wh media cenship is a bad thing
Debate Rounds (3)
2) A lack of media censorship is important in keeping transparency between the State and the People. If political leaders are aware that what they do might be documented , there would be a less corrupt government. Look at the example of how 24-hour news coverage affected the American government so much that they pulled themselves out of Somalia in the early 1990s. If media were to be used to convey the darker side of politics, politicians might be forced to make decisions that are more appealing to the American public. This matter can also be implemented in countries in which the government enacts even worse political changes.
3) Keeping information from the public can result in people becoming unaware of what occurs around them. If the government were to force all news channels to convey a certain message people might become aware of the many things aware around them. For example, if images with sexual-content were to be banned from the media it might be difficult for educators to educate children about what sex is and how to prevent STIs. Governments should not have control over what the people think or what they can do. It should be the other way around.
4) Another con of censorship is that it stifles progress in the creative arts and the introduction of new ideas. If censorships were to be enacted it cannot be guaranteed that new ideas will be available to the public. Not to mention the fact that with censorship entertainment will expired a new dullness due to lack of varied contents.
5) Another con of censorship, is even though it has a positive side, it is mostly used by governments in an improper manner. A dramatic example of media censorship can be seen in China and Libya. In China, media censorship is enacted in order to prevent people from being introduced to ideas that might interfere with political authority in China . In Libya, media censorship is used to hide the countries various killings and the flaws in its justice system . And the case is not only present in these countries it is present in several more . Many of these countries enact all their censorship procedures by making all media state-owned. This in turn emphasizes that a large portion of media censorship that occurs in the world is politically based making other aspects of media censorship almost non-existent to a certain degree.
First, I move to dismiss Pro's arguments regarding international censorship in China and Libya. Censorship is not something which necessarily has to deal with cross-cultural communication. To cite international examples is to refuse to analyze the merits of censorship itself. Rather it simply compares apples to oranges without explaining what apples or oranges really are. The performance of censorship abroad is not necessarily comparable to the performance of censorship here.
Second, I move to dismiss Pro's argument on foreign policy in Iraq and Somalia on similar grounds. This isn't to say that foreign policy is irrelevant, but it is to say that foreign policy is subordinate to social policy which is the primary domain of censorship. Without social policy, the very definition of national security is irrelevant.
Third off, I move to dismiss the idea of "keeping information from the public". The media itself is incredibly stupid today. Even if the government didn't censor it at all, there would be little to gain. If anything, censorship refines the media's stupidity in order to improve the experience of consuming it. This is supported by censorship of lewd, vulgar, overt, and obscene content because it reminds viewers about the value of foreplay, passion, romance, and intimacy. By reducing intimacy down to a biological level, it depreciates the self-image of viewers down to that of animals rather than civilized, cultivated people.
Fourth, I move to dismiss the idea of stifling "progress in the creative arts". Again, the media is incredibly stupid today, and if pop culture is all we have to offer, then shame on us for claiming to have culture at all. The folk community of our society should have deeper heritage, narrative, story, legacy, pedigree, customs, and tradition to take pride in which involves personal involvement rather than what's simply viewed on TV and in film. To bring up another point, censorship encourages people to personally get involved in the arts instead of simply worshiping celebrity.
Lastly, I move to dismiss the idea of censorship being used "in an improper manner". While countries like China and Libya might use it to abuse political authority and hide flaws in the justice system, America is in dire need of an expansion of channels such as C-SPAN (not to mention an expansion of interest in channels such as C-SPAN). If anything, the abuse of political authority comes from drama networks airing fictions where audiences can become potentially manipulated by, and exposed to, fantasy. Furthermore, let us remember that even Presidential debates are spoken at an 8th Grade reading level. It's between pathetic and atrocious to claim that censorship is the bottleneck of political dysfunction when the reality is... we just don't care enough to pay attention.
YOU KNOW YOU WANT BUT IT IS
How about we talk about something a little more direct. Can you explain why nudity and swearing should be allowed on television?
finntheninja forfeited this round.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by TrasguTravieso 3 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: For his forfeit, Pro is dismissed
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.