NOTE: Free essay sample provided on this page should be used for references or sample purposes only. The sample essay is available to anyone, so any direct quoting without mentioning the source will be considered plagiarism by schools, colleges and universities that use plagiarism detection software. To get a completely brand-new, plagiarism-free essay, please use our essay writing service.
One click instant price quote
Censorship in Media We live in time when the dogma of democracy, with freedom of expression, as its essential part, is being praised to the sky by the governments of Western countries. For the sake of democracy we drop bombs on those that simply don't have a racial inclination to be able to even understand the essence of this concept. Yet, at the same time, our own media are being heavily censored by the watchdogs of political correctness, who try their hardest to prevent people from gaining the access to the information, which contradicts popular notion of multicultural paradise on Earth. It doesn't take a scientist to realize that the following topics are the subject of media censorship: the harmful effects of multiculturalism, the Israeli's genocidal practices in Middle East and all the information that might shake people's belief in the myth of holocaust. The reason for this is the fact the medias in Western countries are firmly under the control of certain groups of interest, which try to pursue their secular agenda by supporting medias' censorship. We cannot talk of the media's censorship on the level on national policies, like it used to be in Soviet Union or Nazi Germany, when the filtering of information was being given the official status.
Nevertheless, any journalist, who is concerned about the prospects of its career, would think twice, before covering any controversial news event, unless his point of view coincides with the one of media magnates. In my opinion, such practice is utterly inappropriate, as it contradicts the principle of democracy. But the problem is that majority of people got used to be brainwashed to the degree when they simply fail to recognize the facts of censorship in media, even if looking at them from the point blank range. Everybody remember the Muslims protesting the caricatures of Allah in Danish newspaper.
Many other major newspapers in the world quickly reprinted these caricatures, as the ultimate gesture of protesting the censorship. Their editors emphasized that it is important to allow any point of view to be freely expressed, even if its content is highly offensive. Yet, when Iranian newspapers published a holocaust caricatures and offered their Western colleagues to reprint them as well, to prove its objectiveness, there was absolutely no reaction. Let us give a few examples of how the censorship is present in American medias. On October 17, 2004 the cameraman, working on behalf of Associated Press, captured on video the outrageous shooting of Palestinian boy by Israeli soldier. The 14 years old boy was simply standing at the corner of the street, when passing Israeli armored carrier stopped and one of the soldiers inside began shooting at defenseless child, for no other reason than his own amusement.
It was absolutely clear that this attack was being unprovoked. After the incident, the team of AP journalists visited the critically wounded boy in hospital, where they found another 10 children, some of them without limbs, who were the victims of the same unprovoked attacks. But when journalists tried to air the footage, they were being told that their video is news unworthy. Furthermore, the AP refused to return the video back to the journalists and subsequently erased it. The former AP journalist Allison Weir was stunned to find out that the video was being destroyed on the order of Jewish political lobby in New York: We were astounded. We traveled to APs control bureau in Israel.
With our own video camera out and running, we asked bureau chief Steve Gutkin about this incident. Was the information we had been told correct, or did he have a different version? Did the bureau have the video, or had they indeed erased it. If so, why? Gutkin, repeatedly looking at the camera and visibly flustered, told us that AP did not allow its journalists to give interviews. He told us that all questions must go to Corporate Communications, located in New York (Weir).
After the team of journalists came to New York, they found out that they all had been fired. Unofficially, they have been told that AP simply does not tolerate any information, which raise the doubts about the status of Jews as a holy cows, who are beyond any criticism. This example shows how the censorship in American media works. There is no need to send the independent journalists to Gulag all it takes is to lay them off and to make sure that no other media corporation would hire them. But in most of the cases, such drastic measures do not even have to be taken, as the majority of journalists simply live up to the description of their profession as the second oldest in history, after prostitutes. Another subject, which journalists try to avoid criticising is so-called multiculturalism.
It is clear to everyone that this social concept has failed miserably, yet if one openly criticises it, the labels of racist or sexist are automatically applied to him. There is a plenty of scientific evidence that effectively proves the fact of racial inequality among people, yet to say openly what everyone knows, is a public tabu. No respectable newspaper would dare to publish the article of the author, who suggests the revision of our current social policies. This is because the Jewish lobby is interested in keeping the American society secularized along the racial and cultural lines, while it celebrates the diversity. Any information that challenges this concept is being censored.
The news coverage of looting in New Orleans, after the Katrina, was intentionally adjusted, in order to remain politically correct. The 90 % of all looting was being commited by Blacks, another 10 % by Hispanics. There is no single White person was being arrested, on the account of looting. Yet, the media simply avoided mentioning this fact, even though that this was on the tip of everyone's tongues. This, of course, cannot be described as the objective news coverage. Apparently, media bosses try to hide from the public the whole truth of the story.
CNN and Fox News, in their reports, emphasized that only the reason why people were breaking into the stores was because they were looking for the essential supplies, while we were being shown the pictures of Blacks stealing digital cameras and mp 3 players. As it appears now, the journalists of these media companies were being explicitly forbidden from referring to the racial aspects of Katrina disaster. Also, during the rescue operations, the journalists were forbidden from taking pictures of the dead, because many of them were killed during the looting and the bodies had a gunshot wounds. In her article "U. S.
Censoring Katrina Coverage" Deborah Zabarenko quotes FEMA's official Tom Rosenstiel, who said: "By and large, American television is the most sanitized television in the world... they are less likely to show bodies, they are less likely to show graphic images of the dead than any television in the world (Zabarenko). This, of course does not apply, when it comes to covering natural disasters everywhere else in the world. Also, the sensitivity of American viewers does not suffer from watching the most tasteless and stupid talk shows in the world, like Jerry Springer or like WWF wrestling matches.
