All I'm saying is, if media have the right to tell the public and play their role to inform, educate, entertain and persuade, it is merely justifiable to expose what they see on their field job. However, some countries insist to have limitations for media freedom to cover and tell only good things about the government.
I'd just refer back to the classic contradictory debate. Utilitarian media, controlled and monitored closely by the government create a press practice that's guided and not free. The result is national comfort. No watchdog to promote critics, no views to explore improvements, neither a tool and power to gain collective agreement on law enforcement. Assuming that no bad thing happens in a country (very unlikely) but is good news everything people want to see? Aren't humans craving sensations and change? Here, press limitation and regulation should be reconsidered.
On the other hand, l strongly suggest careful control and freedom for liberalitarian sort of media system. People can really (and have) overuse their what-so-called-right to justify their actions even when it comes to breaking another rights. The media, per se, their strongest shield is public sphere where opinions are gathered, and triggered, obviously. These opinions, are in times the driver, and other times a result of what media tell. Provocation, for instance, is the modest form of press freedom result. Let alone within a society that receives less education and only a little media literacy skill (if it has ever defined as one).
How?
Law? Legal? Media regulation?
Press Council.
This independent organisation is the benchmark of media practice in a country, and with the correspondence and cooperation with government, as well as non-profit social organisation to make sure both sides are catered and protected.
Cie dewan pers wkwkwk
