Charity Hitt MMC 6660 Blog

University of Florida College of Journalism and Communications

Reading Essays Week 5

leave a comment »

1. Why would the media industry support some forms of government regulation? Explain and give an example.

The media industry certainly supports forms of government regulation that positively effect their bottom line.  In the case of DVD technology, government regulation prohibits the copying of DVDs and digital content for any intent other than personal or fair use (ex: copying and selling copies of DVDs).  Following rampant problems with digital file sharing in the music industry, regulations and technological safeguards were put in to place to protect DVDs from being copied.  Like most technologies, ways  around these technological safeguards were discovered, however, the government rules and regulations against copying and selling digital content are still enforced and offenders are punishable by law.


2. In what situations do you think the government has the right to regulate media content?  Explain why you believe what you do.

I think the issue we read regarding child pornography and its government regulation is the perfect example of why the government should have the right to regulate certain media content.  I am fully amenable to the notion that “possessing” child pornography should be expanded to viewing child pornography, or an abundance of pornographic temporary files on ones’ computer; especially in the instance that those temporary files that are accompanied by the testimony of a witness. Particularly in the case of children, the government should be able to regulate media content that is derogatory or otherwise harmful to America’s youth, in both aspects of production and viewing of content.  Through safe harbor hours, the prohibition of broadcast indecency, or age restrictions on viewing salacious material, children have the right to protection, and should be protected from indecent material that can come with the media industry and its content.


3. Almost no one believes that the U.S. media should be able to print or broadcast information during wartime that could endanger U.S. troops.  However, the military also believes that the media should not publicize information that might adversely affect troop morale––and perhaps indirectly endanger U.S. troops.  What do you think?

I think this issue certainly falls under the category of “there’s an exception to every rule.”  As a student of Journalism, my first inclination is always towards freedom of the press and the protection provided by the First Amendment.  However, as an American and a person that values my freedoms that are being challenged in a time of war, I think that adjustments and exceptions can and must be made in order to protect our country. I will not pretend to know the first thing about war time strategies or the decisions that are made behind closed doors in regards to national security, however I have faith in the American government to make those decisions in a time of war that are best for the safety and success of the American troops and subsequently, the American public.  In this sense, I believe that restricting the media’s right to publish information that can directly or indirectly endanger U.S. troops is a necessary evil in a time of war.


Written by charityhitt

September 20, 2012 at 5:48 pm

Posted in Reading Essays

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: