Wilson- The easiest answer is we should never censor. "There is no doubt that our future is going to include a lot more citizen sources." Approximately 50% of Americans look at between 4-6 media platforms a day. Explosion of opinions on blogs. The kind of censorship I am more concerned about is the constricting of information that happens "when institutions are less able to go out and demand information from government entities."
Gearheart- Institutions do matter. "Joe blogger does not have an institution to back them up when it counts."
Greenberg- "You can help if you insist on disclosure...transparency matters on every level." There are times when not publishing information can be appropriate. We should concentrate on who is censoring. When lives are at stake, news corporation have withheld information. Implications that it is most appropriate for businesses should make their own decisions regarding censorship.
The idea that the problem is not censorship, but a lack of resources, is interesting. That the barrier isn't what media is allowed to publish, but what media is able to find out in the first place, is a novel way to approach censorship. First, this raises the specter of entirely new forms of governmental censorship. If, instead of purposefully censoring media, government merely removed subsidies from it, it might be able to achieve the same effect as censorship without a public outcry. If removing subsidies can be justified as just removing governmental interference from a market, and preventing a drain on taxpayers to fund private companies, it is likely that it would be able to pass, possibly even be popular.
ReplyDelete-William
The point that both Mr. Wilson and Ms. Gearhart addressed was an interesting one that we hadn’t really used to discuss this issue in class. We have gone over the idea of SLAPP’s and censoring when it is proven that to publish certain information would be a threat to public security, but both issues still remain. If society focuses on combating SLAPP’s and giving more rights to the home blogger then we risk giving him the ability to post things that put lives in danger. We can give very little responsibility to the random bloggers of the world because it is becoming such a common practice and they will not always report in an ethical manner.
ReplyDeleteOn the other hand, if the everyday blogger’s have less rights and are being censored more, which creates another huge problem. As we move into more of these new types of media they could easily become our main sources of information. If they have too much institutional censorship or control than it limits the kind of information that the public will receive. Both Mr. Wilson and Ms. Gearhart mentioned the importance of institutions in order to keep our bloggers safe and honest, but we need to be sure of the ethics of these institutions as well.
I think that William makes an interesting point and I have to agree with his statement. The government and other authorities can use their power to hide certain things so that there will never be a debate on whether something should be censored at all. I worry that journalists are unable to find more and more about stories because the government is letting out only the information that they want people to see. I worry that the government or any other group sees this as "ignorance as bliss", and what the American citizens don't know won't hurt them but I do not believe that the American citizens would feel the same way.
ReplyDeleteI am hopeful that websites such as Wikileaks are fighting this battle and not working as responsible journalists and researchers. I am also hopeful that with the size of the media culture today, it will be extremely difficult, maybe even impossible for information to be swept under the rug. In today's media culture where circulation of news happens so easily through blogs or cell phones or the internet, I feel that it won't be possible to hide information anymore to duck the debate of censorship.