During wartime, the US has limited freedom of the press. Should this be allowed? Why or why not?

Question

During wartime, the US has limited freedom of the press. Should this be allowed? Why or why not?

Answer 1

During World Wars I and II there were no limitations on 'freedom of the press.'  Instead there were voluntary restrictions on what the press published.  

The military sat down with representatives of the news media and gave them guidelines on what information would be useful to the enemy.  

Sadly, that amount of responsibility is not found in today's new media.

Answer 2

National Security.  That is what is cited as a justification for every restriction of our freedoms.  Privacy, press, speech, habeas corpus... it's nothing new.  It's invisible government, and it's bad for democracy.

Answer 3

Limited my &%$ they are every where in the middle of everything, the news media has NO business in the middle of a war telling and showing where everyone is and what they are doing...they are a detriment to our armed forces.

Answer 4

For overall stability of the nation would be the only reason, although lately the spin/bias that different news networks put on the stories they report has been rather excessive (i.e. Fox News excluding Ron Paul from last night's debate, after he did better than Fred or McCain in Iowa).

But in a larger sense I would agree there should be no limit to the freedom of the press. One would hope that the press takes this freedom and delivers fair and honest commentary, but I won't keep my fingers crossed.

Answer 5

The press shouldn't be allowed to report military strategies, or locations of troops (remember Geraldo?).

Not being informed of tactical military information in no way infringes on the freedoms of Americans. And to think it does is very self righteous.

Answer 6

Sure the press should always have the right to tell the public.  The public needs to know everything!!!  

Give me a break!  Freedom of the Press was more about people having a right to their opinions and allowed to print whatever they wanted even if it was not supportive of the government or the majority opinion.  Had the press endangered the lives of the militias and American people during the revolutionary war, there is no doubt that that they would have been hanged by our founding fathers almost 250 years ago for treason.  

People do not have a right to know the private affairs of other citizens even if they are celebrities.  And some things about our troops or government do not need to be public knowledge if it endangers our country or its citizens.  The rights that we have cannot infringe on the rights of others.

Answer 7

Well normally I would say of course they should (Keeping moral high like in the London blitz etc) but since you can now declare a war on an 'ism' it leaves the prospect of a never ending war(Orwell anyone?) and an axcuse for even more government control extending beyond just the media.

Answer 8

No.  If anything, we've seen that the media is more important than ever during times of national crisis.  By silencing the media, the government is able to control public opinion and deflect criticism a lot more easily.

However, I have to add that the media, were it doing its job, could have provided the kind of coverage we needed to, for example, avoid the war in Iraq.  It chose not to do its job to avoid censure (being called unpatriotic), negative public opinion, and potential damage to its bottom line.  I'm thinking this self-censorship is much more incidious than the Patriot Act.

Answer 9

The US has limited freedom of the press at all times, not just during times of "war". The press in America is a business not a free flow of imformation for educating the public. Information is chosen by editors to be "run" and not to be "run" for many different reasons....most of all the political viewpoints of the owners, whether individuals or corporations, which own the papers. This is very evident in how the election process was coved and the stories which followed the election of Bush (on both occasions). The press will always be self serving to a certain degree and will run stories which serves it's, and not nessaserily the public's best intrest. Should this be allowed? In therory no, however the press is not officialy state run so it has the right to do what it wants to make money, gain leverage or support it's agenda.

Answer 10

No, because it goes against our consitutional rights.  We should never have to sacrifice freedom in the name of security.

Answer 11

I think that the press should be no where near any actual fighting.  This is only a hindrance for our soldiers trying to win a war.  War is a horrible thing with atrocities occurring regularly.  We do not need the press sticking their nose in and getting in the way of the mission.  We have yet to win the war in Iraq strictly because of the press.

Answer 12

It used to be that the press had a great deal of respect and did a great deal of self-sensorship.  FDR's being wheelchair bound would be a prime example.  Today's press know no bounds of decentcy.  They have "Investigative Reporters."  They haul these saps out when news is slow and create news sensations.  When we did the invasion of Grenada, the press was intentionally kept out of the loop.  Had they known, we'd have suffered a great loss of life.  When the ATF invaded the Davidian Ranch in Waco, Texas, CNN was their broadcasting live.  Those inside the compound were watching the news and knew exactly what was happening and where to shoot.  A lot of people needlessly lost their lives that day.

If we could honestly trust our government to do the right thing, then "yes," sensorship could be a good thing.  As is, we can't trust either the government or the news service.

Anyone care to venture a guess how close Clinton came to getting us into a war with China?  Or how close he came to starting the war in Iraq.  Most of you "Well informed" citizens don't even know what happened in the Bay of Pigs Invasion, or how many American lives were lost.  Ask me where I was just before Christmas in 1999.  Never trust a Clinton to do the right thing.  Ever.

Answer 13

Are you drunk?????

US has not done that any more.