But when it comes to showing the results of U. S. government being unable to effectively help its own citizens, the self-appointed guardians of public morality throw fits. They openly call for the censorship on American TV, while going berserk if anywhere else in the world, the governments of foreign countries try to protect their citizens from the filth of mass-culture, produced in USA. This is a very disturbing trend and it cannot be tolerated, if we want to maintain the democracy in this country. Nevertheless, there is a certain pro-censorship public sentiment in post 9 / 11 America.
Many citizens began questioning whether the civil rights in our country, including the absence of censorship in media, need to be provided to us at any cost. There is no doubt that, those who declared war on America, would do their utmost to undermine the security of Americans. There are many examples of unsecured medias spreading panic, although it wasn't their original intention. In 1936, during the live broadcast of Well's "The War of Worlds", thousands of people ran out on the streets, trying to save themselves from the imaginary aliens. Also, it it largely because of journalists's peculation's that it was being assumed that Iraq had the weapons of mass destruction, thus bringing U. S.
into the military conflict with this country. We can say, it is not always the content of information that has the potential of causing the social unrest, but also its form. In time, when the American way of life is threatened by the international terrorism, it would be unwise to allow the bad gas to turn our own idealism against us. Also, the proponents of medias censorship point out to the fact that if the flow of information remains absolutely free, then it would inevitably be used by the right-wing political forces to incite hate. As the example, they point out to many Internet web sites, which do not nessesarily support the current social policies in America.
It is the same people who lobbied the introduction of "hate laws" and who continuously poison people's minds with the notion of political correctness. It is quite naturally that they support censorship in media, because otherwise their brainwashing practices would not be effective. For example, there is plenty of information to prove that the Jews have never been gassed in Aushwitz, during the Second World War. Yet, this information is unavailable to the majority of people, since there is an official censorship in mainstream medias, regarding this matter. "Do we want to allow the spread of hate?" we are being asked by the censorship hawks.
And, of course, the marginalised and "diverse" elements in our society would agree with this point. Apart from this, the pushers for "safety in media" cannot come up with any other reasons to justify withholding information from the general public. Their "safety" rant simply does not stand any critic. The "progressive forces" rely on peoples inability to analyse facts on their own, without referring to some higher authority. It is simply the same story of "good rulers" and "stupid masses", being overplayed over and over. But when suggesting that media s' activity should be under some kind of government supervision, the left-wingers contradict themselves, because they admit the fact that masses do not nessesarily choose in favor of their own well being.
Still, there are still some people remaining in this country, who are not intellectually deprived. I share their concern when they suggest that, once we surrender our freedoms, there can be no coming back, because people have a corrupt nature. Freedom allows progress but it demand sacrifices. Security is synonym of stability, yet once the society is only concerned about its internal security, it enters the period of stagnation and there can be no talk of progress. Because of the continuo's process of racial degradation in America, more and more people would prefer to live under supervision that guarantees their safety than to enjoy freedoms, which they associate with danger. One of such freedoms is the being able to express themselves and being heard.
One of our founding fathers, Benjamin Franklin, once stated: Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety. This applies to contemporary Americans in very direct way, even though that many politicians try to convince us that this statement had lost its actuality, because of the realities of 21 st century. The fact that some people seriously consider giving up their constitutional rights points out to their spiritual degradation. In the last century, before the fall of Rome, its citizens were increasingly trying to bring back the spirit of their ancestors, who established and fought for the Roman empire. They used to dye their hair and to artificially whiten their skin. But it never helped them.
Their downfall became imminent when they choose to pay the ransom to the barbarians, so that they would leave them alone, instead of joining the army and simply fighting back. They preferred to attend a gladiators' fights, while remaining absolutely indifferent to politics. But it is important to understand that the beginning of the end always looks quite innocent, like applying a moderate censorship to the media information, for the sake of security. The mentioned above examples of censorship in Western medias prove the fact that these medias are not totally free and independent. The practice of filtering out the unwanted information becomes widespread. We, as citizens, have all the reasons to consider such trend to be very dangerous, because it allows the psychological manipulation of great number of people.
This cannot be tolerated, if we are to live in truly democratic society. The people's right to freely express their opinions cannot be restricted under any circumstances. The introduction of Internet allowed an unrestricted flow of information, once again. In many countries, the Internet news agencies are given the status of media. It is very important that the Internet remains free of any kind of censorship.
So far, this has been the case. But there is a mounting pressure, on behalf of the same groups of interest, to apply the practice of censorship to the Internet, as well. We are being continuously told that it would be in our own best interest, if we did not have the access to some disturbing information. But, as saying goes: the road to hell is made out of wishful thinking.
Therefore, we need to continuously expose those behind any censorship attempts. It is only under the pressure of public criticism that the promoters of censorship in media would be willing to give up. Bibliography: Benjamin Franklin. 2006. Wikiquote. 13 Apr. 2006. web Horace, Kallen Democracy versus the Melting-Pot. The Culture and Democracy in the United States.
New York: Boni and Liverigh. 1996. Orwell, George 1984. Afterword by Erich Fromm. New York: Signet, 1992. Zabarenko, Deborah U.
S. Censoring Katrina Coverage." 8 Sep. 2005. The Washington Post Company. 13 Apr. 2006. web Zakaria, Free Freedom Vs. Security 8 Jul. 2002. FareedZakaria.
com 13 Apr. 2006. web Weir, Alison AP Erases Video of Israeli Soldier Shooting Palestinian Boy. 17 Mar. 2006. If Americans Knew Site. 13 Apr. 2006. web
Free research essays on topics related to: flow of information, political correctness, majority of people, point of view, benjamin franklin
Research essay sample on Majority Of People Point Of View
