A Need for Media Self-Censorship.
We need the media to be careful about how it reports, and for the police to stop feeding the media violence.
January 14, 2009.
Few of us want to see government getting involved with deciding what is appropriate for the news to cover. Even fewer want to see the government denying information to the media. Yet with the shocking lack of moderation by the commercial media, and the frequent appeals to the worst in human nature, we may need government to take a more active role censoring the media.
The case of Darrel O. Brown, a private citizen who chose to engage in a case of extreme violence during a police stop, is a perfect example of why we need more media censorship in our country. While it is beneficial to have a public debate over police practices and mental illness in our country, the media coverage has done nothing to benefit the debate.
The public needs information about how it's government operates. That's why we have a freedom of information law that allows access to all government records. Yet, that information is limited, for good reasons such as personal privacy or endangering the public well being. The freedom of information law also comes with a delay, providing both time for compliance by the agency, and a cooling down period for public sentiment.
The State Police should not have released the disturbing video of shooting and limited details of this violent act. The media should have been morally responsible, and not shared it with the public, particularly in prominent locations where young children could have been exposed to such horrific violence. The police and media already limit information about suicides committed in private.
We would, as a society, have been very been disturbed if the State Police has released a video tape of an accused child molester raping an innocent child. There would be protests in front of television stations for exposing the privacy of a child, and showing such depraved violence. Yet, showing a shoot out with cops on prime time television or on the front page of newspapers is fine.
The police should never reveal information about private individuals to the media, except through formalized freedom of information requests, processed per the 30-day window set out in law. The media should be free to analyze the raw data and facts about cases, but they should be prohibited from sensationalizing stories.
If the State Police had remained mum about this story, then it would not have been reported by the media. Reporters could have pieced it together through FOIL requests and studying the court calender or death records, and provide the public with the information they need to know, but without all the horrific violence.
Many people choose to live without a television set. Yet even those people are troubled when they turn on the radio and hear headlines blaring out the most recent murder. Newspapers and internet news sources also use horrific headlines, just to sell more soap and used cars. It's impossible to avoid such horrors when they have such selling value.
The First Amendment protects the Freedom of Speech. Everybody is opposed to government telling media what it may or may not cover. Yet, the first amendment doesn't instruct police on what they must tell the media, nor does the First Amendment require the media to cover every story they learn about.
If the media didn't focus such wanton violence, other stories could have been discussed. Maybe they could have discussed the high level of carnage from car crashes on our highways or mental illness in our cities. Or how government agencies fail to provide the public with actual useful information on how they operate.
