Some people suggest that there should be restrictions on a detailed description of crimes in the newspapers and on television. To what extent do you agree or disagree?
The violence contents broadcasted by the mass media have been singled out in recent years as a matter of urgent public concern. It has been argued that a detailed description of crimes should be restricted. I totally concur with this view for the following justifications.
First of all, it is believed that thanks to a wide variety of daily crime news broadcasted in the media, ranging from pickpocketing, shoplifting, burglary to homicide or murder, viewers could have a deep-rooted understanding of the criminal underworld, assisting them with a prevention strategy or even teaching them how to resolve problems while unfortunately being in these hazardous situations. Nonetheless, facts have shown that in accompany with merits is the possibility of viewers involved in offenses. In pursuit of a high audiences rating, TV programme producers are likely to go into detail as much as possible in crime reports. Some of them can go so far as to present the whole procedure for a law-offending practice. Not surprisingly, those reports turn out to be free courses from which prospective criminals can learn sophisticated technique to carry out their brutal crimes. Those instead make a significant contribution to the rise in crime rates in the whole society.
Another rationale opposed to detailed descriptions of crime reports is to give peple a basic belief in a peaceful and secure life. It should be recognised that aiming to draw attention of the desired audiences, the news media tend to put strong emphasis on serious crimes or vastly exaggerate the magnitude of the real threat; for example, consequences of a terrotism attack could be repeatedly highlight in the media. It would end up with causing panic amongst population and lead them to doubt seriously about surroundings. Mutal belief amongst humans, as a result, would be destructive. From this perspective, there is no point in denying that full depictions of crime reports should be restrained.
As analysed above, it is concluded that the government should impose constraints on detailed descriptions of offence reports so as to minimise opportunities for criminals to learn tricks and reinforce human belief in a serene and credible world. It is expected that in the future there will be no need for any forms of those reports as the dismissal of criminals in the society.
The violence contents broadcasted by the mass media have been singled out in recent years as a matter of urgent public concern. It has been argued that a detailed description of crimes should be restricted. I totally concur with this view for the following justifications.
First of all, it is believed that thanks to a wide variety of daily crime news broadcasted in the media, ranging from pickpocketing, shoplifting, burglary to homicide or murder, viewers could have a deep-rooted understanding of the criminal underworld, assisting them with a prevention strategy or even teaching them how to resolve problems while unfortunately being in these hazardous situations. Nonetheless, facts have shown that in accompany with merits is the possibility of viewers involved in offenses. In pursuit of a high audiences rating, TV programme producers are likely to go into detail as much as possible in crime reports. Some of them can go so far as to present the whole procedure for a law-offending practice. Not surprisingly, those reports turn out to be free courses from which prospective criminals can learn sophisticated technique to carry out their brutal crimes. Those instead make a significant contribution to the rise in crime rates in the whole society.
Another rationale opposed to detailed descriptions of crime reports is to give peple a basic belief in a peaceful and secure life. It should be recognised that aiming to draw attention of the desired audiences, the news media tend to put strong emphasis on serious crimes or vastly exaggerate the magnitude of the real threat; for example, consequences of a terrotism attack could be repeatedly highlight in the media. It would end up with causing panic amongst population and lead them to doubt seriously about surroundings. Mutal belief amongst humans, as a result, would be destructive. From this perspective, there is no point in denying that full depictions of crime reports should be restrained.
As analysed above, it is concluded that the government should impose constraints on detailed descriptions of offence reports so as to minimise opportunities for criminals to learn tricks and reinforce human belief in a serene and credible world. It is expected that in the future there will be no need for any forms of those reports as the dismissal of criminals in the society.
