Essay: Statutory Regulation - What are the arguments for and against statutory regulation of the newspaper industry?
What are the arguments for and against statutory regulation of the newspaper industry?
The first and most obvious is against the statutory regulation of newspapers as many people wouldn't trust the government, and some would argue that the government is corrupt and secretive enough. This would also potentially silence 'accountability journalism' and therefore the elite (those in power) will not be called out as often for their wrongdoings. This would be a major risk as if the government begins governing the media, the elite will have power over news outlets and the main sources of information, therefore allowed space for scandals to happen in the dark where the public won't find out, but have a right of knowing what's happening in their country, city and community. A very recent example of this would be the Brett Kavanaugh. If the government had control of the media this story may never have been seen by the general public, therefore leading to the media being silenced on this event. These sort of events could potentially happen at a high frequency as many politicians often get into some forms of controversy. A prime example of the elite abusing the media and having control is Vladamir Putin where the media is unable to give any negative criticism, if any at all. His portrayal Russian media is completely positive, and most of the Russian news is critical of other countries but not so much of Russia, nor it's politicians. This is a perfect example of what can happen when the government gets involved in the media too much and therefore the media is unable to give a free opinion and it's freedom of speech is pretty much gone unless it's about another country.
And of course the argument for statutory regulation of the newspaper industry is that too many times the news papers have committed acts that are borderline 'criminal' and have gotten away nearly scott free. An example of this is Crhsitopher Jefferies who was wrongfully accused of murder, and his face was all over the front over of several national newspapers accusing him of being the murderer, and being undeniably the guilty suspect. He ended up being found innocent, and in fact in no way connected to the murder, and it was later revealed that part of the accusation was because of the way he looked. Another example of the media stepping out of line was with the Milly Dowler case, where during the on-going investigation a journalist hacked into her phone, giving the parents false hope of their daughter being alive. This later turned out not being the case and the journalist got away with what he done with minimal persecution. This shows that the media industry has too much power, and with that too much freedom, and the government has the right to step in and put certain laws in place to prevent these things from happening again. These laws should involve both newspapers and journalists individually. Breaking these laws should carry substantial consequences as the newspapers shouldn't be able to get away with potentially ruining someones life and eternally tarnishing their name for the sake of a good story.
Finally I believe that some government regulation should be mandatory for the industry as they shouldn't be able to get away with any form of tarnish on someones name, but also the government shouldn't have enough power to be able to manipulate or completely silence the media for the sole purpose of staying in positive light of the general public. So in conclusion, there should be some form of regulation but possibly done by both the government and an organisation such as IPSO to hopefully keep things fair.
The first and most obvious is against the statutory regulation of newspapers as many people wouldn't trust the government, and some would argue that the government is corrupt and secretive enough. This would also potentially silence 'accountability journalism' and therefore the elite (those in power) will not be called out as often for their wrongdoings. This would be a major risk as if the government begins governing the media, the elite will have power over news outlets and the main sources of information, therefore allowed space for scandals to happen in the dark where the public won't find out, but have a right of knowing what's happening in their country, city and community. A very recent example of this would be the Brett Kavanaugh. If the government had control of the media this story may never have been seen by the general public, therefore leading to the media being silenced on this event. These sort of events could potentially happen at a high frequency as many politicians often get into some forms of controversy. A prime example of the elite abusing the media and having control is Vladamir Putin where the media is unable to give any negative criticism, if any at all. His portrayal Russian media is completely positive, and most of the Russian news is critical of other countries but not so much of Russia, nor it's politicians. This is a perfect example of what can happen when the government gets involved in the media too much and therefore the media is unable to give a free opinion and it's freedom of speech is pretty much gone unless it's about another country.
And of course the argument for statutory regulation of the newspaper industry is that too many times the news papers have committed acts that are borderline 'criminal' and have gotten away nearly scott free. An example of this is Crhsitopher Jefferies who was wrongfully accused of murder, and his face was all over the front over of several national newspapers accusing him of being the murderer, and being undeniably the guilty suspect. He ended up being found innocent, and in fact in no way connected to the murder, and it was later revealed that part of the accusation was because of the way he looked. Another example of the media stepping out of line was with the Milly Dowler case, where during the on-going investigation a journalist hacked into her phone, giving the parents false hope of their daughter being alive. This later turned out not being the case and the journalist got away with what he done with minimal persecution. This shows that the media industry has too much power, and with that too much freedom, and the government has the right to step in and put certain laws in place to prevent these things from happening again. These laws should involve both newspapers and journalists individually. Breaking these laws should carry substantial consequences as the newspapers shouldn't be able to get away with potentially ruining someones life and eternally tarnishing their name for the sake of a good story.
Finally I believe that some government regulation should be mandatory for the industry as they shouldn't be able to get away with any form of tarnish on someones name, but also the government shouldn't have enough power to be able to manipulate or completely silence the media for the sole purpose of staying in positive light of the general public. So in conclusion, there should be some form of regulation but possibly done by both the government and an organisation such as IPSO to hopefully keep things fair.
Comments
Post a Comment