So claim the many billboards in George Orwell's fantastic novel 1984. In this epic story, the English Socialist government has obtained control of nearly every aspect of urban life. The government writes books, records music, creates films, and most importantly, spies on each and every citizen through their upgraded televisions.
Writing is one of the most horrible sins in this government's eyes. Of course, no free press exists.
While America is nowhere near the state of control under which the citizens of Orwell's city suffer, there is a degree of control exercised by our government. America is certainly bounds ahead of China, Burma, North Korea, Iran, and other press-limiting countries. But as Mary Hartney claimed today in her lecture, NPR and other organizations exist through government grants, which can be revoked at any time.
The question I pose is such: What is the government's role in the press? Should the government have any role at all? Should journalists be able to publish whatever they see fit, regardless of political controversies?
Let me know your opinions.
(Also, think of how journalism has permanently altered the American government. Think Watergate.)
Excellent post Michael!
ReplyDeleteI totally agree with the fact that our government is slowly but noticable moving towards some type of control over the press. I honestly don't see politics being the same without the press being able to "snoop". Take, for instance, Sarah Palin and how she was constantly being bashed by the media on almost every issue in her life and her family'. All of the information retrieved from journalists and reporters across the country helped Americans gain their own views about the former VP candidate.
This is the main reason why I believe the governent should continue to allow journalists the freedom of press they are said to have.
This is probably a never-ending issue, but I will always strongly believe in journalism having its almost limitless attitude when it comes to telling the story. Of course I believe in the moral ethics of journalism, which I'm sure we will be learning about in upcoming weeks.
I agree. It's a constitutional right to have a free press.
ReplyDeleteYes, but don't you agree that the media went too far by judging Sarah Palin based mostly on the fact that her teenage daughter was pregnant? I understand that free press is a constitutional right that should never be taken away, but does any one else feel that the coverage on Bristol Palin a complete invasion of a teenager's privacy and that it swayed the election from many of the important issues to gossip reminiscent of high school hallways?
ReplyDeleteI think Sarah Palin's background as a religious, anti-abortion, anti-sex education, conservative politician made the Bristol Palin situation as prime meat for the media. Yes, the media was relentless in their coverage of Bristol Palin but it was because the story was so interesting. It is pretty common for journalists to do deep dirt to expose the background lives of prominent people and their family, the Palin's were no exception.
ReplyDeleteGreat comment, Marcus. I nearly laughed at the way you worded that. Good job exposing Palin's hypocrisy!
ReplyDeleteAnn: The way the media taunted Bristol Palin was certainly repugnant, as was their treatment of Chelsea Clinton before her. However, in pursuing a career as a national politician, one has in turn agreed to put his or her family in the spotlight. Palin knew the consequences of running for vice president. She knew that journalists and the public alike were going to scrutinize her past political experience, her political stances and, regrettably, her personal life. It is unfortunate that her teenage daughter Bristol's out-of-wedlock pregnancy was of interest to many people. However, running for a national office is essentially agreeing to put one's loved ones in the public eye. The media shouldn't be restricted to protect those who willingly enter the spotlight. It was the media's duty to report about Palin's loved ones what they saw fit.
ReplyDelete