In the turmoil of our nation's War on Terror we actually succeeded in capturing something of value; I am referring to, of course, Saddam Hussein. Everyone surely remembers the relief and I daresay patriotic narcissism that was felt when we heard of this capture. A capture that many of us thought signalled a coming end to our overseas adventures. However, as we awaited further information other than, "Yes, it's him and we are currently interrogating him," we were left wanting. Has anyone else noticed the disappearance of Saddam? When was the last time we heard something new regarding this milestone capture? The fact is, we really haven't heard much at all. This example brings up quite a more appliable, more broad debate regarding government as a notion in itself. Let me propose this:

In an ideal government:

Would a well informed public create a more controlled public, or on the contrary, does withholding information from the public create less stress on the masses and therefore control the situation?

I am extremely interested in the ideas of "Ideal Government" and feel the issue of media control is quite a large factor in the discussion of it thereof. Thus, I would be quite interested to hear your debates and reasonings regarding this topic. Thank you to all who respond.

Sincerely,

Locke




Note: Moved to General Political Debate from War on Terrorism -Jaime

I think withholding information creates more stress on the public and makes certain segments of it less controllable among those who want to know, while those who do not want to see the mistakes and shortcomings of the incumbent and his administration would be far more comfortable, and hence more controlled, not hearing about the abuses that went on at Abu Ghraib prison and the memo or memos that Attorney General John Ashcroft is refusing to hand over for the Congressional investigation.

The whole thing makes me thankful that there are still members of the press who want to learn and publish the truth.

As far as Saddam Hussein goes, would we feel better if we learned that he was sodomized with chemical lightsticks, held under water and made to think he was going to drown, stripped naked and humiliated? Our response to that question would be quite telling about us as individuals.

Obviously the American public doesn't need to know every minutiae of troop movement and battle plans in Afghanistan or Iraq. Some things have to be kept hidden of course and I don't doubt for a minute that anyone would disagree. At the same time, I think the key thing is openness after a given fact. Whether it is good news or horrifying news, complete and total openness is required. Anything kept secret will be more detrimental to the national interest, I can't think of an instance in which that wasn't the case.

[QUOTE]I think withholding information creates more stress on the public...QUOTE]

The effect on the public isn't really the deciding factor in whether or not to release information....it is the effect on government. Government, just like any other entity, acts in its own self-interest. So, decisions will be made that create less stress on government....stress on the public is only a related symptom. Also, just to make sure things don't get sidetracked here, this is certainly not a phenomenon specific to this administration....it's how governments (all governments) have always functioned, and always will function. No entity will intentionally create stress for itself.

Would a well informed public create a more controlled public, or on the contrary, does withholding information from the public create less stress on the masses and therefore control the situation?

It's a balancing act. Governments will release enough information to appease the public (or, the media)...but try not to release information that would create stress on itself. You can argue all you want about what an ideal theoretical situation should be, but this is how governments will always operate.