the media should limit how much bad news they report because it discourages people from doing activities which usually involve very little risk. to what extent do you agree or disagree?

Everyday substantial amounts of information are passed by the mass media. It is commonly asserted that the news about disturbing accidents should be restricted as it may deter the audience from taking any action even those which are seemingly safe. This essay will explain the reasons why this is a wise decision. Perturbing news such as murder, war, or armed robbery is usually accompanied by sensitive content. Needless to say, vulgar display of bloodshed decreases public sensitivity to violence. It may even lead to building up brutality in people. Numerous researches have established the compelling role of an unwary exhibit of ferocity in the crime rate, especially among adolescents. Thus, a comprehensive rating system on violent content seems inescapable. Furthermore, according to published data, many people are never faced with major cases of misdeed. However, being constantly alarmed by bad news in different media escalates terror and insecurity. In fact, the dwellers of the cosmopolitan cities are most likely to stress out unnecessarily over never-happening incidents. That being said, real risks must be realized and dealt with. While increasing awareness is a prerequisite of a safe life, over-exposure to unsettling news is firmly discouraged. In conclusion, the need to restrict media in how straightforward they should be is undeniable. This essay pointed out two main reasons, namely adding up violence and the role of bad news on mental health of society. While in the civilized world freedom of information is of prime importance, the necessity to propagate off-putting occurrence is seriously doubted.