"Some people think that the detailed criminal description on newspaper and TV has bad influences, so this kind of information should be restricted on the media." Do you agree or disagree with this statement? Give your own opinion.

A number of individuals reckon that the meticulous lawbreaker description on

news

articles and TV has several negative impacts;

therefore

,

this

should be restrained on the mass media. From my perspective, I voice disapproval of the aforementioned in that I believe the proposal is convincing enough, as well as having many drawbacks far outweighing its advantages. In the

first

place, it is the suggestion that encroaches upon the inalienable right to freely obtain information from media sources of every citizen. Be it sensitive or obscene,

news

, concerning crimes and hotly-debated issues, is essential for everyone to acknowledge, as

this

is for the sake of their security and safety.

For example

, in view of detailed criminal explanation, the more thorough the explanation is, the more aware and alert inhabitants are. What is more, it is undeniable that humans are living in modern times where the mass media dominates and knowledge takes priority over others.

Hence

, it would be irrational if one's access to a meticulous lawbreaker account be denied, as most are educated and conscious enough to justify whether or not any piece of data would make them vulnerable or insulted.

For instance

, for those who show no interest in criminology as well as find it tedious to read about, they only have to skip it and turn onto another piece of

news

.

Nevertheless

, to a certain extent, censorship is necessary if the criminal account goes against public morality.

Furthermore

, as long as

news

publishers are beware that sensational pieces of information are kept out of bounds to young children, the dissemination of crimes-related issues would not arouse either public furore or objections. Take,

for example

, one approach that editors could make use of to avoid undesirable waves of anger is that they can promote a separate column on which criminals and illegal actions are reported, so underage kids are suggested not to read

this

without adults' supervision. All things considered, while some kind of censorship is essential for certain subjects, a meticulous lawbreaker description definitely keeps us on the alert for any potential hazards to our safety.

Thus

, I support the view that under no circumstances are restrictions on detailed criminal explanations to be regulated.