I suggest, no media coverage both audio and visual, for people who spread voilent, hateful and anti-social thoughts, people who support racial, religious and caste wars , people who support fanatic and dangerous leaders of the world & their policies.
These people should never get recognition and never be shown or heard. This type of coverage feeds them, delivers their message further on to millions of people, encourages them and makes them more known in the society. This popularity not only gets them admiration from their supporters but also manages to influence and attract some more fresh blood to their insane cause.
Media coverage clearly indicates that they have come so far that they have become a matter of concern, this is exactly these people are looking for. Since their message is negative, therefore, this negative popularity in fact proves positive for them.
Therefore, such faces should never be shown and neither the message they carry should be delivered by public media. They should also be discouraged from appearing on debates and interviews.
A cold, reluctant, neglectfull and discouraging attitude should be adopted towards them, both by politicians and media. Even their personal names and their school of thought should be minimised from all publicity. This will gradually choke their voice and subdue their energy.
I agree
No opinion
I disagree
Add your comment
Under such a systematic censorship the people who were oppressed would not be heard by the rest of the world as the government in charge of the media would not allow their plight to be shown. One group's freedom fighters is another group's terrorists.
I understand and appreciate your motives in your several submissions to improve the world but your ideas are naive and not well thought out. In religions especially what would be considered hate messages by some are considered acceptable morality by adherents. Your understanding of human social psychology is exceedingly simplistic. I suggest you think a bit more deeply about your suggestions and become aware of he consequences and implications.
I can give you so many examples but just a few:-
How would you describe people advocating Sharia laws in all the countries of the world and those who oppose them should be lying on the streets without heads?
How would you explain a proud and smiling face of Osama bin laden on TV after 9-11? How will you justify his threats to the common people around the world?
What justice would you give to a group of people swallowing lives of thousands of innocent people in the name of Jihad?
How will you differentiate between Fidayeen( ready to committ suicide )Shahid( martyr) and a murderer?
If you can understand what I'm saying then you will get the point in the idea.
How would you enact and enforce laws against sharia in Muslim countries? Would you advocate multiple wars such as in Iraq? That's insanity.
How about G. W. Bush? He does all those things, can we censor him? The problem with censorship is it depends on who the censor is. I wouldn't want to trust the Bush administration to decide what I should be allowed to hear.
Frankly, I think there's too much censorship already. You might be bit young to watch this, but I think maybe you should.Iraq: The Hidden War
Media coverage is a commodity, in a supply and demand economy; as long as there is a demand someone one will sale it, these people are a product of society not a creation of society, the people they attract didn’t just wake up attracted to that particular ideology. Who would decide what media is worthy and what’s not? What one person considers acceptable may not be for another, what’s acceptable in a conservative ideology is not in a liberal ideology and vice versa. Once the power of censorship is exercised how is it to be controlled, what if one group gains control of censorship and blocks anything relating to another group? Once a government is allowed to go down that road nothing good seems to happen (Nazi Germany, Franco’s Spain, fascists Italy, Iran under the Shaw, the USSR, and Cuba ect).Seems to me the only real way to resolve such things is to remove the market not the marketer, unfortunately I don’t believe that will ever happen. The only thing to do is to stand for what you believe is right and hope others will do the same.
Thanks Dwane, seen the video.
Now I know what fabric is being used for politicians clothing.
Just what Hitler would propose -- right?
It is just SO EASY to tell the bad guys from the good guys. Just trust me & you'll never hear from "our" enemies again.
First they came for the jews...
How can people not see the dangers in this kind of thinking?
Ideas and attitudes are not defeated by ignoring them. Media attention does not spread it, ignorance does. Censoring the media will only lead to people censoring the media for reasons you do not agree with.
If you want to declare a war and restrict coverage for security, that is one thing. To control it otherwise is to create a dictatorship.
NO FREE PRESS = NO FREEDOM