Freedom of Press or Danger to Troops? Essay

By nature, the role of the media is to tell the people what is going on. In the case of the Vietnam war, the most important role became to inform the people ‘at home’ how the boys in Indochina were doing. The current consensus is � with the restrictions imposed on the US troops in Vietnam � that the US never had a realistic chance in the Vietnam conflict. As one Vietnam veteran puts it: it was the “politicians [who] lost the war in Vietnam, by declaring we couldn’t go into Cambodia and Laos, which is where the NVA strongholds were.” (Melnick 2002)

There are also times when information is released to the public, which could be potentially harmful to our national security. Ultimately Freedom of the Press is an essential right. For the press, they feel the need to inform people of situations that arise, such as health care issues (probably to raise their revenue but also because if they were part of the general public, they would want to be informed). The government may not be ready to tell it's people that there is a potentially life threatening disease in populated areas, in fear that it might cause a panic. The press on the other hand, will supply its readers with the information.

Being in the twenty-first century, it is almost inevitable to not have media be a major aspect of one's life. With this in mind, the characters that make this possible are the news outlets who are actively present in politics and every detail that occurs within the government. Such news outlets include MSNBC, Fox News, and CNN, who over the past week have reported on the controversy over the deaths of four American soldiers who were killed by Islamic extremists in Niger. Such controversy has been receiving great attention from these news outlets due to the Trump administration delaying any sort of statement towards the attack and fatalities, especially on President Trump, who has not publicly himself said a word on behalf of this causality.

Throughout history we have seen how the government can censor the media during a time of war, in despite of the first amendment. We are entitled to our voices and opinions and by censoring what the media and citizens feel, not allowing them to express their concerns or ideas or concepts is an atrocity. The government decides if we enter a war not the citizens. Are we are never allowed to speak out against a war? Does this mean we are unpatriotic or unamerican? During the Civil War, the military often kept reporters off the battlefields. Years later, the U.S. entered the First World War and took control of all radio communications and censored all photographs. Congress then passed the Espionage and

This is one topic I tend to sometimes question. Although I feel it is very important for the public to know what is going on in our country, sometimes I feel it is better not to know. For example when the press wanted to print the Pentagon Papers it was a threat to our national security. I think also, the press influences people or gives them ideas. When tragedies such as the one in Littleton, Colorado occur, it is not necessary to show live coverage of frantic people running for their lives. I don't think it was right to put that tragedy on national

The hallmark of American democracy is the nation’s vigilant press. However, intense rhetoric against Journalists saw an increase during the recent

Radio was a very important transmission mode. The radio’s main function was to deliver citizens the necessary information in a way that was easy to understand, while at the same time making sure the news agencies earned sufficient ratings and to profit. The radio companies had to make the radio programming easy to understand to the average citizen, because “[t]he education of many Americans had ended after freshman year in high school. (Horten, p.

When watching the news, we often take what we see and hear as fact, rather than checking with other sources to make sure that what is being said is true. This is because we see these newscasters as credible sources to be listened to without question. These news channels have gained this credibility through many different methods. First, they do their research and check their facts for accuracy. They may omit some details, but never do they expressly lie. This is how they maintain credibility even when stretching a story. Second, they report on sensitive subjects and subjects we think are important. They like to phrase things to make it seem like they are they good guys and those who try to keep the information quiet are trying to keep their audience in the dark. By sharing these sensitive and controversial topics they are seen as more trustworthy, as though by telling us about these heinous acts even though they’ve been told not to is a heroic act. Third, they include interviews with people who have knowledge of the field they are discussing. For example, in the news broadcast I

Carlson, Timothy and Katovsky, Bill, _Embedded: The media at war in Iraq_, The Lyons Press, Guilford, 2003.

Firstly, the “war on terror” had reduced the humanitarian concerns down, and the foreign policy. Furthermore, media coverage had become more deferential and constrained: therefore, reducing the chances of media influencing policy. The “war on terror” most importantly provided journalists with a guide in which they could understand global events and policy makers with the ability to justify a more aggressive foreign policy plan. At last, the “war on terror” had constructed an ideological bond between journalist and policy makers which created stronger media management. Techniques developed to display coverage of certain issues over others to frame stories that support official

The media has been adversely affected by the explosion of information sources. It has become a tedious and cumbersome endeavor to accurately locate information sources that can stand to even the slightest bit of scrutinizing. For those who attempt to report the truth, they continue to find it

Freedom of the press is part of the five main freedoms represented in the first amendment of the constitution of the United States. The constitution was ratified in 1791 putting freedom of the press in full development. Since then many cases have evolved with this freedom, and the freedom had some role of developing future amendments and technology in modern day. Freedom of the press had a history even before its ratification, it helped to solve many court cases, and is used throughout modern times.

Since the beginning of mass media, objectivity in the media has been slowly corrupted by the personal biases of the reporters. Therefore, in the nineteenth century, a code of honor was adopted by those in the media pledging to keep "a high degree of professional conduct that included impartiality and serving the public good” (Aliprandini and Flynn). However, in the twentieth century, very present media biases started to present themselves especially in times of war and during an election, the latter of which holds especially true today (Aliprandini and Flynn).

- There are different kinds of journalists, some of them are profiteers tied with the war governments, getting all possible privileges they could, and then there are the lucky ones who doesn’t even know what is all that about, and then

Freedom of the of the press has been a tricky topic throughout the ages. The press used to be a reliable source of news, where the full truth was given to the public. As the years go by more and more are added, making it difficult for press to do anything. This has often lead to many journalists going to court to argue against those that have violated their rights granted in the first amendment. The first amendment clearly states “Congress shall make no law abridging the freedom of speech”. Despite the amendments protecting the people from the government, these lawsuits with journalists and public speakers keep appearing. Nowadays, it is difficult to find a news source without stumbling upon prejudiced opinions, stories heavily censored, and news created to catch the eye of the public. America was a country of freedom, but now this country has enforced so many restrictions and laws that most of that freedom seems lost.