Introduction
Media freedom refers to the freedom of communication throughout various sources of media. The United Nations have been known to be pure supporters when it comes to freedom of the press. They believe that everyone has the right to the freedom of their opinion, media or otherwise. Thus, the United Nations supports the idea of the media having the freedom to publish whatever they would like. However, there are several individuals who believe that the media should be monitored in order to prevent any adverse effects it may cause. This paper assess these adverse effects and shows why the United Nations should implement standards when it comes to media freedom.
Arguments
This paper believes the United Nation’s should implement the social responsibility theory to their media freedom. “Social responsibility theory allows free press without any censorship but at the same time the content of the press should be discussed in public panel and media should accept any obligation from public interference or professional self-regulations or both” (Mass Communication). The idea behind this theory is moving from objective (facts) reporting to interpretative (investigative) reporting. In other words, news should not only give facts to situations but rather give a necessary analysis for interpretation the facts with explanations. This can give news and media more accuracy and truth. It is also believed that regulating media based on social responsibility theory can improve journalism standards, while also formulating codes of conduct for the press. The following analyses different arguments for proper regulation of news media.
Terrorism
Another challenge when it comes to media freedom is the connection between protection against terrorism and the Internet. “The balance between measure required for fighting terrorism and respect for fundamental rights is very difficult to find” (Elliott, 2015, p. 117). Citizens have a right to know what is going on throughout their country, even in regards to terrorism. The media, furthermore, has rights to access and publish (to an extent) any information regarding the matter (Bush, 2007, p. 7). This is where the line between civil rights and publishing articles on terrorism becomes blurred. The following addresses the issues associated with reporting terrorism.
Publishing violent content publically
These days, technology has made media access easier than ever. With just a click of a button, an individual can have access to thousands pieces of information regarding even more topics. Thus, technology has made it easier for the media to publish information regarding any particular topic (Voloikh, 2012, p. 460). However, the information they publish could have negative implications for the parties involved, as well as society.
One of the biggest issues surrounding media freedom and terrorism is the content these individuals are able to publish. For example, Muslim terrorist have published videos of their killings on the Internet. This is a critical concern when it comes to freedom of speech. Due to the increased access to the Internet, people all over the world have access to those videos, even children. This is one example of why media freedom should be regulated. Not every child has proper supervision and children should not be able to witness such harsh crimes. Regulations should be in placed in order to protect these developing minds from such horror. Witnessing such cruelty can have devastating effects on children (Windschuttle, 2015, p. 25).
Journalists
Terrorism has been a hot topic for reported throughout the past couple of decades. Reporters have paid heavy prices for attempting to investigate terrorism throughout the globe. Several of these reporters have been kidnapped and assassinated in order to be silenced. What these reporters do find, on the other hand, could have serious implications if they were to publish (Simon, 2011).
If a reporter published what they witnessed in the Philippines regarding terrorism and government operations, then such report may have devastating consequences on those government operations. For example, a reporter had been investigating ongoing operations throughout the Philippines regarding terrorism. The reporter had several government contacts who were able to give minimal information regarding the operations. However, with proper investigation, the reporter was able to find enough about the operations in order to create an article. If published, that information may cause detrimental effects to government operations. It may also place those individuals at risk by publically announcing the procedures of the government operation. Regulating what this reporter is able to publish could limit any negative effects it could have for the subjects of the article (Dow Jones & Co., 2016).
Invasion of privacy
There have been several incidents were freedom of press and invasion of privacy are hand and hand. This is especially seen with celebrities. However, invasion of a celebrity’s privacy is often socially justified. Media invasion comes along with the lifestyle. However, there are other situations that are more delicate that should not be handled with such force. The following are examples why regulations need to be put in place in order to control how much the media can invade an individual’s privacy and personal space.
Reporters obtaining police documents
Reporters tend to have contacts who help them retrieve certain information regarding certain situations. Sometimes these contacts are part of law enforcement. Thus, some reporters gain inside knowledge to the legal proceedings and documentation regarding certain cases. Due to the freedom of media, the reporter is then able to publish her findings to the general public including any opinions he or she may have. This can harm to any current criminal proceedings as well as invade the privacy of the individual. Publishing material like this could cause jury bias, making a trial unfair for the defendant (Romero, 2010).
Mobile phones have caused problems when it comes to media freedom. In certain situations, cell phone companies are required to give cell phone records to the police or when there is a legal order. There have been a couple of documented cases were these phone records have gotten into reporters hands. Not having any rules or regulations, the reporter is able to report the findings to the public. Not only is this an invasion of privacy for the cell phone owner, but it could also alter the outcome of any legal proceedings that the individual may be going through (Sterns, 2014).
