Nowadays, there is a widespread belief that information should not be controlled by government at all. The idea of a completely free information, that just a some decades ago was not so widely accepted, now seems to be one of the fundamental basis of modern democracy. In this essay, I am going to give reasons to support my opinion on this topic. First and foremost, people have the right to be informed in an uncensored and objective way. These days this idea is commonly accepted, and usually in Western countries censor is used only to filter those kinds of images (violent, cruel and so on) that can upset the public. On the other hand, partial and censored information is usually associated with non- democratic systems, and countries whose citizens experience lacks of freedom. For instance, in North Korea, where government enforces a total control on information, usually TV programs are not transmitted live, in order for the government to control the contents of programs (even the 2010 Football World Cup was not transmitted live). Furthermore, what is common even in Western countries is the 'indirect' control of government on the media, especially on television. For instance, in Italy, governments do not directly control national television, but it is common for the Prime Minister – right after being elected – to hire persons he trusts to direct the three channels of national television. This provides him an indirect control on what is said on the most important and diffuse mass media. Finally, in the 21st century it can be very difficult for a government to control the media: the Internet is so spread (and proposes so many different points of view) that good and impartial information is always available. But the Internet is a double-edged sword; on the one hand, by surfing the Net everyone can find a lot on information on nearly every topic, but on the other hand sources of articles and essays are not always clear, and neither is the editorial policy of the author, so that one does not know what to expect from an article. By way of a conclusion, my opinion is that in a modern democracy information must be free and not controlled by the government. Politicians should be able to intervene only in special and extreme cases, like for national security reasons. As long as this is not the case, citizens have the right to receive impartial and uncensored information.
Nowadays, there is a widespread belief that
information
should not
be controlled
by
government
at all. The
idea
of a completely free
information
, that
just
a
some
decades ago was not
so
widely
accepted
,
now
seems to be one of the fundamental basis of modern democracy. In this essay, I am going to give reasons to support my opinion on this topic.
First
and foremost,
people
have the right to
be informed
in an uncensored and objective way. These days this
idea
is
commonly
accepted
, and
usually
in Western countries censor is
used
only
to filter those kinds of images (violent, cruel and
so
on) that can upset the public.
On the other hand
, partial and censored
information
is
usually
associated with non- democratic systems, and countries whose citizens experience lacks of freedom.
For instance
, in North Korea, where
government
enforces a total
control
on
information
,
usually
TV programs are not transmitted
live
, in order for the
government
to
control
the contents of programs (even the 2010 Football World Cup was not transmitted
live
).
Furthermore
, what is common even in Western countries is the 'indirect'
control
of
government
on the media,
especially
on television.
For instance
, in Italy,
governments
do not
directly
control
national television,
but
it is common for the Prime Minister
–
right after
being elected
–
to hire persons he trusts to direct the three channels of national television. This provides him an indirect
control
on what
is said
on the most
important
and diffuse mass media.
Finally
, in the 21st century it can be
very
difficult for a
government
to
control
the media: the Internet is
so
spread (and proposes
so
many
different
points of view) that
good
and impartial
information
is always available.
But
the Internet is a double-edged sword; on the one hand, by surfing the Net everyone can find a lot on
information
on
nearly
every topic,
but
on the other hand
sources of articles and essays are not always
clear
, and neither is the editorial policy of the author,
so
that one does not know what to
expect
from an article. By way of a conclusion, my opinion is that in a modern democracy
information
must
be free and not controlled by the
government
. Politicians should be able to intervene
only
in special and extreme cases, like for national security reasons. As long as this is not the case, citizens have the right to receive impartial and uncensored
information
.