"The degree of censorship for improper content and language in radio and television programs varies in different countries"Discuss the extent to which the government and other bodies should be allowed to censor public media.

Whether the government and other bodies should be free to censor radio and television for improper content and language is intricate issue. Some people believe that censorship contradicts the idea of democracy and especially the right of free expression supporting that there should be no censorship in the public media. After carefully weighting the following facts, it becomes clear that government or any appointed bureau should be allowed to screen the content displayed on certain television programs but not radio programs since disturbing news are significantly less damaging than visual content.

First of all, concerning television censorship, prime-time television programs should be very carefully censored and normalized so that it is appropriate for the entire family since children should be spared the risk of viewing improper or offensive content, such as unnecessary violence or obscene material, displayed on certain programs and films. Furthermore, advertisements and endorsements should be meticulously screened because improper scenes and pictures, which are normally very eye-catching to young children, are shown during the commercial breaks. Keeping in mind that in many households the television is switched on for inordinate periods of time without any parental guidance or adult supervision and potential exposure to improper content can completely change a child's focus or aim in life, we can comprehend the necessity of censorship.

Next, in the previous decades when censorship was not officially defined by government, marketing has found devious ways to exploit the human perception by passively injecting subliminal messages to the viewers. A prominent example is coca cola's, now banned, subliminal advertisements in the cinema and television. During the film play, occasional swiftly displayed images, at milliseconds scale, were injecting subliminal message about coca cola products. Subjects most likely did not even notice that they have seen a coca cola related image that had nothing to do with the movie they were attending. The profits of coca cola company met a significant increase until this maleficent trick was exposed to the public and citizens stepped in to end this exploitation. Other occurrences were also reported and that lead to the declaration of a censorship bureau that would prevent companies from psychologically exploiting viewers. In addition, this practice, has been scientifically proven that could severely damage the socio-psychological growth of children.

Finally, it is imperative however that censorship be minimal or zero for night programs on television to allow teenagers and adults the freedom to view the real world as it is. Indeed, there is an appropriate age at which viewing all content is acceptable. The practice followed by some television channels of displaying the minimal age suitable for viewing a particular film or program is beneficial from the viewpoint of both parents and children. This protocol is widely used today in all advanced countries where censorship is compulsory, preventing at a significant level problems relating to the healthy psychological growth of children.

To sum up, although it can not be denied that censorship can curtail the right of free expression, as it has become evident the government or any other appointed public service should be allowed to screen the prime-time television content for the sake of young children but should not be allowed to censor radio content and late-night television programs.