Serious discussion: How much should be covered in media?

[Kaz]

All right, first off, no flaming and no flame-baiting. I'm hoping this isn't a touchy subject...

My question is this: Everything should be covered in media and nothing should be left out, right? Well, aren't there things where it is BETTER that not everyone knows about them?
Example: In Munich, people who suicided often threw themselves in front of subways. Every single one of these occurences was posted in TV and in the newspapers. Shortly after that, the suicide-by-throwing-yourself-in-front-of-subway rate rose drastically. The local media and the police discussed this and decided that from now on, suicides like these would only be a tiny article at the back of the newspaper, if they were published at all. After this step, suicides by throwing yourself in front of subway decreased by half.
I repost my question: Should everything be discussed in the media, or should some things be left out? Opinions please!

------------------


Sapphire Dragoness of ALSB
Waitress at Cloudy's Cafe
Magess of Lady Lioness' Court
Saint of the SoS
Historian of IW
Most Illustrious Arch-Magess of the Illuminati
Lux omnis est
Once Upon A Paper Writer's Forum

[Sigmar]

I think some things should be left out, sometimes its best that the public doesn't know about certain things. The news is proven to affect peoples attitude towards life. I doubt that anyone would really want to hear about new's like that anyway really, so whats the point in publishing it? Somethings are best left in ignorance.

------------------

Knight of HADB and Lady Lioness

[Neb]

Things that might alarm the public more than is necessary should not be in the media, for example, if a rare virus has struck one place, but does not seem likely to strike in another, then telling about it in the media would only make people scared for no reason.

[Silver Cheetah]

Originally posted by Kaz: All right, first off, no flaming and no flame-baiting. I'm hoping this isn't a touchy subject... My question is this: Everything should be covered in media and nothing should be left out, right? Well, aren't there things where it is BETTER that not everyone knows about them? Example: In Munich, people who suicided often threw themselves in front of subways. Every single one of these occurences was posted in TV and in the newspapers. Shortly after that, the suicide-by-throwing-yourself-in-front-of-subway rate rose drastically. The local media and the police discussed this and decided that from now on, suicides like these would only be a tiny article at the back of the newspaper, if they were published at all. After this step, suicides by throwing yourself in front of subway decreased by half. I repost my question: Should everything be discussed in the media, or should some things be left out? Opinions please!

I'm in favour of full coverage, always providing the information published doesn't compromise a current situation. For example, during a trial, publication of certain information or interviewing a witness can actually screw up the trial, and render the process null and void.

But I think if things are happening, that we should know about them. When you start muzzling the press, it's the thin end of the wedge. Before you know it we'll only be told 'what's good for us' and who is to be the judge of that?

If people start copycat suiciding, one can only assume that they would have done it some way, some time anyhow - the newspaper or tv program just gave the person the idea for the method. What about films? Should we not show things that might give people ideas for killing both themselves and others? (Actually, I'd be more in favour of this than suppressing the truth about what is going on in the world. Not that we get all the truth anyway, it's always an edited and biased view, of course....)



------------------


Most Ecstatic and Exotic Mistress of the Illuminati Not to Mention Sensuality Incarnate

Hmmm, tough one Kaz. Although much of what we do has intentional and traceable consequences, we are often surprised by the unintended consequences. There is also the question of censorship to be considered. Just as a point of argument, I would say that censorship must be willfully self-inflicted rather than imposed from an outside source. As for unintended consequences, such as the increase in suicides, I don't think the information should be censored, but just made less visible as the news agents did.
Some information, especially that which directly affects the safety of individuals or groups, should be handled with careful consideration. For example, it is common practice in many communities in the U.S. to publicly post the names of anyone living in the area who has a history of convictions for sexual crimes.
This si a rather hotly debated issue in some areas. Some say it is a violation of the rights of the individual who has served their sentence for their crime. Others say the safety of the community takes precedence. Rough topic either way.

[Silver Cheetah]

Originally posted by Sigmar: I think some things should be left out, sometimes its best that the public doesn't know about certain things. The news is proven to affect peoples attitude towards life. I doubt that anyone would really want to hear about new's like that anyway really, so whats the point in publishing it? Somethings are best left in ignorance.

