Mass media, TV programs and newspapers, are the main crucial channels people receive both beneficial and violent information at the same time. Some suggest banning such media in order to reduce domestic crimes. However, restricting mass media is not an effective contingency, plus, banning such information might promote disadvantages among citizens.
The media serves vital national affairs awareness for citizens. Both unveil national and international processes concealed by restricting contact between people and outside sources can be seen as an intransparency. The transparency not only fosters public trust but also encourages the public cognitive, such as enhancing problem-solving skills due to being taught by the violent news. Consequently, they can be relieved by preparing for intended crimes in the future.Therefore, informing public surrounding matters is a fundamental right to be delivered to folks and banning can be unethical as it blocks citizens knowledge improvement.
Nevertheless, violent contents published on TV and newspapers ought not to be restricted to protect audiences, as it may cause panic among citizens.For instance, platforms like TikTok have addressed this dilemma by implementing stricter algorithms to effectively monitor and filter inappropriate content. It becomes evident that the crux of mitigating the negative impact of violent news lies in responsible reporting practices. Hence, totally deleting violent contents from the population by blocking all information is not a comprehensive and sustainable way.
In conclusion, media coverage of violent crime should not be banned because everyone deserves to consume the news with fairness and justice. Providing some algorithms to examine the contexts or graphic visuals before releasing it to the public can be a fair mitigation.