Media and Freedom of the Press

I believe there are times when the general public don't need to know everything. A panic in this country can hurt a lot more people than not knowing about something. There are a lot of things that are with held that I think should be. Right now if we knew everything that is going on in Washington we would probably be marching on it. Most people simply couldn't handle everything that is happening. Art

This is a good debate and today's press is impossible. The way they create stories from nowhere is hardly what we expect from them. They can do whatever they wish to do in the name of freedom of press. Too much of everything is bad - and it is correct for freedom of press as well. We need to set a limit. But it is difficult to do so. It would be fair enough to say that press must not poke their nose in the private affairs of celebrities. But I think there may be some celebrities, who rather indulge press to cover their private stories. This is a very complicated situation. I'll try to follow this discussion to learn about the limits others want to impose.

There really is a limit to the freedom of the press.. Just take for example of the melamine case in china.. Most top officials in china knew that something was wrong with their milk product and yet they refused to recall them back due to the olympics.. And yet, the press also knew, but they are forced to keep their mouth shut.. SO maybe it depends on only those daring ones will dare to sacrifice their job over righteous, to report something that's wrong.

I do think that that is a true assessment of the situation. I really don't think the public has the right to know everything and some boundaries should exist, but I am at a loss about who should set them.

There are limits to be set but I think the people who should set them is the general public. Currently in Kenya, there is a huge controversy regarding this very topic of freedom of the press. As someone who works in the media industry, my take on it is that the main consumers of the media, that is, the general public should be the ones left to say what content is acceptable to them or not. Someone once said something to the effect that ultimately, the public WILL regulate the content in the media - they will reject what they don't want to watch or listen to by simply switching off! So I don't see why the powers-that-be should decide these boundaries. And in cases where these said powers-that-be are corrupt and don't want the press to expose their dastardly deeds, then they definitely should not be the ones to set the boundaries.

actually it is of both the sided because firstly i think its a bad because once i was in traffic jam since from last 2 hours and the media guys motorbike are going like they have a president tag and seeing that way out some of normal guys also looking to take their own profit what they do is write the press on their cars or from which they travel to their destination and they are in full flow of breaking signals and everything so its a wrong and after this the media guys try to convey a news to people which is good so i cant cay anything on this this is of both sides

yes there is the public has the right to know, but sometimes the media just goes too far, because you are a public figure does not mean that you have no rights at all, media will publicize the most personal things and not care, they will also put soldiers at risk and say that a prince is soldier in that unit and then all the unit could be killed because of it.

The government sets them and you proabbly be surprised at all the gag orders that go out to shut them up!

To your 1st. question mark; That is the personal opinion belongs to, having said, a scintillating and well-loved international personality as a material of writing to a journalist who wrote about the story. He/She has his/her own rights as a material of story writing. To your 2nd. question mark; Yes, as I said in my 1st. answer, he/she has their own reputation to vindicate himself/herself from any words that had been written by the respective journalist. Sometimes there are many misinterpretation that need check & balance in the story writing as he/she is actually the owner or source of the story. To your 3rd. question mark; It will totally depend on the degree of acquaintance between story owner/source and the respective journalist to set the limitation and the boundaries in that particular story. Whether both parties agree or disagree to set up boundaries in the story telling or writing. Both parties are vulnerable to the clauses of law if found breached. To your last/4th. question mark; Answered in my 3rd. answer. Thanks for providing good discussion for us to make this issue very clear.

To your 1st. question mark; That is the personal opinion belongs to, having said, a scintillating and well-loved international personality as a material of writing to a journalist who wrote about the story. He/She has his/her own rights as a material of story writing. To your 2nd. question mark; Yes, as I said in my 1st. answer, he/she has their own reputation to vindicate himself/herself from any words that had been written by the respective journalist. Sometimes there are many misinterpretation that need check & balance in the story writing as he/she is actually the owner or source of the story. To your 3rd. question mark; It will totally depend on the degree of acquaintance between story owner/source and the respective journalist to set the limitation and the boundaries in that particular story. Whether both parties agree or disagree to set up boundaries in the story telling or writing. Both parties are vulnerable to the clauses of law if found breached. To your last/4th. question mark; Answered in my 3rd. answer. Thanks for providing good discussion for us to make this issue very clear.

that is the price they have to pay for being popular. the privacy they are demanding, they can not get it that easy. but that goes only to those who are really that popular. if you are a well known personality but no longer "that popular" then you can have your privacy already. the popular ones are the one who can not get any privacy at all. of course they still have the right, for they are human but it is not that easy to get it even they demand it

I think the public sets the limits already. It does this by not reading or paying attention to things that are of no interest. If you limit the press you create secrets and those always cause problem, because they create a power situational. The Old I know something you don't know, game.

I believe that freedom can never be taken away as it is a powerful tool for democracy and peoples opinion to survive and reach out...Whether they should have limit depends on situations and individual decision of the media personal but media's freedom and rights should never be curbed down by laws...Public figures have nothing to complain as they already knew public would like to celebrate and know everything about them..You want to a public figure and yet not allow publics into your life is not a fair choice..They should be clever enough to keep their personal life untouched by the media attention.. after all they are celebrities and media and people will follow them that what they wanted right----PUBLIC ATTENTION

Freedom of the Press vs. Freedom FROM the Press - an interesting conundrum to contemplate, especially in the age of the internet when anyone with internet access can publish anything about anyone else, and everyone else can view it! Ordinary citizens must now challenge themselves to adhere to strict guidelines of journalistic integrity and ethics, but that's difficult to define when tabloids are so prevalent as potential role models for would-be internet journalists. Now we are all at risk of becoming "public figures" and the line becomes more blurred between what we can and can not know and publish about one another. The other day a house in my neighborhood caught fire and I thought I'd shoot some video and put it on my blog, The Casual Reporter, as a local news item. I was very apprehensive as I approached with my camera but I assured myself I was in the legal right if I stayed on the public road and didn't show faces or addresses, etc. At first the firemen ignored me, then one of them told me I had no right to be there or take his image because the next day I might publish it on the internet, his boss would see it, and he'd be fired. He said if I didn't leave I'd have to speak to the police officer nearby (directing traffic around the fire). I left but was surprised at how adamantly opposed the man was about not having his image taken, even after I assured him I was going to blot his face out. Granted, this is in France where I live and perhaps I should have expected a different reaction from the traditional American desire to "be on TV". I now know that the French are very guarded about their image. Perhaps professionals in the states are as well. Maybe if it'd been a regular citizen the reaction would have been different. Would you say people are more guarded or less guarded in the U.S. these days? What about other countries/cultures?

I think the press and the media push themselves to hard on getting stories and prying into the others lives. I think there should be some limits set also by the government.