Anti War
After watching the three videos and reflecting back on cases that are based around the First Amendment, the videos show a pattern of anti-war voices being silenced. The government has often used incitement of violence or threat of national security as a way of trying to silence unpopular opinions. I believe this is still true in today's society.
Prior to this assignment, I was not aware of the websites shared. I found the websites to be interesting. I believe the reason anti-war voices are not encouraged in mainstream news is because the media wants to control the information that is shared with the public. The government and the news media want to control the dialogue of the information that is being put out. If unbiased news is presented to the public, too many opinions and questions would come up. They want to control the narrative. War also typically benefits one political party over another. With this usually comes quid pro quo.
History has shown us that politics and news agencies, especially in our current day, often represent the view of one political party and not that of the people. Your political views might influence which network or source you get your information from, which is unfortunate. The news should be unbiased and based solely on facts. News networks are a business. Whoever has control, controls the information that is put out.
The danger in this is that there are people who are not able to make intelligent and informed decisions for themselves. They aren’t able to hear viewpoints open-mindedly and separate opinions from facts. This again leads to the media controlling what people believe, as opposed to what is truly going on around them. Acknowledging and supporting strong anti-war voices comes down to one thing, it being bad for business.
No comments:
Post a Comment