Media and Censorship

I think images of war and death (not only from war but from anything) should be censored to an extent. I remember when Hurricane Katrina happened and it seemed like every day on the cover of The New York Times that they showed dead bodies, with haunting captions underneath the pictures. Perlmutter and Major say, "When photographers capture gruesome images...journalists and the public wonder what should be shown, how it should be shown, and why," (p.182). Reading the article by Campbell actually made me sick to my stomach and I couldn't read it all. He includes very vivid images when he describes the death of James Byrd and the death of a man and his son in Gaza. Campbell says, "Images do bring a particular kind of power to the portrayal of death and violence," (p.17). Also, I think news organizations use images of death and violence for shock value, to kind of get their point across. For example when they show gruesome images of war, they are just reinforcing that war is terrible and that people do die grizzly deaths. Another example is when they do stories about Sierra Leone, they show you what really happens over there, from the stories that are told to the images you see.

"...The controversy over what type of content should be available to different consumers has plagued the relationship of between media industries and the FCC," (p.260). I think certain programs and movies on television channels for children shouldn't be on them, for example on the channel ABC Family, they play movies that are unsuitable for certain age groups, movies like "Cruel Intentions." When I see these movies being played on there on early Saturday afternoons, when anyone could be watching upsets me greatly. Gone are the days where content was appropriate. However, I think it is up to the parents to monitor or "censor" what their children are watching, not the FCC or the government. However, how can the FCC regulate what children can watch on television but not in theaters? Every time I go to a Rated R movie, there are families there, even for scary ones, that you know contain gory images, graphic violence, etc.

In the article I found it talks about how the FCC is trying to regulate violence on television shows that are played during the times children could be watching, becuase they say that watchihng violent television does have an effect on children. According to Paul Farhi and Frank Ahrens of the Washington Post, "The Federal Communications Commission has concluded that regulating TV violence is in the public interest, particularly during times when children are likely to be viewers -- typically between 6 a.m. and 10 p.m., FCC sources say." Farhi and Ahrens also state, "For decades, the FCC has penalized over-the-air broadcasters for airing sexually suggestive, or "indecent," speech and images, but it has never had the authority to fine TV stations and networks for violent programming." I think the FCC wanting to regulate how much violence is portrayed on television programs is absurd. Also, what does the FCC classify as "violence" on these television shows? Is it a man hitting his wife or someone getting shot; both are violent? If parents don't want their children to watch these programs then don't have them watch it or they should use the device called the V-chip, that allows parents to block shows and channels that they deem unsuitable for their children. "First Amendment experts and television industry executives, however, say that any attempt to regulate TV violence faces high constitutional hurdles -- particularly regarding cable, because consumers choose to buy its programming," according to Farhi and Ahrens.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/04/23/AR2007042302048.html

But when you look at how in Communist countries their government regulated everything, from what they watched on television to what they listened to on the radio, etc. This government also didn't say what they did wrong, it was how well they did. I can't even imagine living in those countries at that time, and when Maria talked about how her mom was at the door while her dad listened to the radio, to make sure they wouldn’t get in trouble is crazy. John Tuza says, "We were metaphorically broadcasting in the dark, and many of our listeners were actually listening in the dark," (p.1). Tuza says,"...BBC World Service, Radio Liberty, VOA and Deutsche Welle, were collectively known as the 'Voices'," (p.6). These broadcasters and stations provided people of these Communist countries with information their government covered up or just didn't tell its people. "What the BBC taught its listeners was to judge critically, to apply critical questioning to problems," says Tuza. I found this article interesting that citizens of the Communist countries were curious about their government and what their government was telling them and that they weren't "ignorant" on what was really happening. According to Tuza, "The foreign broadcasts played their part in freeing ordinary listener from relying on official media. It confirmed that there was a huge discrepancy between what individuals saw as the facts of life and what their government and party told them was reality," (p.8).