Tragedy & Fare Based on James Madison’s quote, “A popular Government without popular information or the means of acquiring it, is but a Prologue to Farce or a Tragedy or perhaps both,” authors John Nichols and Robert W. McChesney follow this principle throughout their book, Tragedy & Farce. Published in 2005, Tragedy & Farce is about the changing culture of journalism resulting in war, unfair elections, and the destruction of democracy. The author’s point of view is first person as he narrates the entire book. He uses quotes from interview segments from multiple sources including controversial congressmen and television anchors. The author’s thesis is the revival of democracy-sustaining journalism made up of three components.
Some authors argue that this presents a conflict of rights between liberty and liberty: freedom of expression versus the liberty that comes from public peace. (PAGE 39) others hold that calling this a 'conflict of rights' ignores the character of fundamental rights: it assumes that the right of the majority is a competing right that must be balanced against the rights of the individuals. according to Dworkin this is a confusion that threatens to destroy the concept of individual rights. Nevertheless, public order can still be regarded as an important interest that many overrule freedom of expression in particular instances. (PAGE 40) A danger with the 'harm to public order' argument is that states tend to interpret it very broadly and thus restrict many types of speech, including criticism of the government.
The popular press has become so slanted in their viewpoints. This is a subject that we the American people would prefer not to talk about. Should journalists confront facts declared by newsmakers? Of course they should. It is their obligation to do so.
“It is a cry for our voices to be heard they say”, but do they truly understand what the democracy they are demanding means, or is it a yearning for the over romanticized and often glamorized “All-American democratic dream” which grants every person the right to free speech. However, what if all the angry voices of the underprivileged all over the world were to be granted the right to express their demands? Would these voices just create catastrophic turmoil and confusion which shakes stability and peace as we know it? Whether to limit freedom of speech or not has always been a moral dilemma. All around us is a cry for change; voices of people from all walks of life calling for freedom of speech, calling for a say in how they are governed and how they choose to live their lives.
It is in a democratic nation however, that mass media plays a highly important role: Chomsky goes as far as to liken the relationship between democracy and propaganda to that of violence and dictatorship. Thus implying not only that democracy is negatively associated with the use of propaganda, but that it is reliant on it: “The quality of a democracy now depends upon the information they (the media) provide” (Justin Lewis, “The Myth of the Liberal Media”). Free press is generally viewed as an element of a society free to discuss and change issues that people feel are important. This assumption overlooks the vital elements of mass media: encoding and decoding. The propaganda model focuses on who creates mass media, who decides what is 'news worthy' and- most importantly- why.
Although the FCC was cautioned to “exercise [its] authority with the utmost restraint, lest we inhibit constitutional rights” (Winter, 2007); that is not always upheld. Tension and controversy between the media and the public have been present long before television ever existed, but the increase in modern technology has also increased controversy regarding censorship. Finding a way to make broadcasting regulations compatible with peoples fundamental right to freedom of speech and freedom of expression has become increasingly difficult. Regulations imposed on television by the government are not supposed to be contrary to the principles laid down in the First Amendment, but that does not always hold true. The First Amendment from the United States Constitution, Bill of Rights is as follows: “Congress shall
The Discourse of Political Correctness Political correctness is an attack on free speech, clear thinking, and discussion. It involves the revision of language - to amend alleged discrimination, or to avoid offense to others, and typically used by the ‘left’ in politics as a cover for their flawed ideology. One of the purposes behind this type of deliberate manipulation of language is to prevent the exclusion of people based upon differences or handicaps. Political correctness criticizes the cohesive elements of a society on the grounds that they are repressive and need liberalizing; it strives for equality, but will never quite achieve it all the time there is a double standard in existence. For example, if white Europeans had television channels, religions, restaurants, or school scholarships set up purely for their use, it would be considered extremely racist.
David Tamrazi Professor Nichols English 104 23 April 2012 Arguments and Effectiveness The effectiveness of an essay is based on the reader’s willingness to believe it. Controversial essays, no matter how effective, fail to be effective when readers do not wish to believe it. The matter of effectiveness is based on opinion, and the standard idea of what should be an effective essay. Furthermore, the effectiveness of an essay is based on who writes the essay. Barack Obama can write an amateur essay, yet readers are more prone to believing it than if it were written by someone unknown.
These will be interesting as a comparison as the same company and man, Rupert Murdock, control them both. In modern society it is hard to believe everything or anything that you may see or hear in the media as how are you to know what sources are viable and correct. For example some broadcasters such as Fox News in America are hugely biased anti-democrats. How are you to know this when first tuning in and you can be fed lies. The ever changing media and fight for an audience means that broadcasters are looking for any kind of line or oddity that will give them more viewers.
A liberal democracy aims at a free press that puts the government under a scanner to enable its citizen’s better scrutiny and impartial information. But do this media promote more transparency and accountability and does it have the power to bring down governments? Transparency and accountability is the basis of a vibrant democracy. Abraham Lincoln’s timeless quote “Government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the Earth.”, rings true even today. The government is just an actor in the stage set up by the citizens, and the sole beneficiary should be the country’s citizens themselves.