In today’s compelling world, there has been discussion over the media should restrict the negative news that it publishes due to its discouragement of people from doing activities that involve minor risks. In this essay, I will discuss both views, using reasons and examples.
To begin with, some individuals firmly believe that the news which we are provided with should be limited in order to ensure our safety. Furthermore, the majority of media articles are biased and do not present a balanced view about actual cases. For instance, celebrities or influencers who get compensated to present a review of a certain place or a specific item. Another example is that they seem to manipulate people not to dine at a certain restaurant or place, which might be one of the most enjoyable or delightful establishments. As a result of these situations, businesses suffer because potential customers rely on these high-profile people and avoid engaging in activities that are harmless.
On the other hand, there are strong reasons for arguing that the media should not limit its reporting. Firstly, we have the right to be informed about current events, even though they could be unpleasant or shocking. Moreover, identifying dangerous places, particular products, or activities might have significant benefits, as it would enable us to take appropriate actions and decisions. For example, media reports may reveal harmful manufacturing practises or highlight regions that have high crime rates, alerting the public to be cautious. By warning dangers and encouraging essential awareness, the media plays a crucial role in reporting bad news. In terms of the safety it offers, it cannot be ignored.
In conclusion, it may be beneficial to consider maintaining a balance between negative and positive news, but the public’s right to receive information about such risks should not be disregarded. Finally, it is the duty of the media to guarantee that information is both accurate and reliable.