It is a well-established idea that sometimes newspapers cross the red lines and lose the sight of the privacy of people while publishing news. Some people argue that the burden of controlling the published content is on the shoulders of governmental authorities. Other's, however, are against such supervision. In the following, the standpoints in favour and against this notion are discussed, prior to expressing the personal view.
On the one hand, according to the proponents of the government's supervision, it is beneficial in terms of societal issues. First of all, if the shameful facts of an individual's life are brought to the public, his reputation will be ruined. Once a person becomes infamous, not only his own life, but also the life of his family will be influenced. Secondly, the press sometimes exaggerates in broadcasting news; therefore, the misleading information might result in chaos. In such circumstances, alleviating the disorders exposes the governments to a great deal of pressure.
On the other hand, the opponents argue that such practices question the liberty, which is one of the fundamental human rights. As an illustration, It is believed that censorship is the very first consequence that stems from the politician's control over newspapers. Furthermore, the preponderance of people is enthusiastic about the private lives of celebrities. As they look up to many of them, the publication of private issues can contribute to the selection of appropriate role models.
In conclusion, I believe that everyone in society must have the freedom of speech, and the press is no exception. Although it is possible for people to go astray under the misleading impact of media, the raised awareness caused by the freedom is more advantageous.
It is a well-established
idea
that
sometimes
newspapers cross the red lines and lose the sight of the privacy of
people
while publishing news.
Some
people
argue that the burden of controlling the published content is on the shoulders of governmental authorities. Other's,
however
, are against such supervision. In the following, the standpoints in
favour
and against this notion
are discussed
, prior to expressing the personal view.
On the one hand, according to the proponents of the
government
's supervision, it is beneficial in terms of societal issues.
First of all
, if the shameful facts of an individual's life
are brought
to the public, his reputation will
be ruined
. Once a person becomes infamous, not
only
his
own
life,
but
also
the life of his family will
be influenced
.
Secondly
, the press
sometimes
exaggerates in broadcasting news;
therefore
, the misleading information might result in chaos. In such circumstances, alleviating the disorders exposes the
governments
to a great deal of pressure.
On the other hand
, the opponents argue that such practices question the liberty, which is one of the fundamental human rights. As an illustration, It
is believed
that censorship is the
very
first
consequence that stems from the politician's control over newspapers.
Furthermore
, the preponderance of
people
is enthusiastic about the private
lives
of celebrities. As they look up to
many
of them, the publication of private issues can contribute to the selection of appropriate role models.
In conclusion
, I believe that everyone in society
must
have the freedom of speech, and the press is no exception. Although it is possible for
people
to go astray under the misleading impact of media, the raised awareness caused by the freedom is more advantageous.