DOES ANY CIRCUMSTANCE WARRANT THE MEDIA’S PROHIBITION OF INFORMATION?

user ballots

Popular Ballots
Recent Popular
Recent Votes

Best
Worst
Yes or No
Choices
What If
Prediction
Advice
Would You
Crime
Recommend
Quiz

TV & Movie
Music & Radio
Political
Science
Sports
Relationship
Techonology
Culture
Philosophy
Religion
Ethics
History
Food & Health
Fashion & Beauty
Crime
FanBase

Discussion
Bug Report

DOES ANY CIRCUMSTANCE WARRANT THE MEDIA’S PROHIBITION OF INFORMATION?

[+] serious ballot by winston
ACTIVE Sat Mar 01, 08 - Sun Mar 01, 09
This ballot is in relation to the embargo international media sources subjugated themselves to in a reluctant agreement with the British Government concerning Prince Harry’s recent military deployment in Afghanistan. Do certain situations (i.e. when human lives are at stake) merit the media’s reservation to report on a prominent issue?

Yes, the media is right to withhold information from the general public in certain cases.
No, the media should be free to report on current affairs without bureaucratic interference from gov

Ballot #123342 : SEE RESULTS

Comment:

show your vote with comment?

v 2.0 © BESTANDWORST.COM

smile bank:

similiar ballots:
94100. Prohibition-1/Prohibition-2 -IS there any difference?
123230. How long did Prohibition last?
110872. Bush & co can now read your mail without a warrant
92318. Should Bush be impeached for illegally ordering wiretaps without a warrant?
77355. There was a higher percentage of alcoholics during prohibition than today. Do you think the same thing would happen if we legalize drugs?
114327. India issues an arrest warrant for Richard Gere for kissing in public?
61446. Why is it that when CBS, a neutral media source, makes an honest mistake about George W. Bush, it's because "the media is liberal" ...
124810. When are people asking for too much information?
63809. Mind Boggling Information
92200. When a president leaks information....

COMMENTS:
Voted : Yes, the media is right to withhold information from the general public in certain cases.
That was disgusting, in my opinion. It served no purpose to report he was there.

It seems the American media put more importance in selling news, with no regard to the lives they may have put in danger.

by britvic55 on Sat Mar 01, 08 8:50am [+]

Voted : Yes, the media is right to withhold information from the general public in certain cases.
Yes, if it's a matter of life and death.

by skylab on Sat Mar 01, 08 10:32am [+]

Voted : Yes, the media is right to withhold information from the general public in certain cases.
If it would/could cause harm to a Countries vital interests or well being (a slip of the lips can sink a thousand ships)

by thesoothsayer on Sat Mar 01, 08 11:00am [+]

winston, that is a good question. I'll have to sleep on that before answering. The Prince Harry Incident put a helluva lot more than just His Highness at risk. His entire unit was at risk because of that leak. The media has its right to report the news, but not at the risk of human life.

Maybe that's my answer there. I'll still revisit this come the morn.

by Truthseeker013 on Sat Mar 01, 08 6:19pm [+]

I think it was the Australian press that reported it first, but either way, it imo was a terrible thing to do.

by larrynelmira on Sun Mar 02, 08 7:48am [+]

About Us | Join Us | Privacy Policy | Contact