“How much does the world need to know about a deadly bear attack?”

A seemingly legitimate question, which might shed light on a lot of other things.

People are morbid and we like to entertain ourselves with gruesome details, so there is no way to stop such reporting, especially in light of the First Amendment and the Internet.

What troubles me is the use of the word “need” in the context of knowing what happened in a given instance (or for that matter in any context). It seems to inherently be a judgment by some people not so much about not what they might or might not need themselves, but about what they think others might or might not need. The question is hopelessly intertwined with assumption that some people are better able to handle certain information or things than others. And while I agree that some people are better able to handle certain things than others, I see no way to determine who should decide for whom, or in what context. Certainly it is not for me to determine what others can or should be able to handle.

Routine use of the word “need” touches on the question of what is called “elitism.” If only some people should be allowed to decide what the rest should and should not be allowed to see or read, then who should be the deciders?

Should there be power for any group of people to decide what other people need?

Is such power inherently necessary? And to the extent that it is, is it not also inherently tyrannical?


Posted

in

by

Tags: