Publishing detailed information about crimes in newspapers or on television can have dangerous consequences and should therefore be restricted. To what extent do you agree or disagree?
The great public discourse of contemporary times is aligned with a view whether reporting about antisocial endeavors that has detrimental effects on society, should be controlled, or not. I partially agree with the proposal and shall discuss in the following paragraphs.
To start with, a lobby strongly asserts that showcasing savagery via media can cause fear among individuals, especially youngsters. This is to say, when children witness blood, gore, and so on, they become frightened and fear that they might meet the same end; as a result, they avoid interacting with the outer world, turning timid, feeling threatened, and eventually, lead a life in desolation . To corroborate, a recent study conducted by a group of child behaviorists revealed that juveniles watching programs about unlawful undertakings during their childhood on television, grow up as adults who circumvent communicating with others, and some also feel unsafe within the confines of their own homes when they are alone.
Having said that, such broadcasts should not be curtailed since there could be evidence that might catch the attention of the viewers, or readers, and aid in resolving crimes. In other words, the television could show images of the perpetrators, who could be on the run, or at large, could be identified, and reported to the police. For example, in Japan, during the morning news, details of incidence of law breaking and culprits are transmitted over the television and social media, which aids in early identification of the criminals.
In conclusion, considering the aforementioned views, I believe although it is virtuous to draw a line about what should be presented, a complete embargo should not be imposed: these help in mitigating and preventing incidents of deviant nature.
