You should spend about 40 minutes on this task.
Many recommend an ‘eagle’s eye’ on the media because of its immense influence in the society. Simultaneously, the provision of freedom for the media is also recommended. It seems to me that both these are pressing suggestions and should be practiced globally.
The predominant reason why I recommend the former suggestion is that a considerable proportion of people are seriously concerned about the potential dangers which the media can contribute to. This can range from a minor difference in opinions between the social organizations to widespread riots or even homicides. Another genuine concern is privacy and this concern is intensifying its severity at an unparalleled rate, creating newer and tougher challenges to many. The effect can be social, financial or even personal. Finally, I think the ability of the media to make a plethora of people enslaved, as evidenced by a huge proportion of mentally disturbed social media addicts should be seen with an eye of suspicion.
At the same time, except in extreme cases, hardly anyone should question the rights of the media, as any restriction on it may back-stab the whole social circle. For instance, media should be allowed to stretch its arms in reporting issues which hinder the social, economic and cultural progress. However, this is nearly impractical in cases such as national security.
On the contrary, there are some who recommend freedom of media to a full extent, with no major censoring. If practiced, this can result in catastrophes and I would never recommend it.
To conclude, I think laws which assure the media with enough freedom are recommended, provided that the authorities are free to screen and monitor them, in all their available forms.
(Word count: 278)