Sorry pal and i have edited that and sorry again. As i just saw ur user name i got confused. I hope this never happens in the future.

Never mind! All we are human beings and liable to err!!!

Abid Areacode wrote:
[quote]gulshan kumar ajmani wrote:
[quote]

What I wish to stress is that there should not be prior censor. Only there should be code of conduct that can be complied with by journalists, editors and complaints if any will be handled by self regulatory body. In case of anti national and security matters, there is sufficient law enforcement machinery. Aggrieved party can go to court. In matter of security, the government officers and defence authorities have primary responsibility to see that secrets are not leaked. If any defence matters and other confidential information is published, criminal action can be taken in court against concerned officers and the journalists. Thus, censorship is neither necessary nor desirable.[/quote]

Prior censor may be necessary in some cases.As you told journalists news were coming out through a series of filtration earlier.But now all these filters are just for name sake and the journalists are hence taking more freedom.So a higher authority control is highly necessary.[/quote]

Despite any misuse of press freedom. subjecting press to prior scrutiny in the form of censor will be a big compromise with freedom of expression, which is most significant component of democracy. Best regulation is self regulation.

The journalists just publish the information that is supplied to them or gathered from authentic sources. If any classified or secret information is leaked to press and published, the fault lies mainly on those who leaked such information. Censorship is not remedy. The remedy lies in withholding secret information strictly.

Monalisa Mahapatra wrote:
[quote]Journalism should not be kept out of the premises of censorship. I can show three reasons for it .
1)Everybody in this world has got a personal life , Journalism should not enter in to one's life to that extent that it would try to reveal the things that should be kept confidencial.

2) second reason can be journalism should not hurt anybody's sentiments. The questions often asked by jounalists hurt deep human feelings .So that should be watched.

3) We see censored films as we see it with children .And so the news channels and newspapers are open to the children . So every news coming out in public should come in a refined way. Thanks.[/quote]


I agree with all reasons namely, sanctity of personal life, sentiments and refinement. However, censorship is no solution. There can be no creative work if there is censor. Some sort of control is already there. A reporter sends news to the newspaper. The editor removes the part considered improper and then publishes the news. The hierarchy of reporter, sub editor, editor chief editor by itself ensures that any single reporter is not Czar or all in all, as commented by an Hon'ble member. Usually, the newspapers conform to code of conduct and work in public interest. There may be some deviations but these do not justify censorship. Apart from self regulation by the press, there are also remedies under criminal and civil law.

If any mistake is being made we go to police station or we go to the public directly and media is the only option we got. Now where can we go and give a complaint when the media itself is on the line?

I couldn't understand how these journalists can do like that. They are also human like us and how come they are hurting there own people? We all Brother's and Sister's and that is the Pledge of Our Nation and i couldn't understand are they able to spoil the future of his/her brother or sister

So my conclusion is Journalism should have censorship

Though i have produced my opinion on this and concluded that in some situations censorship is necessary..I again want to give my views...as some are aganist censorship..especially Gulshan.. :cheer:

I want to say that censorship is nothing but "control of speech and other forms of human expression" and i agree that Jouralism is completely opposite to this as there expression should be freely allowed or else anything cannot reach public.
But now-a-days this is been misused or the meaning is completely changing..

Both Press and TV are utilizing this freedom improperly and are not only hurt feelings of some people but are also becoming a important mean for creating insecurity to public.I have already gave my examples previously in what way the harm is done by them and how they are beneficial to society.
And everyone agree that some control is absolutely necessary.
Which can be possible by independent bodies or senior people in their area..etc as stated by @ Gulshan..But already these are in process as news is checked before publishing but still cases of misuse are seen recently..so how efficient are these bodies working is a point to note?
So in such cases one can only control through censorship depending on the severity of the news or sensitivity..

And censorship doesnt mean completely stopping the freedom of Jounalist.And another point is prevtention is better than cure which is applicable here too..as any damage can be stop through prevention rather then curing it after damage is done..

So before broadcasting or publishing some censorship should be implemented...

@Gulshan

My use of the word 'Czar' is figurative and it has nothing to do with the typical hierarchy of a press establishment.The role of media in a functioning is too great to be tramelled by the diktats of the establishment but the question is how conscientiouly and professionally the press both -print and electronic- is living up to its role! We know the gross abuse of governmental powers in controlling media during the emergency and if that represents one extreme - the other extreme is the gross abuse of media freedom in promoting yellow journalism in recent years.The problem has got worse with the emergence of electronic medium.While it may be a good idea to have self regulation through a self regulatory body but this sounds academically fine but going by the poor record of self regulatory bodies in other fields but I am not too impressed .To my mind the press has to free itself some of the vices like promotion of vested interests through motivated or embedded reporting to enhance its credibility to serve as a watch dog and a great source of information and education in a democracy.

what contest????????????? I didnt get it.................

chinmoymukherjee wrote:
[quote]@Gulshan

My use of the word 'Czar' is figurative and it has nothing to do with the typical hierarchy of a press establishment.The role of media in a functioning is too great to be tramelled by the diktats of the establishment but the question is how conscientiouly and professionally the press both -print and electronic- is living up to its role! We know the gross abuse of governmental powers in controlling media during the emergency and if that represents one extreme - the other extreme is the gross abuse of media freedom in promoting yellow journalism in recent years.The problem has got worse with the emergence of electronic medium.While it may be a good idea to have self regulation through a self regulatory body but this sounds academically fine but going by the poor record of self regulatory bodies in other fields but I am not too impressed .To my mind the press has to free itself some of the vices like promotion of vested interests through motivated or embedded reporting to enhance its credibility to serve as a watch dog and a great source of information and education in a democracy.[/quote]

I understood the usage of 'Czar' the same way as used in the thread. This is that a journalist must not act without social responsibility. I also appreciate the understanding of misuse of censorship power during emergency. If self regulation is idealistic, regulation by outside agencies may also not be effective or not serve purpose as the individuals involved may not be really sincere. In spite of censor, many films contain objectionable content and are objected to after screening.

There are cost of everything. Democracy also has a cost. Censorship results in negation of freedom of expression. This is beyond doubt. So, we have to devise means other than censorship. There should be a foolproof code of journalist conduct. The Chief editors of journals should be made squarely responsible for adherence to the code of conduct for any contents of their publication. Periodical scrutiny of the journalistic content: called censor or anything: is also no problem. I am opposed to prior censor only. This type of censor not only negates journalistic freedom but also delays reporting and thereby frustrates the very purpose of journalism.

There are also differences of opinion about obscenity, vulgarity and similar matters related to journalism. It is not safe to arrogate power of deciding these issue by Govt. officers and politicians. This must be left to journalists themselves. That is why self regulatory system in journals should be strengthened.

The only area where intervention by govt. is acceptable is security concern and damage to personal reputation. As regards national security, primarily the govt. officials and ministers are responsible for not leaking classified information to press. It is not just and proper to gag press by censor for lapse of the politicians and bureaucrats. The govt. as well as aggrieved parties may resort to criminal and civil suits against concerned journalists.

There is one more aspect. The politicians and even bureaucrats are these days fond of meeting press and getting personal publicity. In this process, news damaging personal image and also state secrets may leak to press. It will be better to restrain politicians and bureaucrats rather than imposing censorship. The film personalities and sports persons running to press for personal image boosting should also consider that exposure to press is not without side effects. there is no justification for gagging press to safeguard image of these self personal image boosters.