4/24 The press in a time of crisis

Ach. Today's post is a day late since my internet company refuses to be smart. Bleh. Computer industry these days. Smart ideas always seem to be the least popular, and idiocy seems to sell.

But I digress. Today's assignment:

1) Indicate whether your reading selection is pro or con for the above resolution and write three things that support the pro or con position on this issue.

I am reading the con section of this resolution.

Supporting ideas:

1. Several people being jailed for suspected terrorism attempts, and government being very secretive about it. (The people have a right to know why!)

2. The press has an obligation to be on guard when an administration claims that national security requires repression.

3. Government is threatening constitutional values, and the media should be ble to report on that.


2) Write a paragraph where you state your opinion on the issue. It should include some evidence from the reading, but it does not have to follow each viewpoint to the letter. You can also include ideas and evidence from other sources or individuals.

I think that the press should not be censored during times of crisis. The First Amendment's goal was to keep a freedom of the press, so there is no point in going back on that. In the modern day world, I doubt anything threatening will leak out, anyway. As sad as it is, people are more interested about Brittany Spear's newfound lack of hair than something important, like the war on terror. I assume it's because people would rather have something funny to talk about 'round the water cooler, or something of the sort. Ignorance IS bliss, after all.

Then again, just because Ignorance is Bliss, doesn't mean we should force the country to such a state. Even if the masses will not listen, that information should still be out there for the few who realize this.