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.
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!!