Personal tragedy
The media often invades people’s privacy during the time of a tragedy. In fact, the more national attention a situation receives, the less privacy those individual’s receive. An example of this would be when a celebrity dies. Michael Jackson’s family, for example, was stalked by the media for weeks following the death of the famous pop star. This family was given little to no privacy regarding a very tragic matter. Regulations need to be place when it comes to personal tragedy and media freedom. There have been several other situations where the media have invaded the personal space of those grieving. One of the most popular examples is the tragedy of Caylee Anthony (Dow Jones & Co., 2016)
Caylee Anthony was a four year old girl who was found dead. Her mother, Casey Anthony, was charged for first-degree murder for the death of the four-year-old. Due to the nature of the situations and the circumstances surrounding the family, the media was allowed to invade the privacy of the family repeatedly. The family was not given any time or space to grieve the death of the little girl. Both the mother and the grandparents were constantly harassed by the media on a daily occasion and no laws could stop them. The media was legally allowed to stalk this family during a very difficult time. Regulations need to be in place in order to limit how much the media is allowed to harass victims of tragedy (Dow Jones & Co., 2016).
Counter argument
Freedom of Speech
It is a common argument that regulating media is violating an individual’s rights. Individuals are given the right to freedom of speech and expression. They are also given the right to publish their speech and expressions. Furthermore, media freedom allows reporters to give adequate details of situations the average person may not know or be able to generalize. Citizens have the right to know what is going on throughout their countries and the media has the right to publish it. These are rights that are generally accepted in countries throughout the globe. Regulating what these individuals publish constitutes violation of their constitutional rights (Quil, 1998, p. 30).
Refute other side argument
Newspapers sell news in order to make a profit. These reporters are writing articles to sell and some of them are not thinking about the future implication of the content they are publishing. While some countries have place restrictions on aspects like national security, these restrictions are limited and vague leaving room for reporters to be creative with their investigation process (Zhang, 2015, p. 1). When reporters write without regulation, their words are being presented for the world to read. Their words can be persuasive and alter people’s perception. They can also give too much information regarding personal or governmental matters. With the growing number of media, regulations need to be put in place in order to control what content people are exposed to. This is especially true with children. Children should not be able to access videos or pictures of terrorism. Not all reporters think about ethics while publishing their content. Thus, regulations would ensure reporters are following ethical guidelines when it comes to what they publish.
Conclusion
Media freedom gives reporters and other individuals the ability to publish whatever they would like regarding anything. There are little regulations regarding media freedom due to freedom of the press. However, there are several negative implications when it comes to the media publishing certain types of material. Regulations should be put in place in order to insure reporters and other media personal are not invading the privacy of their subjects. Regulations also need to be put in place regarding terrorism. This could help stop so many people from getting killed. Reporters should not be allowed to investigate into terrorist activities or proceedings. They also should not be able to publish any materials they gather regarding government operations regarding terrorism. Lastly, regulations should limit how much the media can harass an individual or a family after a tragedy. Even though this is limiting the media’s freedom of speech, regulations need to be put in place so the media does not inflict harm on the subjects of their media content.
References
Bush, V. (2007). Reporting the war: freedom of the press from the American Revolution to the War on Terrorism. Booklist, 104(5), 7.
Dow Jones & Co. (n.d.) US reporter kidnapped in Pakistan killed on video tape. Retrieved on 6 March 2016, from http://rense.com/general20/pearle.htm
Elliott, C. (2015). Terror in the press. American University International Law Review, 30(1), 101-139.
Romero, J. (2010). The invasion of privacy from the media. Retrieved on 6 March 2016, from https://suite.io/jennifer-romero/4c0n23d
Simon, J. (2011). How war on terror unleashed a war on journalists. Retrieved on 6 March 2016, from http://www.cnn.com/2011/OPINION/09/08/simon.press.freedom.911/index.html
Stearns, J. (2014). Why the Supreme Court cell phone decision is a win for press freedom. Retrieved on 6 March 2016, from https://freedom.press/blog/2014/06/why-supreme court-cell-phone-decision-win-press-freedom
Quil, J. (1998). Public’s rights must be protected. Reading Level, 86(6), 30.
Voloikh, E. (2012). Freedom for the press as an industry, or for the press as a technology? From the framing to today. University of Pennsylvania Law Review, 160(2), 459-540.
Windschuttle, K. (2015). An enemy within. New Criterion, 33(5), 24-29.
Zhang, J. (2015). Predicting attitudes toward press-and speech freedom across the U.S.A. Plos One, 10(6), 1-16.