[City and State]
Introduction
The media, which collectively refer to various forms of mass communication, are considered as a major source of public information. Their primary interests lie on gathering, evaluating, and distributing facts, which are of relevance to human society (Shoemaker & Reese, 1996, 15). There are, however, instances wherein the media is seen as an insinuator of conflict. Such conflict may arise when media and the information they possess has a potential to cause social unrest; scenarios wherein telling the truth will cause more harm than good. An unregulated mass media have two opposing sides; one that is detrimental to society and one that promotes the common good. In order to eliminate or, at least, minimize the possibility of having to deal with an unregulated mass media, most government impose media censorship. Media censorship, however, creates a conflict with freedom of expression, a universal concept that is internationally recognized as a basic human right (UNESCO, 2008, 5). Despite popular objection, most countries observe media censorship at some extent. This paper aims to present the primary arguments of those who object media regulation as well as the arguments of those who believe that mass media should be regulated or censored.
Major Arguments of Proponents of Unregulated Media
The United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) cite three major justifications against media censorship. These are the freedom of expression; the access to information and the empowerment of the people (UNESCO, 2008, 5). People who object to media censorship or regulation believes that people have an inherent right to express themselves. Freedom of expression is a universal right as recognized in Article 19 of the United Nations Declaration of Human Rights (UNESCO, 2008, 5). Such right, however, can only be imposed depending on the prevailing laws of a country. There are some human rights, for instance, that are recognized by the international institutions, but are not observed in certain countries, primarily because their laws do not recognize the existence of such rights and freedom of expression is an example of such right. In the United States, however, freedom of expression is protected under the First Amendment, which guarantees certain rights to citizens, including the freedom of speech and the press. This constitutional amendment remains as a major basis of objection to media regulation, particularly in the U.S. Aside from legislations that prohibit the suppression of the media, some people believe that holding back information from the public is a violation in itself. For those who are against media censorship, the suppression of information from the media is also tantamount to the impairment of their right to be well-informed (UNESCO, 2008, 10). Lastly, a well-informed citizenry is believed to be more empowered. According to Abdul Waheed Khan, UNESCO’s Assistant Director-General for Communication and Information, access to accurate, fair and unbiased information “allows citizens to gain control over their own lives, to work cooperatively and to provide direction to their leaders” (UNESCO, 2008, 7).
Major Arguments Behind Media Censorship
Censorship is generally understood as “the official suppression or prohibition of forms of expression” (Moore, 2013, 46). Other scholars define it as the “policy of restricting the public expression of ideas, opinions, conceptions and impulses,” which governing authorities believe has the capacity to destroy the social, political and moral order of society (Bourke, 1956, 57). Governing authorities may include government, religious, education or private authorities who considers themselves as having the moral obligation to protect society from detrimental media expressions. There are many reasons why authorities regulate freedom of expression and impose media restrictions and censorship. Among the major reasons for media censorship are founded on protection of minors, security, moral integrity and in controlling hate and prejudice. Regulating authorities believe that they have the moral obligation to protect minors and society, in general, from media exploitation (Bourke, 1956, 57). Some societies have cultural sensitivities, which is often used to justify the suppression of media expressions. Sex and violence are often considered as taboo topics and are censored before an expression is published. Information that may endanger the lives of individuals and society are also subject to censorship. Proponents of media regulation or censorship, believes that justifications, such as freedom of expression, access to information and empowerment of the people can only prosper in an ideal society. Unfortunately, these justifications are often exploited and manipulated, sometimes by media outlets themselves, in order to advance their vested personal interests. In the past, there many instances wherein the media was used as a manipulative tool. Propagandists, for instance, use media in order to influence public opinion to further their personal interests. Examples of such can be easily observed during the course of war wherein the warring factions use propaganda to gain public support. One of the most salient examples wherein media was used to influence public opinion was during the Nazi regime wherein the Nazis used their control over radio and media outlets in order to further their political interests as well as encourage people to hate the Jews. As observed by scholars, their heavy radio propaganda “combined with other propaganda tools, such as Hitler’s speeches,” polarized Germany and paved the way for Nazi political domination and the Holocaust (Adena, Enikolopov, Petrova, Santarosa, & Zhuravskaya, 2013, 1). The Rwanda massacre is also an example of how unregulated media can be used to insinuate hate and racial discrimination. According to one observer, the media was instrumental in the extermination of the Tutsis by propagating hate messages and dehumanizing propaganda (Thompson, n.d., 84).
Conclusion
Media can be used to promote positive social outcomes. The extensive media criticism of unsafe and unhealthy practices of individuals and corporate entities, for instance, has brought significant public awareness and change. With the use of media, people are made aware of how other people and corporate entities conduct themselves towards the community and their environment. Anti-smoking campaigns, anti-pollution campaigns and anti-human rights violation campaigns are just a few examples of how media can be utilized as an environmental and human rights watchdog, making them an effective deterrent and partner for social integrity and change. However, the media can also destroy the moral fabric of society with violence and sexual obscenity. Media can also influence public opinion that may encourage political and social disorder. In conclusion, it can be deduced that unregulated media can be considered as a double edged sword. On one hand, it may serve as deterrence towards abusive individuals and groups, while on the other hand, it can become detrimental to the social, political and moral order of society.
Bibliography
Adena, M., Enikolopov, R., Petrova, M., Santarosa, V., & Zhuravskaya, E. 2013. Radio and the rise of Nazis in pre-war Germany. [Online] March 2013. Available at: https://www.princeton.edu/csdp/events/Petrova04042013/Petrova04042013.pdf. [Accessed 17 Aug. 2016]
Bourke, Vernon. 1956. Moral Problems Related to Censoring the Media of Mass Communications. [Online] 1956. Available at: http://scholarship.law.marquette.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=3030&context=mulr. [Accessed 17 Aug. 2016]
Cornell University Law School. n.d.. First Amendment. [Online] n.d. Available at: https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/first_amendment. [Accessed 17 Aug. 2016]
Moore, Nicole. 2013. Censorship Is . [Online] 2013. Available at: http://www.australianhumanitiesreview.org/archive/Issue-May-2013/AHR54_3_Moore.pdf. [Accessed 17 Aug. 2016]
Shoemaker, P., & Reese, S. 1996. Theories of Influences on Mass Media Content. [Online] 1996. Available at: https://journalism.utexas.edu/sites/journalism.utexas.edu/files/attachments/reese/mediating-the-message.pdf. [Accessed 17 Aug. 2016]
Thompson, A. n.d.. The Media and the Rwanda Genocide. [Online] n.d. Available at: http://books.google.com.ph/books?id=nJT54Oe2D08C&pg=PA81&lpg=PA81&dq=Rwanda+literacy+rate+before+genocide&source=bl&ots=AIJ9aDAgvb&sig=xfL_SBXt3YJD7GjCFikQBsBtQSc&hl=en&sa=X&ei=FY3sUvSqLoubkwXzyIGoBg&ved=0CDQQ6AEwAQ#v=onepage&q=Rwanda%20literacy%20rate%20. [Accessed 17 Aug. 2016]
UNESCO. 2008. Freedom of Expression, Access to Information and Empowerment of People. [Online] 2008. Available at: http://unesdoc.unesco.org/images/0018/001803/180312e.pdf. [Accessed 17 Aug. 2016]
