Should press freedom be complete?

This is my first post here. I have to make a presentation of abt 10 min on this topic so pls put on ur thinking caps & pour your ideas here.

SHOULD PRESS HAVE COMPLETE FREEDOM EVEN IN THE FACE OF CRISIS?

In India press does have complete freedom, except in case pf crisis or emergency. What i want to know from u is that by suspending freedom of press during emergency, is the fundamental right of information violated. Remember, I'm talking only in the Indian context but others also share their views. I'll start with an eg & my argument is with ref to it.

During the recent floods in Mumbai, the officail death toll was abt 500. If the govt has said 500 it can anything above 4000. The official figures are never true. My uncle who is in the army had said that even during the Krgil war, the no of jawans killed & the no. released were far apart. As a convention, the actual no. is abt 5-7 times the official figure. There are two ways of looking at this.

1. If the actual figures are released, there will be absolute panic in the state. At the slightest of rains, ppl would have sat at home fearing floods. It would have taken Mumbai at least a month to get back to normal as against just 3 days (& it actually was back to work within 3 days. I myself went to coll)

2. The other pt of view can be that ppl have aright to know abt any impending danger to their life. Right to Information is one of the Fundamental Rights of a citizen. If the actual figures are not made available, ppl will step out of houses. They can get cought in floods which is a danger to thier life. Also, if many ppl are out on the raods, disater management can be tedious.

I personally belive that some amt of regulation of press is necessary to stop panic from spreading, but I also hold the view that a fundamental right is being violated.

Guys, pls help me in this presentation by putting fwd ur views & counter-views.

 

Hmmm....good topic.
Here are my views---
Even in extreme scenarios, it is NOT necessary to divulge all the information to the press...I personally think so because the press NEVER reports things as they are...they always take it to the extremes!! It is always exaggerated and very very misleading. It can lead to mass panic and loss of more lives than anyone can imagine...
The govt is responsible enough to give the required information to the press and not some news which will plunge the state and people into utter chaos.
PRESS ALWAYS NEEDS CENSORSHIP!!!

Nowdays, the press is the most important tool, not only for the government but also for the public, in other words, the public cannot trust the government but can trust the news, since the news are made for us to trust and look upon. Otherwise, there would be no other method of finding out the truth.

The press can bring down a president of USA (Nixon) and can make the most compelling story that can bring someone to tears (Space Shuttle Challenger in 70's).

The press must be provided with complete freedom since it is the only tool that the public can know and the most important thing is that without the press, there would be no such thing as "trustworthy" sources.

The press is the ear, eye, mouth and nose of the public, and if any of these were shut off, the body would be impartial, can you live with that? No, hence total and complete press freedom is important.

hey nice topic...and it is indeed debatable...

ppl have a right to know whats happening around them..however i feel in case of big problems like the one u mentioned there is anyways a lot of disorder and discontent spread amongst people.. so disclosing the actual figures will cause even more terror and it will be difficult to control an already out of control situation..  so disclosures should be made after thinking of its after effects..

like in case of natural calamities, disclosure of actual scary figures should be avoided to keep away panic.. similarly in case of crimes also the identity of the victim should not be disclosed.. and also of the suspects should not be disclosed till they are proved guilty..

another example could be the sting operation and thing.. even if they have caught someone doing something wrong they should not show the entire video on tv wid all those scenes that are not meant to be shown..some control has to be exercised there..

so finally i am of the view that some control over the media is important since it is for the peoples good and so the people's interest must be taken care of while publishing or disclosing anything..

hope that helped u manasi..😊

It is a very interesting and ever green topic.   
Press freedom should not be curtailed, when a Nation is facing natural calamity or for that matter war. In principle responsible media recognizing the mood of the nation avoids sensationalism, this was evident during the Kargil war, by focusing on the bravery of young soldiers fighting a difficult war.
All Government's across the globe have a penchant for behaving in a highhanded manner; they would prefer a pliant media that does not ask too many questions. Media has a role of a watchdog and a bigger responsibility of presenting credible news. A vigilant media can expose the government's inefficiency, lethargy and failures in tackling day-to-day problems and crisis. During the Maharashtra floods it did manage to stir the administration and bring the problems of the marooned people to the fore.
But the downside of media activism was   wrong reporting, misinterpreting facts providing grist to the rumur mills, the media did spread panic by repeatedly showing previous footages of floods for new areas, when in reality the areas shown were not under floods. Here the media woeful lacked in performing its duties, sensationalism took hold over facts.
During the Kargil war, the government of the day and the decision makers believed that the body bags coming down from Kargil would unnerve the nation, it also had to ensure that the morale of the soldiers did not sag, here media was used to spread and create an air of patriotic fervour. The exact number of men who died in the war was out long after the war was over. Questions were raised about the preparedness of the army and doubts still linger on.
Most government's get away with this kind of reasoning: whereby   the nation is told about the impending danger: since it is in the throes of an; extraordinary situation, information is withheld, curbs are imposed, leaving little room for criticism.
Eventually without information, no democracy can function; censorship would invariably hurt the cause of common man. The practice of declassifying important documents after a period of time can help the nation get to the bottom of everything.
I think governments should never take such drastic steps that of curtailing freedom of the press because it may invariably dilute the principle of right to information. Freedom of information strengthens honesty and probity while actively promoting participative democracy. In effect it is tantamount to sharing power, for information is power.
signora2

No,
I don't believe that press freedom ought to be complete.

While it is true the press acts as an agent to get information to the masses not everything needs be divulged.

The pen is a double edged sword that if wielded wrongly can harm many in the process of satiating a news hungry population.

There have been instances of the press infringing on a person's personal space n life in the name of being the press.... I don't believe they should have the right to hound a person to get us news.

There are more than enough social problems in our society that need to be focussed on; why is there little mention of that. Instead they focus on sensational stories as rapes, murders, who is with who etc. That is not all there is to reporting.

Who deems the media the social police??? We?? Why??

But if there is corruption at so many levels that we hope the people of the media will unearth, what is to say they will not become part of the system at some point.

If utilized properly and responsibly, it can go towards creating a better society as it does play a large part in a persons life and affects their thought processes.


**PD**

Press is literally an agent that generates news to the public. It the public's fundamental right for the public to have knowledge of what situations their country goes through.
Media unearths facts that are not channeled to us by the government. By hiding facts--the government is demeaning the fact of governing their country righteously. which concludes to the fact that the government is breaking their promise of making their country a better place --wholesomely!
Though it is true that media needs limits because some reporters in the course of catching "spicy" news in their terms can create rifts between two people, can damage one's political or social reputation.
It is a pro choice opinion