ipl-logo

Pivotal Pros Of Media Censorship

1226 Words5 Pages

All around the world, countires silence their media to prevent their citizens from knowing about certain topics. The government shouldn’t be able to silence very outspoken or unreliable media outlets. Ignorant people would stay ignorant if the government could silence the media. Keeping the media open and exposed the public to important issues. Silencing the media will keep important secrets from us. Silencing the media would prevent certain truths from coming out. Silencing the media would target special groups more in terms of hate. The government would be controlling the media if the government could silence them. Ignorant people would remain if the government silenced our media. If the government controlled what we say, it would keep people unaware of what is happening outside of their lives (Pivotal Pros and Cons of Media Censorship 10), consequently people who don’t pay attention to important issues, would stay that way and our country would be full of ignorant people. Politicians may be to pay for and …show more content…

The truth of some topic would be prevented by the government (Media Censorship: Good or Bad? 9), the government would change facts of a story to bring it in their favor.The article told partial truths in Philip’s suspension (Nothing But the Truth), the article did tell the partial truth in Philip’s suspension, but it’s just that people misinterpreted the story. The public wouldn’t know about Philip’s suspension in the first place if it was censored (Nothing But the Truth), if the story was censored in the first place, the public would no idea about the issue. If issues were silenced it would keep the media more factual (Nothing But the Truth), But the media also needs opinions as well. The media presented that a high school expelled a student, but for the wrong reason (Nothing But the Truth), the media, however, did present some correct facts about the story, but people misinterpreted

Open Document