| Product: |
Are Britain's censorship laws too strict? |
| Date: |
03/05/02 (87 review reads) |
| Rating: |
 |
Advantages: Tell the truth but don't get into peoples personal business
Disadvantages: Can be taken to far, and as a result become oppressive
I am starting to believe that media censorship is a a good thing. I can't speak for Great Britain, because I have never been there, but I know in my home country the United States, the news media has taken their freedom way too far. There is almost no censorship of the news media in America, and the media has taken advantage of that. The U.S media uses the excuse of freedom, to ruin peoples reputation, get in peoples faces, and to share Americas dirty secrets to the rest of the world. Do you guys remember how the media drumed the Clinton scandel down our throats each and evey time we turned on the T.V or radio? That whole court case should have never been on T.V, because it is none of our damn business. President Clinton's personal problems don't involve the rest of America or the world. It should have been between Clinton and the U.S supreme court, and not another soul. I got so tired of hearing the same thing every day. The media is like a big fat busy-body, that loves to spread gossip. As a result of the Media, the whole world knows of Clintons problems. The same can be said of the O.J Simpson trial, which was drumed into the world's head every day. The only reason the media likes to gossip and ruin peoples reputations is to make money. They gossip about America's leaders, stars, and anything else that will make them a buck. There needs to be some control over the media, because it has lost all control, and speads rumors and gossip in the name of freedom. I love watching the news myself, and I believe that the media should tell the truth and not lie, but some things don't concern us. The media has no respect for peoples privacy, and that should not be allowed. If you had a personal problem, would you want eveybody to know? I find it morally wrong to watch a real-life court session on t.v, just for the sake of entertainment. Don't you, as britains, see the fault in the American m
edia when they let the whole world know of peoples personal problems? Wouldn't we be better off and more happy, if some things were kept silent. How many of you hate gossip? Freedom is a blessing, but some people love to take advantage of it, and as a result spoil it.
Summary:
|
Last comments:
|
- 07/05/02 Hi, interesting op.
The Clinton farce was in the public interest as it was about him lying to the U.S people, his wife, and his government. No big deal if you drive a bus for a living but pretty darned important if you have your finger on the nuclear trigger. He was proven to be the duplicitous cheat that many of us thought that he was under his smooth, good looking, P.R machine. Whether or not he got a blowjob from a young woman is irrelevant, but his dishonesty under oath is a massive issue.
As for OJ Simpson, again it was in the public interest as he was a role model for thousands of American kids, and guilty of murder or not we all saw a very different side to that mans character. |
|
- 04/05/02 I agree that UK courts are at least trial by jury rather than by media. A good thing. However the most powerful politician in the world must be seen to have integrity... for all our sakes. Personally I could never take him seriously after he had made a laughing stock of himself. |
|
- 03/05/02 I know, sad isn't it... :o( |
View all
7
comments
|