Governments need some sorts of censorships in place to keep things that are meant to be kept secret secret (Blankley). Certain government missions have been compromised because media sources have gotten wind of the mission(Panetta). Leon E. Panetta (director of the CIA from February 2009 to June 2011) said this about leaks of classified information “When information about our intelligence, our people, or our operations appears in the media, it does incredible damage to our nation’s security and our ability to do our job of protecting the nation. More importantly, it could jeopardize lives. For this reason, such leaks cannot be tolerated.
During times of war, there is a national crisis to protect the country and the citizens living in it. Secrecy of military endeavors is of utmost importance, and disclosing facts about these topics could lose a war or risk millions of lives. The government takes away people 's rights in order to protect the country. Many people argue against the suspension of the writ of Habeas Corpus, and the Espionage and Sedition acts.
The first amendment grants protection for American citizens to have freedom of speech. It protects five general areas: speech, religion, press, right to petition the government, and right to assemble. Freedom of the press is a protection that is necessary for journalists, photographers, news corporations and all media. Without the protection, journalists would not be able to uphold their promise to deliver the truth to citizens who do not have the same access to politics, world news and current events the way the journalism industry does. Ultimately, the first amendment grants the press special privileges, but they are not guaranteed all access.
Embedded journalists are side by side with a military unit, so can be expected to report happenings as seen from inside a soldier’s world. That vantage point however, should not be discounted entirely but seen as enriching our information about what is going on in a conflict. Government limitations media coverage of war, however, causes me real concern. In an editorial in The Washington Post, David Ignatius expressed a similar opinion.
Continuing his duties when Taus was required to biannually sign a written statement to the House and Senate Intelligence Oversight Committees stating that he as an agent knew of no unreported criminal activities or operations, he had refused several times causing controversyof retribution against him by his superiors - some of whom were involved in illegal activities of their own. The CIA had violated Mr. Taus Human Right according to article 19 “Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers.” (Universal Delecration Of Human Rights, article 19). Due to the intense pressure he had to “to destroy my written reports, terminate my informants and make no reference to these criminal and subversive activities implicating high ranking government officials who controlled and manipulated government agencies and operations.” said Richard (David Deschesne,
Slanting was a major influencer of the way in which information about the heinous acts at Abu Ghraib prison was presented. Facts about the Abu Ghraib prison scandal were slanted in favor of the negative actions that took place within its four walls and deliberately avoided pointing out any sense of positivity about those that were not harmed during the scandal. By slanting the information based this scandal the media brings all the negativity to of the ordeal to the forefront causing us to be more aware of what is going on around us. Matthew Lynch argued that if positive issues were presented in such a contrary way people would vote against them (Lynch, 2015). The Abu Ghraib prison scandal brought to light the notion that not all those we place our trust in as Americans can be fully trusted to carry out the duties of their job with integrity and grace.
The Cease of Journalism in the Digital Age Waking up on a Sunday morning, enjoying a freshly brewed mug of coffee, relaxing at home reading the newspaper… to most Americans, this would seem like an ideal leisurely weekend. This has been a social norm for almost a century up until only recently. Now, we find ourselves lazily staying in bed catching up on social media, text messages, and the occasional news blurb located conveniently within our smartphones. Because of this conveniency, technology has had a considerable negative impact on traditional journalism during the last decade.
It is crucial that the American public stay ignorant to secret military projects not because the government does not want its people to know, but because it does not want its rivals to know. For example, the SR-71 “Blackbird” was flown in secret for decades with few Americans ever knowing it existed. The American public’s ignorance of this plane allowed America’s technology to stay ahead of the Soviets, and helped America come out on top of overall intelligence levels. The American government would have likely loved to share its new technology; however, the risks outweighed the benefits, and thus the public were kept in the dark. Regardless of being in a way lied to, no one today complains about being left in the dark, as we all know it was for a good cause.
In regards to the truth, publishers did not care as long as they were making money, and their papers were selling. For the Newsies, it did not matter either, as when the headlines were more intriguing, they sold more papers as well. This is demonstrated
Many advocate government supervision because they believe that it will ensure National Security. Others strongly oppose this preferring to have personal privacy. Espionage has been beneficial in the past and has potential to be helpful in the future but when misused, it becomes more of a hazard. The freedom of speech also should not be sacrificed in the name of National Security. In addition, there should be limit on the kind of information the government receives and the manner in which it receives it.
With the initiation of World War One governments on both sides of the Atlantic began to exhibit control over war correspondents, keeping tabs on where and who they were with, often through incentives. Good public opinion abounded for the wars and the war correspondents (Smith, 2012). By the second world war people would flood into movie theaters to receive news of the previous week’s events on the war front, idolizing reporters (Siegel, 2003). Unsurprisingly, such reports often biased and focused on the heroisms of the allies, any atrocities were assumed better left unsaid (Smith,
The media was never allowed in the battles so the government could assure that the American public did not know how badly the Tet Offensive had affected the
In 1917, the Espionage Act was passed stating that any statement that could interfere with the success of our country winning the war became illegal. This gave the government the right to control what United States citizens said in public. They also had the power
Keeping valued information, or keeping the outside world from the public is called censorship. Censorship varies on the levels of helpful to harmful. From keeping kids away from bad influences to the government not telling citizens where troops are located, censorship will continue affecting generations to come. Censorship, used by those in power to protect or control a society or group, leads to removing potential trauma to children, threatens anyone who opposes, and takes away rights.