It is a common belief that the media covers crime way too in depth which can lead harmful effects to society and therefore should be limited or outright banned. In my personal opinion, this is a complex issue with both upside and downside which will be explored thoroughly in this essay
Those who favor limiting crime on TVs and newspapers agree upon a couple problems. Firstly, they believe that covering crimes and criminals on television can cause unrest among the civilian. I once saw a documentary about the infamous drug lord Pablo Escobar and how he forced the press and media to publish any story about him to scare the locals into not cooperating with the law. Moreover, the media can desensitize the people with certain topics like drug and violence if they are constantly exposed to them.
On the other hand, those who think the media should not be restricted based on a few reasons. First and foremost, people have the right to access to information and any effort covering that up may be seem as a form of censorship. Finally, having detailed description about certain crime may inform people to take specific actions to prevent the same crime from happening again. For example, knowing how a heister robbed certain banks will help other banks to improve their security measures.
In conclusion, broadcasting criminal activities on TV, newspapers and other forms of media is a controversial topic with both benefits and consequences. Personally speaking, I tend to agree with this practice because I genuinely believe the upside outweighs the downside