2. If you owned a community newspaper and had to formulate a policy for your editors about which letters from readers could appear in a limited space on your editorial page, what kinds of letters would you eliminate and why? Would you be acting as a censor in this situation? Why or why not?
If I owned a newspaper my first concern would be credibility, therefore I would want my newspaper to be as unbiased as possible. So the first policy would be to show both sides of the story. I would set a quota for each side in order to have a decent amount of each opinion. It does not have to be totally equal but as long as there is a chance for each side of the story to be heard. The way I could utilize the small amount of space is by publishing the letters that have the most relevance to the story and is not just some crazy person going off on how much they hate or love something. I would want opinions and views based off of facts in my paper. In that way I would be a sort of a censor but as long as there is not something totally inappropriate and illegal to be published then I would not mind whatever people have to say.
3. The writer A.J. Liebling once said that freedom of the press belonged only to those who owned one. Explain why you agree or disagree.
Technically speaking, yes I believe that he is right although I think I still have a different opinion than him. Freedom of the press only belongs to people who have them because they physically have a press to use and say what they want. Freedom of the press does still belong to people who do not have a press but they do not have access to a press so they cannot exercise that freedom. If they pay someone to use it or get their own then they their previously dormant freedom becomes active and they can exercise it. Everybody has the same freedoms, just not everyone can exercise all of their freedoms.
No comments:
Post a Comment