Introduction) The press, commonly known as the fourth estate, is an

influential force in everyday life, and an ubiquitous information

source. From consuming it, people get to know much more about
events around the world. The first Freedom of the Press Act, a
Swedish legislation, abolished the government’s role as a censor of
printed matter, and allowed for the official activities of the
government to be made public. This freedom of the press, of the
media, essentially meant freedom of information for the masses. Yet,
is regulation (in any form), desirable at the expense of this freedom,
which could be argued as a basic human right? I believe it is desirable,
but only to the extent that it is ultimately beneficial for the people.

(R 1) Some say that regulation is not desirable, because it violates

human rights. Freedom of information is part of Article 19 of the
Universal Declaration of Human Rights, set by the United Nations
(UN). Because every human has this right to access news whenever
and wherever they wish to, regulation, by setting certain limitations
and rules on what can or cannot be published, inherently will control
the contents of the press and goes against this right. All content from
the press should be made available without regulation; the ones who
choose what to read or watch should be the individuals themselves,
out of their own free will, and not any other party. The press (and
media) is the neutral medium to transmit such information
objectively, and should not be limited by regulated to only present
some news only, or to be made inaccessible to the public. Hence,
regulation, given that it inherently opposes human right, is
undesirable.

(S 1) But, while regulation may violate rights of viewers, but, if left

unchecked (gone too far), the press may violate the rights of their
subjects of interest/news, especially for sensationalism and hits. In
this case, regulation is necessary (desirable), if done objectively and
independently, to serve as a check to such journalism. The press is a
business, and ultimately, for it to run it sometimes resorts to these
insensitive, ruthless ways to get the news or scoops that will attract the
masses, especially if left unregulated. For instance, in the incident of
Princess Diana’s death in a car crash, the paparazzi who followed the
car and her intoxicated and drunk chauffeur were the main causes of
the tragedy. Furthermore, because she still remained a popular and
influential public figure with the masses even after her death, the
press took advantage of that and continued exaggerated coverage of
her death and inquests into the causes and circumstances surrounding
it. The British newspaper The Daily Express is one such publication
that has been criticized for this. A 2006 report in The Guardian
showed that the newspaper had mentioned her in numerous recent
news stories, with headlines including “Perhaps Diana should have
worn seatbelt”, “Diana inquiry chief’s laptop secrets stolen”,
“£250,000 a year bill to run Diana fountain” and “Diana seatbelt
sabotage probe”. Hence, in this case, regulation to prevent such
insensitive coverage may be desirable.

(S 2) Furthermore, it is unlikely for a publication to be unbiased and

objective if left to its own devices or its own self-regulation, hence,
some form of external regulation is necessary. Again, in the attempt to
appeal to more viewers and gain a loyal following, they may present
news in an falsified, opinionated way. This makes it more interesting
and leaves a greater emotional impact on their audiences, who came
precisely for such content. Such press bias tends to be especially
prominent when associated with politics. For instance, on the issue of
climate change and global warming, the latest (fifth) IPCC
(Intergovernmental panel on Climate change) assessment report
states that humans are most likely responsible for global warming
since 1951. 97% of peer-reviewed literature and climate scientists
accept this view; only 3% do not accept this consensus position. But, a
study conducted by Media Matters for America shows that in stories
about this report, rather than accurately reflect this consensus, select
media outlets have created a false perception of discord amongst
climate scientists. Specifically, politically conservative news outlets
like Fox News (69%) and the Wall Street Journal (50%) were
responsible for most of the doubters, even though the presenters may
have no background in climate science. In the UK coverage of the
IPCC report, again, the politically conservative Times, Daily Mail, and
Telegraph gave the contradicting views disproportionately large
coverages. In this case, regulation to ensure that accurate, objective
information is presented to the masses is needed and hence desirable.

(R 2) Some argue that regulation is not desirable, especially in state-

controlled media, because of corruption, governments forcefully use
the press for their own advantage, and control the citizens. For
instance, the 2016 World Press Freedom Index by Reporters Without
Borders (RSF) showed that there has been a deep and disturbing
decline in media freedom at both the global and regional levels. RSF
reports that such is caused by “increasingly authoritarian tendencies
of governments in countries such as Turkey and Egypt”, and “tighter
government control of state-owned media”. Some governments do not
hesitate to “suspend access to the Internet or even to destroy the
premises, broadcast equipment or printing presses of media outlets
they dislike.” These caused the infrastructure indicator to fall from
16% from 2013 to 2016. Instead of a free press that is also able to
investigate on and serve as a check to the government, such hostile
regulations prevent it from doing this, causing the press to end up as a
tool that states can freely destroy and control for their own purposes.
It is forced to suppress the truth of matters, unable to present what is
truly important. Ultimately, this serves to support the state’s own
authoritarian propaganda. Specifically, it kills two birds with one
stone; they can then spread their own ideologies, while also keep the
citizens uninformed, ensuring that power is not undermined by
educated/informed citizens (who may rebel). Hence, in this light,
when regulation is abused by states to control the press, information
and the citizens in these unethical ways, it is undesirable, and press
should remain free and independent.

(S 3) While state-controlled press is undesirable, on the other end of

the scale, if the press is left completely uncontrolled and presents
everything it finds, such is also inevitably, undesirable. The press, as
the fourth estate, has widespread influence on society. As such, it has
a social responsibility to present what is acceptable within the
boundaries of society, and hence, regulation is needed (and desirable).
Specifically, to ensure that there is no showing of immoral, explicit,
extremist or radical ideas that may potentially affect the public.
Different people have different degrees of tolerance and reactions to
such controversial news, so it should be regulated accordingly. For
instance, to prevent children from seeing overly violent or explicit
content, or the showing of hate speech, which may lead to
unnecessarily strong public reactions or outcries. As the phrase “some
things are better left unsaid” goes, while the press and journalism do
have the duty to investigate, find and present events/happenings
around the world, if such instances add no positive value to the
public’s understanding of the world, and only incite or evoke negative
emotions or reactions, then perhaps there is need for regulation to
phase these news out. In these situations, regulation then becomes
desirable.