Some of the following idea: to live in a democracy a citizen must be well informed. This implies, first developing a set of capabilities for the analysis of reality, the production of categories and the ability to process information and transmit it to others. On the other hand, involves broad access to information of interest. The latter is crucial, particularly in regard to public information or one that is likely to affect us personally, to define our values \u200b\u200band perceptions. The issue is irrelevant since in the Venezuelan public discussion has raised the possibility that the National Assembly to discuss a bill to regulate the coverage of the private media.
The argument has a classic tone, it is said that the media handling of the information is made public "misrepresents" the national reality and undermines the work of government. Say that the argument is a classic because by now the Venezuelans and are used to ten years of explanations and accusations by means of which the government tries to blame others for their inefficiency, or, in any case, try to make us believe that we live in an idyllic country where things work normally. Thus, the facts of corruption, attacks on the media, general crime, murder weekend, are the result of "media manipulation." Are the media interested doing a reading of reality that seeks to negatively affect the management of government.
Here we find several issues. Certainly each of us has in certain circumstances "positions concerned." Overall goals are not our reading about certain matters, even more, our subjectivity and interests 'Play' in determining the valuation we do about things. In this sense, one might well accept that the media can make a concerned look of reality and that, therefore, convey information about some issues from a particular point that may at one time favor some interests and disadvantage some other .
The Chairman of the Committee on Science, Technology and Media National Assembly, MP Manuel Villalba, said that means "not adequately inform the public, but instead have been spent to distort reality and create chaos and confusion for the reader and the viewer. " We should ask the deputy who rate the quality of information transmitted through the media, if in the end, the company only to validate the information being transmitted by the official media, or whether the government must maintain absolute control on news coverage and programming of the media, or whether to limit criticism.
Democracy implies the possibility that the most diverse points of view can be considered by those who participate in public discussion. The opinion of citizens and their judgments about government actions must be the result of the evaluation made about them and how they affect their lives. So in an open society the various points of view must have the real voice, for that the media must have a number of guarantees: first there must be real access to public information, particularly that which emanates from government agencies, on the other there should be no restrictions on the editorial line to follow in fulfilling the role of responsible reporting.
In a democracy the state must be permanently subjected to public scrutiny. The action of the officers has a representative character, therefore the control of their actions must be understood as a natural fact. Clearly, an important part of this monitoring function is performed by journalists and is presented to the public through the media. While the performance of the media must be responsible and must be tied to attitudes and ethical valuations, they do not have to have an accommodating nature of the government. When the State seeks to control in excess, as in my opinion what happens with the proposed above-mentioned Act, creates suspicion, is there something to hide?
The argument has a classic tone, it is said that the media handling of the information is made public "misrepresents" the national reality and undermines the work of government. Say that the argument is a classic because by now the Venezuelans and are used to ten years of explanations and accusations by means of which the government tries to blame others for their inefficiency, or, in any case, try to make us believe that we live in an idyllic country where things work normally. Thus, the facts of corruption, attacks on the media, general crime, murder weekend, are the result of "media manipulation." Are the media interested doing a reading of reality that seeks to negatively affect the management of government.
Here we find several issues. Certainly each of us has in certain circumstances "positions concerned." Overall goals are not our reading about certain matters, even more, our subjectivity and interests 'Play' in determining the valuation we do about things. In this sense, one might well accept that the media can make a concerned look of reality and that, therefore, convey information about some issues from a particular point that may at one time favor some interests and disadvantage some other .
The Chairman of the Committee on Science, Technology and Media National Assembly, MP Manuel Villalba, said that means "not adequately inform the public, but instead have been spent to distort reality and create chaos and confusion for the reader and the viewer. " We should ask the deputy who rate the quality of information transmitted through the media, if in the end, the company only to validate the information being transmitted by the official media, or whether the government must maintain absolute control on news coverage and programming of the media, or whether to limit criticism.
Democracy implies the possibility that the most diverse points of view can be considered by those who participate in public discussion. The opinion of citizens and their judgments about government actions must be the result of the evaluation made about them and how they affect their lives. So in an open society the various points of view must have the real voice, for that the media must have a number of guarantees: first there must be real access to public information, particularly that which emanates from government agencies, on the other there should be no restrictions on the editorial line to follow in fulfilling the role of responsible reporting.
In a democracy the state must be permanently subjected to public scrutiny. The action of the officers has a representative character, therefore the control of their actions must be understood as a natural fact. Clearly, an important part of this monitoring function is performed by journalists and is presented to the public through the media. While the performance of the media must be responsible and must be tied to attitudes and ethical valuations, they do not have to have an accommodating nature of the government. When the State seeks to control in excess, as in my opinion what happens with the proposed above-mentioned Act, creates suspicion, is there something to hide?
0 comments:
Post a Comment