The Impact of News on Citizens: A Case for Responsible Disclosure

Gone are those days when our fathers had to stay close to their radio at all times or change from our favourite cartoon or movie channel to news on the clock so they could be abreast of the latest happening in the country, while some other have the newspaper spot as their favourite location to get the latest news, compare to now where we've got news flying all around just at the thumb of our hands through the help of the internet and social media.

Source

Now, the news is not only easily accessible by everyone, but it also spreads fast and not as authentic anymore, unfortunately so does fake news which is the very disadvantage of fast-spreading news through the help of technology. So the question of whether the government needs to be open at all times or filter some news to the citizens of the country is a two-way thing.

For me, I think there should be a fair balance. Yes, the government needs to be open concerning certain news, people should have the right to be informed on all the matters pertaining to their country. This transparency is considered crucial for leaders answerability, and in the case of election, voters would make the right choices and trust the system. The last election in my country was a testament to the fact that the government and media are not being fair to the citizens as it was very glaring that the results were tampered with, how then would we have the trust to come back to vote during another election after the current lost in trust not being true and open.

Some would inevitably argue that some other important news should be hushed, especially when they are capable of provoking civil unrest, I believe it is more honorable and enabling to begin with the principle of the utilisation of the voice of citizens and how they are able to manage with unfavourable realities than for the government to take on the role of the parents and caretakers of citizens who cannot be entrusted with certain truths. However, yes, there can be some news that could be quite disheartening, but people got to know their stand in life.

On the other hand, nationalism is among the most apparent reasons why the sovereign would not allow the population to receive news, such as the military operations, as such kind of news is dangerous to the people and poses risks to the country. But also granting more advantage to the terrorists as well.

Next to security there is also the feature that some negative new is also psychologically affecting the citizens. I have since then seen a movie where the people of one community were getting threats, crises, and problems information and they turned nervous, hopeless for the future, and it is the worst thing that can happen extinguishing the resilience of the citizens.

Thus, when it is possible, it is more appropriate to provide the information and disclose it, unless there are some peculiarities which require the opposite action. Any information which citizens should have available when it comes to how their country is managed, decisions making concerning money and other information, and so on can be categorized as essential information for the citizens to have if they are to have a say in the management of affairs and or if they are to do the managing themselves.

But at the same time, I do remember the cases where temporary or permanent secrecy is vital, like I have mentioned earlier, it is all about moderation, know when to says something and when not to as a government.

Thank you for reading. ❤❤