are doing nothing but attempting to live their life. It does not help society to know who split up with who, or what a certain celebrity does on their weekend. Instead, it takes time away from real, important news that could be useful for the voting public, such as senate bills being considered, high court cases, or government policy meetings. This take away harms society, by making them vote in an uninformed matter, and by disallowing them their basic right of criticism to the actions of governments, be it their own or others.
Take an example of the damage news organisations do, with this gossip- Remember when Tony Abbot, the Australian Prime Minister, made a two day visit to Canada earlier this year? That visit was to affirm their political alliance, and to discuss future foreign policy. Unfortunately, the media didn't pick up on the politics, but instead spent their time discussing PM Abbot's "Canadia" slip of the tongue.
Do the voters need to know about Abbot's pronunciation? or do they need to know about Australia and Canada's foreign policy? The media seemed to think so- considering there was widespread coverage of this slip up, without mention of the actual importance of the meeting. This leaves the Australian and Canadian populaces uninformed, and turns politics into a popularity contest, rather than a decision on who would best run the country.
Another way that the privatization of news companies is damaging society is the tendencies of news broadcast stations to air biased prices. When was the last time that you saw a piece talking about the many peace loving denominations of Islam, who are now facing discrimination because of the previous "War on Islam"? Or a piece which brings down a political party, pulling apart their logical fallacies just as we do here? Private News stations are biased towards airing information that will keep them in business, and allow them to gain exclusives, such as interviews, or insider coverage, which in turn will give them more funds. Rather than airing a piece that pulls apart government speeches, they cozy up to the government, and the famous, because the stations cannot afford to lose viewers, and money.
If the News Broadcast stations were run entirely by either governments, or not for profit agencies, the people of the world might receive a shocking education in the ineptness of their elected representatives. A News Station should only have one motive- to correctly inform the populace of world events. Privatization makes this impossible, as money and viewers must be a motive, else they will collapse.
Because of the conflict of interest that is being created, News Stations cannot properly function and the public is hindered. They are not properly informed of the events of the time, and therefore they cannot have an informed opinion on events. This becomes circular, in that the public, because of their absence of information, become satisfied with little information, and stop questioning superiors, allowing governments to get away with anything, harming soceity
I think, there is no damage to our society from news media privatization.
1. Well said, I do agree on above mentioned point.
2. Nowadays, people like private news agencies broadcasting because they found it more understandable unlike traditional government"s news broadcasting and that is the reason of more viewers they have.
For example, in India DD (Door Darshan) was the only news channel and it was giving news on certain time for 24x7. After revolution of mass media, private news channel came in the market and people accepted them because of 24x7 news and also they were not limited to government"s data presentation. Private channels are broadcasting news from every aspect of our life, they visit zoo, rural areas, cover most of the part we live which non-private media cannot cover. That why people chosen to watch them.
3. I think privacy of famous individual is in question but as far as this concern, most of them makes it publicly because they wanted to keep stand in news & media. News reporter is just a news reporter not a spy, they record to present what they found. This is the best part of media because they are independent and such liberty helps at least democracy nation to chunk out hidden story which should everyone knows.
4. I agree that gossips they made but this doesn"t mean that general public affected from it. Such gossips teach a lesson to affected person that not to repeat.
5. Yes, it happens but if such a serious matter then our leader should take them seriously. After all, they are representing a nation, entire country. How they can talk silly thing. Such incident happing everywhere and media makes gossips.
6.Private companies hires large number of employees and partners around the globe, they spend huge money to collect data and they may spending huge funds on broadcasting and license cost, I think that is the reason subscription charges. If someone doesn"t want to pay, free channels are also available so what is the problem here? War of Islam is a different question. I am not against any religion but mostly suspected person cops found Islamic thus people might have believe that Islam is not a peace making religion however, we know that some other religion might encouraging them to come on front to fight. Anyway, talk about Islam or war cannot give hue funding to news companies.
7.This is not a valid point! How you can say?
Firstly, government allowed them with a cost to broadcast news. They have liberty on certain level to show data on channel. Private news agencies have wide network of people who report news from anywhere, so they are doing good. They cannot show wrong data.
Secondly, broadcasting regulation board is there if we have any complain for any news or report we can file our request. They can take appropriate action on news agency.
8.Please give artifacts for this argument.
Cpu502 forfeited this round.
Most of the part i have covered in last round, thus it is cleared that private broadcasting do not harm our society...
Cpu502 forfeited this round.
Moreover, i have proved my side.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by lannan13 2 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:||0||4|
Reasons for voting decision: Forfeiture
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.