Media Censorship - Case Study Example

Censorship essay Censorship to some extent remains to be unjustifiable and in most cases used to stop emergence of truths and ideas especially when they draw the attention of influential people or government (Shiner, Roger, and Sara Weaver 546). On the other hand, censorship occurs when media content undermines an existing ideology, and this should not be acceptable under any situation. When in some cases, the exercising of freedom of speech clashes with others' right or threatens the safety of an entire nations, legislators are always first to act by drawing lines. However, questions arise from the necessity of drawing these lines and the extent to which media censorship should go. If a statement in the media is deemed offensive, the relevant authorities should first consider the contents before deciding to block the information because in most cases the media contents are censored without the public getting to know what information was all about but censorship is justifiable when media contents cross the lines by failing to protect respect individual rights or promoting undesirable contents like sex and violence. Censored commercials In the USA, the Super Bowl has always attracted some media censorship owing to the large number of diverse viewers of the program. Also recently, the SodaStream ad by Scarlet Johansson was censored since it was also deemed as being offensive to Coke and Pepsi as major players in the carbonated drinks where Scarlet Johansson is seen be saying ‘‘Sorry, Coke, and Pepsi’’ (O'Connor). The SodaStream advertisement was unrightfully censored by the Super Bowl bigwigs despite the fact that it was promoting home-based soda making machines that are environmentally friendlier and healthier. It censorship was made because Pepsi had sponsored the halftime show and Coke has also been a major sponsor of the event. Daniel Birnbaum as the CEO SodaStream expressed his disappointment at the censorship because the uncensored version received millions of views in the internet. GoDaddy is another company whose commercials have always been censored because they seemingly touch on sensitive issues. For instance, the recent advertisement of selling puppies online when the animal rights group claimed the advertisement was poking fun against the animals, a move that seemingly denied the company the chance and the right to gain from the online venture. One of the arguments I propose against media censorship is that ‘‘it infringes the media’s freedom of speech and expression’’ (Shiner, and Sara Weaver). Therefore, when a government or any other influence group in the society decides to block information from the public, they are actually infringing on this fundamental right. On the other hand, the public has the right to information of which media is the source. In fact, prior censorship of social media content is the most undesirable as it pose many dangers to the media's freedom of speech and expression. It is ridiculous that authorities can censor information that the public has not seen. In such cases, it is always impossible for the public to verify whether it was justifiable to suppress such information. The same applies to censorship of commercials where in Super Bowl some of the advertisements never got the chance for airplay, and the public did not understand the exact reason for the censorship. GoDaddy Company has had many of its commercials rejected in Super Bowl on grounds that they are always cross the line though uncensored versions have been appearing online the recent being the puppy mills advertisements of selling puppies online(O'Connor). Another classic of media censorship is the SodaStream commercial in the Super Bowl where Fox and other media platforms asked the company to refrain from using the name of Coke and Pepsi in their commercials (O'Connor). However, in the changing face of business competition, such marketing and advertising strategies are acceptable. In fact, the commercial was censored after the break, and this could mean that influential people from Pepsi and Coke could have had a hand in advised them so. Therefore, media censorship is not justifiable given that it is always aimed at protecting the interests of certain influential people in the society despite ‘‘violation of the freedom of speech and infringement of the public’s right to information’’ (Yesil). If at all the censorship is necessary, it should be a subject of court decision and not for baseless arguments that the content might be infringing on the right of others as in the case of the SodaStream Super Bowl commercial. The modern society to a larger extent depends on media for information and enlightenment on societal issues. Besides, the contemporary society is always in a continuous search for information as the only way of getting to know what happens around the world. Therefore, any effort to censor the contents to the public is like promoting ignorance in the society (Yesil). In fact, it is highly recommendable that knowledge should spread in the society owing to the ever changing trends in technological innovation that leads to the creation of new products. If a company desires to enlighten their customers on new products, it should have the right of sending the