Journal: The Press and Politics
Kent State University
Instr. Dr. Sharma
April 11, 2025
The prompt for this journal assignment is one that has been my focus for a few years, how media regulation serves the public. This is a nuanced topic, with much to be said in favor of and against media regulation both in practice and in theory. Campaign financing, freedom of the press, best practices, ownership, and net neutrality are all crucial issues to address when discussing the press and politics.
First, to best serve the public interest, media regulation must walk a thin line between honest reporting and harmful content. When disseminating information for the public eye, journalists must hold themselves and each other accountable when dealing with topics that can be harmful to marginalized communities. Prohibiting hate speech and yellow journalism (sensationalism instead of facts) must be paramount. Over 30 years ago, these types of stories were found in tabloids, but worldwide access to the internet seems to have helped unethical practices to skyrocket due to “clicks” becoming more important than ethics. Which then leads to a pandemic of mis/disinformation due to the collective media illiteracy.
Second, regulation of media ownership will reduce the amount of oligarchical influence on what is published and accessible. Instead of having access to what is of interest to the public, the public has interest only to what “they” want us to have access to. In the U.S. in particular, this all funnels directly into a fascist state, one that cis-het white USians have suddenly found themselves in (the rest of the population has already lived it and warned that it was coming). Regulating media ownership will also provide more opportunities for journalists, as well as more sources for readers to choose from.
Lastly, media regulation would only best serve the public by actively implementing journalistic practices that include ethical guidelines, accuracy standards. These two practices are the absolute minimum necessary to establish credibility of a news source. Without these standards, there is no hope to have a functioning and thriving democracy–rather than a Democratic Republic.
Returning to the mention of walking a thin line between honest and harmful, it’s important to identify how media regulation could be a hindrance to the public. Too much regulation would violate the First Amendment, specifically the rights to free speech and free press, and lay the groundwork for a fascist state. As we have been seeing in news reports and on social media, the government is actively silencing dissension among college students by revoking citizenship and student visas and illegally detaining them without access to representation.
The White House has already revoked several journalist passes for people they have decided are spreading lies and “false news”, when it’s the inquiry that they oppose. This is another method of silencing those who disagree with current practices. This has an unfortunate side effect of further limiting the undoctored information coming out of the White House, regardless of the folly and bumbling actions of the current administration who does more damage than any journalist could do.
Over regulation could also increase operation costs for media outlets who are not owned by billionaires or corporations that can absorb the cost, which means the media would then be primed and ready to solely serve those in power. This goes against the founding principles of journalism and media, which is to serve and inform the public of the actions of those in power.
Moving forward in the course, as one who dabbles in independent journalism as a means of explaining theories and social issues, I am most interested in freedom of the press.
Leave a Reply