Should journalism be kept out of the premises of censorship?

Nowadays These journalists take the advantage of freedom in their hands and doing all sorts of rubbish and illegal things. There are spitting on the images of their own motherland and we the people of India are sitting tight as our hands are tied together and we are powerless though we have power in us.

I agree that journalists are taking advantage of their freedom in their hands and doing all sort of unnecessary things and damaging the reputation of the people who are great of the motherland.

RAJESH CHANDRA PANDEY wrote:
[quote]No. Journalism must be subject to controls and regulations. It cannot be entirely let free. Of course it must have a greater degree of freedom than others but that does not mean that it should have authority over everything.As because there are things called biased coverage, misinterpretation, false propaganda, defamatory allegations and the like, therefore there have to be censorship. Media's role in bringing out the bare truth can never be questioned. But the individuals comprising the media , for this purpose, must be pure as the water of the Ganges which very often is not the case.In other walks of like we have goods and bads and so we have laws.Similarly media has truths and lies and so there must be rules to clip media's wings as and when required.
[/quote]

It is not suggested that freedom of press is absolute and there should be no restriction. What I stress is that the journalistic work should not be subjected to prior censor. If every work of journalism is subjected to prior censor, there will be no journalism at all. No body can write freely or express himself if his work is subject to scrutiny before publication. There is administrative system in journalism as well. The editor makes preliminary scrutiny of all journalistic work before publication. If there are readers' complaints, the editor/ management of press or internet site are competent enough to take remedial action. Moreover, if anyone feels aggrieved by any publication, he can take recourse to judiciary for redress of his grievance.
There should be self regulatory system and no outside interference by government or others is desirable in form of censorship.

as per defination it is regulation or suppression of writing and speech that is considered harmful to the common good or a threat to national security.

RAJESH CHANDRA PANDEY wrote:

'Journalism must be subject to controls and regulations. It cannot be entirely let free.'


i agree as Abusive scenes in movies may offend some people. It prevents the ill effects of globalization affecting societies. so its mandatory that media should be strictly monitored

I think my previous point is not read by @Gulshan.
I again want to stress that though the idea of self regulatory bodies is good,one can not bring back the damaged lives of victims if misuse of power if already done..And corruption can easily influence such bodies in India which we already know...So it is better to put censorship on some really very sensitive information.
For example: rape or murder victims identity is generally hidden but i think if no one knows Jessica by name or identity maybe the case could have never be known by general public. And as usual the criminal can corrupt police as well as law...Similary is the case of Anuska whose case is not having any clues. Media should be given some power in such cases to know the truth or else corrupted people can mislead such cases and justice will never be attained..

Censorship is needed in cases like terrorist attack in Mumbai where live cameras were telecasting all the things security people are doing..this should not be allowed in any situation...

I want to conclude this discussion by saying that journalists and media should be given full freedom of expression but sometime depending on senstivity and situation censorship should be implemented. :)

Rajani K wrote:
[quote]@ gulshan

Whatever you told are really very nice to follow if misuse of rights is done. But before that the damage done to others due to revealing sensitive information can not be regained and will ruin lives..And we have seen many self regulatory bodies in India which are full of corruption, then how come we expect reliability from this body too.. :huh:[/quote]

If self regularity body can be corrupt, censor authority can also e corrupt. So let us ignore this aspect, which is common to all.

What I wish to stress is that there should not be prior censor. Only there should be code of conduct that can be complied with by journalists, editors and complaints if any will be handled by self regulatory body. In case of anti national and security matters, there is sufficient law enforcement machinery. Aggrieved party can go to court. In matter of security, the government officers and defence authorities have primary responsibility to see that secrets are not leaked. If any defence matters and other confidential information is published, criminal action can be taken in court against concerned officers and the journalists. Thus, censorship is neither necessary nor desirable.

Nowadays media people are not worried about people getting justice or not they are worried only about their TRP rate. Their mind set is only that and people will watch their channel if they telecast first and try to prove that they want justice however that is not the right reason and all they care about is the money and their TRP rate. Thus i conclude saying that There should be censorship in journalism

sumit wrote:
[quote]as per defination it is regulation or suppression of writing and speech that is considered harmful to the common good or a threat to national security.

RAJESH CHANDRA PANDEY wrote:

'Journalism must be subject to controls and regulations. It cannot be entirely let free.'


i agree as Abusive scenes in movies may offend some people. It prevents the ill effects of globalization affecting societies. so its mandatory that media should be strictly monitored[/quote]

I agree to strict monitoring and corrective action but opposed to prior censor as this will end all creativity and conform to undemocratic trends.

