as we can get genuine news when investigative journalism can have its good side as well. It's not always yellow journalism for the sake of selling newspapers.we can say that is not politics; that is journalism So that is the good side. But do not ask me to forget about the almost joyous fanning or viewership people gave this channel.
also ,a good-quality bloggers should be given a status of journalist as he is looking for opportunity to display his talent & not to participate in rat race

Friends,
The topic is a burning one and I think there is occations of censorship as well as occations of non censorship.

During the Iraque war the journalists were taken through the spots determined previously by the US administration.None of the journalists knew that they are taken wrongly.So the news came out was censored already even without knowledge of journalist who reported it.But Salam Pack's blog revealed all the things to the world and that censorship less news opened the eyes of world.

Why Wikileaks is famous now? Answer is simple.They came with some news which were kept away from journalists.That is the censorship of authority itself.

But in some occations censorship is must and is followed in most cases.The rape cases should not be elaborated as it will mislead youth.Also the future of the victim will be spoiled as Devigan said earlier.Also I agree with Gulshan that security issues should not be revealed.But journalists for producing exclusive news publishes some imaginary stories along with the original one which is really very dangerous especially in riot cases.So censorship is necessary in such areas.

Abid Areacode wrote:
[quote]Why Wikileaks is famous now? Answer is simple.They came with some news which were kept away from journalists.That is the censorship of authority itself.

But in some occasions censorship is must and is followed in most cases.The rape cases should not be elaborated as it will mislead youth.Also the future of the victim will be spoiled as Devigan said earlier.Also I agree with Gulshan that security issues should not be revealed.But journalists for producing exclusive news publishes some imaginary stories along with the original one which is really very dangerous especially in riot cases.So censorship is necessary in such areas.[/quote]


Freedom of expression is essential in a democratic set up. But this cannot be absolute. But censorship by Government is not remedy. There should be self regulation. When any journalist violates the law repeatedly, the aggrieved party may take legal action. However, censor by Government is not desirable.

Gulshan,
I agree to you.But the recent happenings in India in which the famous journalists like Barkha are also included means they are using their freedom for illegal purposes.So some control should be there on journalists also.

Abid Areacode wrote:
[quote]Gulshan,
I agree to you.But the recent happenings in India in which the famous journalists like Barkha are also included means they are using their freedom for illegal purposes.So some control should be there on journalists also.[/quote]

I agree to control. But this should not be prior censor. A self regulatory body of journalists should be formed for issuing directions, guidelines and disciplining. There should be no need for prior censor. But if any complaint is received by the proposed self regulatory body of journalists, this will be scrutinized and appropriate action taken. The self regulatory body should be managed by journalist themselves. They can hold annual elections. Secondly, legal action in court can be taken against any publication of obscene, vulgar, slanderous article or news.

I will tell you an incident that happened in Singapore. A person gave an open statement about the worst part of the INTERNATIONAL YOUTH OLYMPICS 2010 in his Facebook profile. Guess what happened?

He was arrested the next day and was given some sentence and was given a huge amount of fine.

@ gulshan

Whatever you told are really very nice to follow if misuse of rights is done. But before that the damage done to others due to revealing sensitive information can not be regained and will ruin lives..And we have seen many self regualtory bodies in India which are full of corruption, then how come we expect reliability from this body too.. :huh:

Don't think that i have some issues with journalists so that only this guy is speaking like that.

I really love or like to know what is happening around me however at the same time i don't want to hear some unwanted issues being given a huge preference.

For example: During Mr.Lalit Modi's controversies (i mean the IPL big bash corrupt) these journalists concentrated more on that issues and there are lots of issues to which the attention should have been shown like poverty in UP, kasab's sentence to death and so on.

No. Journalism must be subject to controls and regulations. It cannot be entirely let free. Of course it must have a greater degree of freedom than others but that does not mean that it should have authority over everything.As because there are things called biased coverage, misinterpretation, false propaganda, defamatory allegations and the like, therefore there have to be censorship. Media's role in bringing out the bare truth can never be questioned. But the individuals comprising the media , for this purpose, must be pure as the water of the Ganges which very often is not the case.In other walks of like we have goods and bads and so we have laws.Similarly media has truths and lies and so there must be rules to clip media's wings as and when required.