They say that the pen is mightier than the sword. And they are right.
At the same time, it is accepted wisdom in many parts of the world, except the US, that gun control goes a long way to improve the quality of a society.
But if disseminating words to a large audience is a more powerful weapon than firing bullets, why is there so little media control in the world today?
Actually, much of the communal or ethnic violence anywhere in the world is preceded by media coverage, which, often between the lines, foments communal and ethnic hatred.
Tito contained it in Yugoslavia, and Suharto in Indonesia, and in both cases, controlling the media was instrumental.
Governments around the world had better not be misled by US rhetoric about press freedom.
The US promotes press freedom anywhere around the world not for lofty ethical concerns, but because it is intrinsically in its interest. Because press freedom, in most countries where it is implemented, destabilizes that country and weakens it, it always favors the one country that wants to preserve its superpower status.
But the freedom of the press is not only negative on the political level where it is responsible for mass murder and ethnic cleansing.
When the media takes interest in a person's private life, this often equates to a violent assault. And while in many Western European countries (except the UK), the media refrains from intruding too shamelessly into the private lives of public personalities, there is no such restraint in developing countries with press freedom. Even unsubstantiated rumors about a person's sexual conduct are exploited extensively. The only protection public figures can avail themselves of consists of making payments to reporters so they keep quiet.
(1961-1997)
From many other angles, to allow the free use of a weapon such as the media to anybody who fancies wielding it is damaging to society.
And because a free media also functions as a sexual police (hypocritical to the extreme), it has a detrimental effect on sexual liberation.
So, what can be done to rid the world of the negative effects of free media?
Because many rich and prominent people in the West have been suffering from uncontrolled media coverage, trusts or citizens' groups could be established in many Western countries, which could solicit financial help from rich and prominent people.
In the style of NGOs, developing-country governments could be advised of the many negative effects an uncontrolled press has on their countries. And potential large investors in developing countries should be informed of the danger they face from a developing country's free media.
And other authors could help in the endeavor to debunk the many myths about press freedom having a positive effect on societies. After all, we know that the other weapons-related freedom, the freedom to bear arms, is almost always entirely negative.