RAJESH CHANDRA PANDEY wrote:

'Journalism must be subject to controls and regulations. It cannot be entirely let free.'

i agrees ,as

Reporting news in an atmosphere of official censorship should not be regarded as the end of journalism .recently, A 23-year-old journalist Judith Miller is under house arrest for exposing government corruption, on the censorship scandal rocking Tel Aviv.

still journalist can set example to prove their point

Journalism as a profession has two parts namely: the partisan and liberal.While new technologies will benefit the traditional processes of journalism by using innovative changes, there are also possible drawbacks

One of the negative aspects of the journalism jobs in these two sectors is the constant demand to meet deadlines.

The only drawbacks to Journalism news are the fact that most are created for TRP's media intrudes into the private lives for raising the TRPs but not every time.

When dreaming of getting paid to be a freelance newspaper and magazine writer it's important to separate fact from fiction

One of the biggest fallacies in the new era of journalism is that a journalist must be a jack-of-all-trades

Challenges conventional wisdom and punctures the prominent myths about an important, but much-misunderstood, period in journalism history

Hats off to sumit for giving a good example and those information was really helpful and i was talking about a journalists who was kept under house arrest.

This proves that there should be censorship in journalism

Journalisim should not be kept out of the premises of censorship. I can show three reasons for it .
1)Everybody in this world has got a personal life , Journalism should not enter in to one's life to that extent that it would try to reveal the things that should be kept confidencial.

2) second reason can be journalism should not hurt anybody's sentiments. The questions often asked by jounalists hurt deep human feelings .So that should be watched.

3) We see censored films as we see it with children .And so the news channels and newspapers are open to the children . So every news coming out in public should come in a refined way.

Thanks.

Journalism should be kept in the premises of censorship because of their way they ask and pose questions.

gulshan kumar ajmani wrote:
[quote]

What I wish to stress is that there should not be prior censor. Only there should be code of conduct that can be complied with by journalists, editors and complaints if any will be handled by self regulatory body. In case of anti national and security matters, there is sufficient law enforcement machinery. Aggrieved party can go to court. In matter of security, the government officers and defence authorities have primary responsibility to see that secrets are not leaked. If any defence matters and other confidential information is published, criminal action can be taken in court against concerned officers and the journalists. Thus, censorship is neither necessary nor desirable.[/quote]

Prior censor may be necessary in some cases.As you told journalists news were coming out through a series of filtration earlier.But now all these filters are just for name sake and the jouranalists are hence taking more freedom.So a higher authority control is highly necessary.

I think the loss of creativity is just a wall.All art form has its own creativity and all abilities have creativity.So saying this is not a hindrence to censorship.

Through this journalists are allowing more freedom.In last Panchayath election in Kerala I was a presiding officer in a polling booth.We were strictly informed about taking photoes of vote casting.When ministers or celebrities cast vote photographers may rush in and take photoes which will spoil the confidentiality of voting.

Unfortunately in my booth there was a famous religious leader.Photographers rushed to take photoes.I prevented them and he took his id card and showed.He told am from press.I replied "it is OK, but entry to booth is not allowed".If some one who cannot say this was the officer I think all the voting procedure should have violated.So this should be prevented by some rules which will come only when some censorship are introduced.

Everybody has rights and every tool of democracy has its rights but there are ceilings and limitations. And similar is and should be the case with media. One must agree that it is the media which throws light on many latent issues hitherto unknown or undiscussed. And corruption and crimes cannot be dealt without the help from media.So its sphere of action must be more than those allowed in other fields. But complete freedom from regulations will turn it into a despotic machinery capable of inviting any sort of havoc. Already the misuses of media in the forms of black mailing, soft-extortions,unhealthy competitions for advertising and sponsorships,edited versions of speeches and video clips etc. have been surfacing for quite some time now.
Moral of the story is that excess of anything is bad and so is the case with freedom of media too.

You are right,Rajesh! Freedom is not lincence and is best enjoyed within the parameters of decency,decorum,truthfulness and accountability!Press could not be allowed to turn a Czar unto itself!!

I too accept to the view of chinmoy and he is correct if you are given a freedom you can use that and you have no right to take an advantage of it.

Hmm! You have changed my gender status,Deivigan! I am born a male!