message through the media without omitting crucial details. The case of SodaStream was like denying a company its right to reach out to the target customers and also infringing the public’s right to information about alternative products in the market (O'Connor). Of course Pepsi and Coke are major players in the industry but may be SodaStream could be providing alternatively better products than these companies through media censorship denied their airplay because censorship reduces the appeal of the advertisement to the target audience. Another reason for denying spread of information is that censorship can result in intellectual stagnation in the society because search for knowledge is the only way the society can develop (Sanzone). The bottom line is that censorship of commercials restricts product information that can otherwise change the lives of consumers and this equals control of information which is aimed at entirely serving the interests of special people in the society like with the case of Coke and Pepsis as the major industry players. Though there is enough evidence to support that media has freedom of expression and the public also has a right to information, there are situations where media censorship serves to protect the interest of the society. For instance sexually suggestive commercials on live stream media should be checked for viewer discretion as some may be restricted to certain age bracket (Sanzone). In this case, censorship serves to protect children from exposure to topics like sex and violence because commercials containing such should be censored (Allday). Media censorship is also appropriate for commercials advertising drugs especially cigarettes and alcohol. There have been many commercials advertising exotic alcohol and cigarettes, but they never go to the extent of informing the customers of the dangers of consuming the products. In fact, such companies have the advantage of word of mouth marketing thus it is outright justifiable to censor them on mainstream media. Media censorship may also be justifiable when the contents infringe on the rights of the others and animals are not exclusive (Shiner, Roger, and Sara Weaver 547). People follow what they are in the social media and believe without finding out the truth or the reasons behind those claims. In the commercials, for instance, the companies are just interested in making money without considering how they cross the lines and fail respect the rights of other beings like the case of GoDaddy using a puppy on an online commercial that animal rights activists claimed was the biggest jokes towards the animals. Though the company has the right and freedom to use any means to attract more customers, it should do so while at the same time respect the rights of the animals. The media also has a tendency of reporting events as they really are as a way of keeping their shows running. In fact, most of the times, people depend on information that is not true in most cases since some news are baseless facts. For instance, most of the commercials in the Super Bowl are meant to market the companies where they might provide information that might be vague but still able to convince viewers to buy the product. In the case of SodaStream advertisement, the company describes the product as if it may the best between Coke and Pepsi. Therefore, biases in media especially presenting the wrong information can sometimes act as the basis for censoring commercials (Sanzone 548). In summary, the issue of media censorship always sparks a debate on whether it is justifiable to prevent publication of certain information to the public. Constitution gives the media right of expression and freedom of speech while also granting the public fundamental right to access information. Therefore, any attempt to deny such rights through censorship may be deemed unjustifiable and unconstitutional. However, media ethics also limits the rights to expression since some contents may be harmful to a particular group. In such cases, it is necessary to censor media contents that contain elements of sex, violence, and drug abuse especially for the underage. Briefly, media censorship is a violation of constitutional right of both media and public though there are some contents that require censorship especially the ones infringing on fundamental rights and promoting undesirable contents like sex and violence. Works Cited Allday, Erin. "Parents Limiting Media Offerings of Sex, Violence." San Francisco ChronicleJun 20 2007. ProQuest. Web. 13 Mar. 2015 . O'Connor, Aisling. "Scarlett's Left Red-Faced as Oxfam Deal Loses its Fizz." Belfast Telegraph: 26. Feb 04 2014. ProQuest. Web. 13 Mar. 2015 . Sanzone, Daniela. "Global Media Ethics: Problems and Perspectives." Canadian Journal of Communication 39.3 (2014): 511-3. ProQuest. Web. 13 Mar. 2015. Shiner, Roger A., and Sara Weaver. "Media Concentration, Freedom of Expression, and Democracy." Canadian Journal of Communication 33.3 (2008): 545-9. ProQuest. Web. 13 Mar. 2015. Yesil, M. M. "The Invisible Threat for the Future of Journalism: Self-Censorship and Conflicting Interests in an Increasingly Competitive Media Environment." International Journal of Business and Social Science 5.3 (2014). ProQuest. Web. 13 Mar. 2015. Read More