To What Extent It Is Necessary for the Government to Regulate the Press in a Liberal Democracy - Essay Example

To what extent it is necessary for the Government to regulate the press in a liberal democracy We live in the epoch of democracy. Democracy is one ofthe most important values our society should preserve. People have been struggled for democracy for ages and it is proved to be the best regime. One of the main features of democratic state is that every individual has an opportunity to express his/her own opinion. The main tool of such expression is mass media. It provides people with opportunity to express their option and take part in the political life of the country. However, even in the modern society the representatives of many democratic states very often complain that the government tries to establish the control over mass media. The issue is worth-discussing thus the given paper will try to find the answer to the question if the government should control the press and to what extent. First it is essential to consider the peculiarities of the activity of mass media in democratic countries. In democratic states the activity of press is independent from the state power. Democratic governments do not have the ministries of information which regulate the content of the newspapers or the activity of journalists; they also do not demand the checks of their activity and do not force them to enter the labor union, which is regulated by the state. Independent press informs the community about the events and changes, provides the accountability of the government and prescribes the forum for discussing questions, which have local or national significance. The states with democratic form of government stimulate the existence of the independent press. The independent judicial system, civil community, where the legality is followed, and freedom of speech support the independent press. The independent press should have the legal assistance. In democratic countries the government holds the responsibility for its actions. That is why citizens expect to be informed about the decisions taken by the government on behalf of them. Press contributes to this “right to know” acting as a housedog, which is tracing the government’s activity and helps citizens have its accountability. Besides, press makes the politics of the government doubtful. Democratic governments provide journalists with an access to the public meetings and legal documents. These governments do not introduce the preliminary restrictions on what journalists many say or what they want to publish. Press itself should act responsibly. The press remains accountable as it replies to the protests against the reaction from its side through professional unions. Democracy demands from the community to make choice and take decisions. In order to make community trust the press the journalists should provide the factual side of their messages based on the sources of information, which deserve the trust. Independent press should not plagiarize or publish false facts. Media agencies should set their own editorial colleges which are not subject to control from the side of the state power in order to separate the process of information collection and its spreading and the process of editing. Journalists should not be influenced by the public opinion. They should endeavor to the truth and maximal objectivity. In the conditions of democracy press has the opportunity to collect and declare the news not being afraid of the persecutions from the side of government and not depending on its loyalty. Democratic countries contribute to the constant struggle between the obligation of the government to defend the national security and the right of the government to get the information. The basis of this right is the access of journalists to the facts they need. Sometimes it is necessary for the governments to limit the access to the information, which is considered to be secret and is not subject to spreading. However, in democratic countries the endeavor of journalists to gett such information is totally justified. The next step is to consider what goals the government may pursue trying to establish control over mass media. The main goal is to influence several audiences. The first audience is the elite and the government may use the press to make elite afraid of the government. The next group is the population. If the press is controlled by the government, it does its best to make masses respect the current regime. In order to keep the power the government may use the press to keep people far from politics that contradicts the definition of a democratic state. Third group is the political opposition and the independent society. In democratic states the independent press is the source of the political power. Control over press may be directed at the isolation of social activists in order to deprive them of the possibility to create organizations and mobilize masses. With this purpose state press tries to discredit any expression of political alterative. According to David Cameron, “the issue of principle is that, for the first time, we would have crossed the Rubicon of writing elements of press regulation into the law of the land. We should be wary of any legislation that has the potential to infringe free speech and a free press. In this House, which has been a bulwark of democracy for centuries, we should think very, very carefully before crossing that line”1. The attacks of state mass media deprive the society and opposition of legitimacy creating the basis for new repressions and at the same time accusing opposition in the endeavor to make chaos. Such accusation may influence greatly the societies with the long history of political instability. The forth audience is internet-users. With the increase of the number of internet users some governments understood that Internet should be controlled. Nevertheless, the supervision of the political content in mass media and the control over the similar information in web is not the same things. In the internet the restrictive measures are directed not on the complete blockage of the information, but on the preventing the news about politics from reaching the key audience. Thus, we see that any restrictions put on media by the government lead to the establishment of the authoritarian regime and is not acceptable for liberal democracy. In democratic states the press plays the role of a tool to control the government. People have a right to take part in the lawmaking process, thus they should have an opportunity to express their opinion. David Cameron states: “we should be wary of any legislation that has the potential to infringe free speech and a free press. In this House, which has been a bulwark of democracy for centuries, we should think very, very carefully before crossing that line”.2 The government should control the press only in case it violates the law. Mass media should not be used as a tool to influence people and make them afraid of the government. The media is indeed the tool for people, but not for the government, because if the press is controlled by the government, the government will have an absolute power that is not natural for democratic states and violates democratic principles. References Cameron and #Leveson: My Dilemma.(2012). http://www.robertsharp.co.uk/2012/11/ Accessed January 25, 2013 Read More