What does 'Freedom Of The Press' Mean To what extent does it exist in Essay

What does Freedom Of The Press Mean To what extent does it exist in Modern Britain - Essay Exampleress costlessdom surveys, do no mention of it in its constitution whilst North Korea, which does, often ranked the last in such(prenominal) surveys (Press Freedom Index 2010 Freedom of the Press 2010). Press freedom is often equated with democratic societies, but Noam Chomsky believes that there are two different conceptions of democracy, each shaping their own brand of press freedom. The first is democratic democracy where citizens are involved in the workings of the posit and thus, conference channels are needfully kept free and open. However, its antithesis the non-participatory democracy keeps people off the business of government affairs and thus, information and communication are controlled by the state. Chomsky believes that the second kind is most prevalent today (Chomsky 2002 pp. 6-7). Chomsky points out the US as a perfect vitrine of the second type. President Wilson, for example, created the Creel Commission to oversee the governments propaganda machinery and debate a generally pacifist public into a war-hungry, anti-German fanatics so the US government would be free to join the war unopposed. The same technique was used to whip up the public to a state of red scare so that it would be supportive of the governments programs of eliminating unions and restricting press and governmental freedoms. An underlying rationale for manuf propeluring consent was the notion that the average man cannot fully grasp the intricacies of crude policy-making and social interests and thus, his thoughts must be directed. Only the intellectual elite can comprehend them and it must act to bring public opinion towards their fulfillment even if it entails deceiving them. In such types of democracies, press freedom becomes a casualty of the manipulative intellectuals (Chomsky...Even the collapsed Soviet Union guaranteed press freedom in its constitution but it was com mon knowledge that its press published only what the government wanted the public to read. An even glaring example is the manipulation of public opinion through the use of propaganda machinery by some of the perceived freest countries in the creation for the purpose of legitimising their social and political agenda with the least opposition. Moreover, the history of press freedom shows that it always entails a form of struggle amidst the system and the press. The UK is no exception. The history of press freedom in the awkward is checkered with the Church and the Crown alternatively suppressing it in the name of religion or the King. Even in contemporary times, when the country is considered one of the freest democracies in the world, the complete exercise of press freedom is hindered by legislations or policies that lean more towards the promotion of other interests. The often underpinning rationale for the obstacles of press freedom is the ever-present contending interests betwe en the private and the public and between the government. Even in the freest of nations, press freedom surrenders a part of it to contradictory interests that are at play in the social, legal and political make-up of the state. Absolute press freedom, therefore, is or so always non-existent only diluted and compromised press freedom.