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 independence surveys, made no mention of it in its fundamental law whilst North Korea, which does, often ranked the last in such surveys (Press Freedom Index 2010 Freedom of the Press 2010). Press immunity is often equated with elective societies, but Noam Chomsky believes that there are two different conceptions of democracy, each shaping their own brand of press freedom. The first is participatory democracy where citizens are gnarly in the workings of the state and thus, communication channels are necessarily kept free and open. However, its antithesis the non-participatory democracy keeps people off the business of governance personal business 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 role model of the second type. Presi dent Wilson, for example, created the Creel Commission to oversee the governments propaganda machinery and turn 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 political freedoms. An underlying rationale for manufacturing consent was the notion that the average man cannot fully appreciation the intricacies of common political and social interests and thus, his thoughts must be directed. Only the intellectual elite can comprehend them and it must act to bring public touch sensation 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 common knowledge that its press published only what the government wanted the public to read. An even glaring example is the manipulation of public perspicacity through the use of propaganda machinery by some of the perceived freest countries in the world 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 amongst the system and the press. The UK is no exception. The history of press freedom in the country is checkered with the Church and the pennant 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 contend ing interests between the private and the public and between the government. Even in the freest of nations, press freedom surrenders a part of it to conflicting interests that are at play in the social, legal and political make-up of the state. inviolable press freedom, therefore, is almost always non-existent only diluted and compromised press freedom.