Personally, I would like to see more positive news published. In my town, we have a little newspaper that comes out ocassionally with loads of positive stuff in. All the things that went right, or worked - on the environmental front, for instance. The Greenpeace activist paper 'Network' also does this - updates on what went well, what was accomplished, as well as drawing attention to those things that need more work. I'd like to see the national papers take this up, current coverage is majorly one sided. No wonder people get depressed. It's like the world is always full of crap things happening, with nothing good to balance it out. No wonder people take such a dim view of human nature! Yeah, some positive news.

That doesn't mean I want to see the hard stuff watered down, though. People can make their own choice on whether to read the papers or not. I frequently go through periods when I don't. For sanity's sake. I don't have a TV, so I can get away from all the crap quite easily, should I want to. And I don't have to put up with adverts, either!!



------------------


Most Ecstatic and Exotic Mistress of the Illuminati Not to Mention Sensuality Incarnate

[Sigmar]

Originally posted by Silver Cheetah: Personally, I would like to see more positive news published. In my town, we have a little newspaper that comes out ocassionally with loads of positive stuff in. All the things that went right, or worked - on the environmental front, for instance. The Greenpeace activist paper 'Network' also does this - updates on what went well, what was accomplished, as well as drawing attention to those things that need more work. I'd like to see the national papers take this up, current coverage is majorly one sided. No wonder people get depressed. It's like the world is always full of crap things happening, with nothing good to balance it out. No wonder people take such a dim view of human nature! Yeah, some positive news. That doesn't mean I want to see the hard stuff watered down, though. People can make their own choice on whether to read the papers or not. I frequently go through periods when I don't. For sanity's sake. I don't have a TV, so I can get away from all the crap quite easily, should I want to. And I don't have to put up with adverts, either!!

Yeah great point. Everytime I turn on the news I get annoyed or shocked. Just once I like to read a newspaper with the bright side of life.



------------------

Knight of HADB and Lady Lioness

[Elif Godson]

I would have to say that the recent deluge of information pumped out
by the media is a little oppressive. It is a know fact that all one hears
is negative then that is how the they will react,negativley towards
everything. The media should moderate how much info they put and give
it all the right fact's before they sensesationalize it.mis information
is just as bad as too much information.
In today's new's all I have heard about is negative. The world is far to
big and varied a place for just this type of reporting. Usually the
good new's is pushed to later broadcasts or the back of the news paper.
Mentioned quickly and then never touched back on. Im not trying to say
that the news should be all honey and roses, but come on if you want to start a
riot or make people paranoid they are starting to do a good job
of it.

------------------
The Ruby Rouge of the ALSB
Official Slayer of Pest's in Cloudy's Kitchen
Blessed is the Warlock
Advisor to the Lady Lioness for Kitchen raid's and such...

[Neb]

Originally posted by Silver Cheetah: Personally, I would like to see more positive news published. In my town, we have a little newspaper that comes out ocassionally with loads of positive stuff in. All the things that went right, or worked - on the environmental front, for instance. The Greenpeace activist paper 'Network' also does this - updates on what went well, what was accomplished, as well as drawing attention to those things that need more work. I'd like to see the national papers take this up, current coverage is majorly one sided. No wonder people get depressed. It's like the world is always full of crap things happening, with nothing good to balance it out. No wonder people take such a dim view of human nature! Yeah, some positive news.

I agree Cheetah, we're only seeing the bad news at the moment because they sell better, we need to see the positive stuff too!

[Lifetime]

I'm thinking Objective Censorship is key..Take out enough, but never so much that it rips the guts out of a story. I think that if we had real freedom of press in Singapore, we'd be reading about hate crimes between Chinese and Malays every day. There'd be so much bitterness and hatred and resentment brought to light. Everyone knows they happen, everyone knows that the Chinese as a majority dont like the Malays and vice versa, but they just like to believe it issint true and that hate crimes and racial violence are things for another nation. The newspapers here encourage that. There'd be a lot of racial violence otherwise.

------------------
No-Name Face