In past years the use of technology has changed the way people receive and view the media. These changes have allowed people to have quick access to information about the world as well as allowing people to have an almost endless expanse of new media and news to analyze and receive information from. However, with this new influx of media regulations must be put in place in order to protect the general public and guarantee that the media is fair and open to the public at large. Examples of these regulations the government has attempted to impose would be the Equal Time Rule, the Right of Reply, and the Political Editorializing Rule. These regulations allowed the government to protect the public; However, regulating the media can create unfair
…show more content…
Under this rule people are able to defend themselves in the case that their views are attacked and give counter arguments to their imposed attack. By having this law people can protect themselves in an argument and do not have to accept the argument being given to them but instead counter it. The Right of Reply is able to protect those who appear on television and in media by allowing them to defend their opinions and protect their freedom of speech. If one is not able to defend themselves when attacked they are unable to show the counter arguments and show how they view the situation at hand. One could find this unconstitutional in that it could undermine the media and keep them from reporting their side of an argument; However, it appears more appropriate for anyone to protect their freedom of speech rather than giving the media the right to personally attack a person without their defense. This rule is able to protect the freedom of speech and allows one to give counter arguments when their own beliefs are attacked (Blakely, 1999, p. 12-15). The Right of Reply is able to give those who are attacked the ability to give counter arguments and defense to their actions to the media and prevent the media from being an unquestionable …show more content…
This rule allows candidates for office to give their viewpoints on a situation despite a media outlet declaring that they support the actions or beliefs of another candidate. Through this rule candidates for office are able to justify why they believe in a certain action or situation and are able to give justifications despite the medias belief and preference for another candidates viewpoint. This is important in order to keep the electoral system fair as it is able to give candidates the chance to give their opinions on a topic and counter the claims or viewpoints of another candidate. Under this candidates for office can use the media in order to show their view points and abilities over another candidate as well as get their name in the public eye as a counter to another candidate. One may view this as being an infringement on the right of the media and the candidate being discussed as it prevents the views of a candidate from being publicly appreciated and viewed without scrutiny from another candidate. This rule could also cause problems as the media and the candidate are discredited through these arguments as they are misinterpreted by other candidates and media outlets. However, this allows other candidates to get their beliefs out publically and more importantly protect the electoral system and spirit of debate (Craig, 2001, 23-25). The Political
Under this rule people are able to defend themselves in the case that their views are attacked and give counter arguments to their imposed attack. By having this law people can protect themselves in an argument and do not have to accept the argument being given to them but instead counter it. The Right of Reply is able to protect those who appear on television and in media by allowing them to defend their opinions and protect their freedom of speech. If one is not able to defend themselves when attacked they are unable to show the counter arguments and show how they view the situation at hand. One could find this unconstitutional in that it could undermine the media and keep them from reporting their side of an argument; However, it appears more appropriate for anyone to protect their freedom of speech rather than giving the media the right to personally attack a person without their defense. This rule is able to protect the freedom of speech and allows one to give counter arguments when their own beliefs are attacked (Blakely, 1999, p. 12-15). The Right of Reply is able to give those who are attacked the ability to give counter arguments and defense to their actions to the media and prevent the media from being an unquestionable …show more content…
This rule allows candidates for office to give their viewpoints on a situation despite a media outlet declaring that they support the actions or beliefs of another candidate. Through this rule candidates for office are able to justify why they believe in a certain action or situation and are able to give justifications despite the medias belief and preference for another candidates viewpoint. This is important in order to keep the electoral system fair as it is able to give candidates the chance to give their opinions on a topic and counter the claims or viewpoints of another candidate. Under this candidates for office can use the media in order to show their view points and abilities over another candidate as well as get their name in the public eye as a counter to another candidate. One may view this as being an infringement on the right of the media and the candidate being discussed as it prevents the views of a candidate from being publicly appreciated and viewed without scrutiny from another candidate. This rule could also cause problems as the media and the candidate are discredited through these arguments as they are misinterpreted by other candidates and media outlets. However, this allows other candidates to get their beliefs out publically and more importantly protect the electoral system and spirit of debate (Craig, 2001, 23-25). The Political