Media and Terrorism: Freedom of the Press and National Security
Certainly terrorism has been a primary concern for Americans, since the advent of September 11th and the tragic loss of life that occurred on that fateful day. The fact that the media is now so omnipresent adds a complex facet to the situation, one that wasn't present only a few decades ago. This facet leads to security dilemmas never before faced for the country, thanks to the various readily available channels for media, including the Internet and 24-hour news networks such as CNN and Fox News. The question then becomes, should measures be implemented to protect the public from too much information dissemination? Should Homeland Security play a part in this process, if undertaken? How can other countries be policed when presenting coverage from a different perspective than America? What recommendations can be made to the state communications department regarding updating current criminal justice media practices?National Security VS Freedom of the Press: Although Americans have come to take for granted the "always on" live news they can receive, either via the Internet or the various news channels, there are dilemmas that arise when it com
Although journalists may not like it, there is an established legal process to obtain the records of private individuals, in the investigation of a potential crime. If Americans aren't safe in their own beds, where are they safe? As a result, there is an increased need to censor certain sensitive information, in the name of National security and furthering the war on terror. In one survey, 42 percent of Americans indicated that they were worried or very worried about terrorism ("The cluck", 2006). Freedom of the press is one of the basic freedoms that Americans often take for granted, but there are occasions when the release of information not only further exacerbates an already frightened public, by sensationalizing information, but also can be detrimental to national security. In certain instances, it may be prudent to provide a contrary propaganda campaign to provide the opposing viewpoint to this foreign perspective. The President should be allowed to veto the Department's decision to withhold information, if he/she determines that it is not in the interest of National security to censor the media on that issue. Conclusion: In the end, America is no longer the impenetrable country it once thought it was. It will be a fine line that the Department must walk between protecting the public while protecting the freedom of the press, a means of preventing governmental tyranny our forefathers found so precious. Although it would seem to be un-American to suppress information that could be delivered by the media, in certain instances, there is occasionally information that is too sensitive, too valuable to the war on terrorism, to simply let it air out on the laundry lines of the public media. The Department of Homeland Security would be instrumental in determining and implementing these limitations. When dealing with this type of information the Homeland Security office can be of invaluable service. It is recommended that the state communications department continue to monitor media practices, and suggest censorship when appropriate, to the Department of Homeland Security. This is especially true when considering the presentation of information in a biased perspective that can be perceived as anti-American. The war on terrorism is a top priority for many.
Common topics in this essay:
President President,
Press Americans,
Conclusion America,
Homeland Security,
Security FBI,
,
America American,
Valerie Plame's,
CNN Fox,
White House,
freedom press,
national security,
homeland security,
war terrorism,
sensitive information,
department homeland security,
media practices,
perspective america,
americans granted,
communications department,
censor sensitive information,
department homeland,
|
Acceptance Essays
