BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
The mainstream media is essential for the accurate reporting of information; without it reporting on violent crimes, they would simply be reported by less accountable, less accurate freelance reporters and blogs

The media is regularly accused of being sensationalist and of hyping up the extent and gruesomeness of violent crimes. In some cases this may be true, but the media generally reports facts in a sober and informative, if also exciting, way. Without the mainstream media, however, news about violent crimes will still spread. The news will be disseminated within local communities and across the Internet via email and blogs. The result is lessening of journalistic quality, as bloggers are not bound by any exacting requirements in terms of the need for factual bases of stories.[1] The mainstream media provides a largely credible source of news that new media still lacks. In the absence of mainstream reporting, especially on such a hot button issue as violent crime, will only serve to spread disinformation, leading people to draw inaccurate conclusions and make decisions based on inaccurate knowledge. [1] Rouse, Darren. “Is New Media a Threat to Journalism?”. ProBlogger. 15 October 2007, http://www.problogger.net/archives/2007/10/15/is-new-media-a-threat-to-j...
Reporting on violent crimes compromises the integrity and fairness of law

Law should be just and unbiased. That is not a controversial position. However, it seems difficult to imagine that reporting on violent crimes has so tremendous an effect on the public that judges and jurors cannot be unbiased in their deliberations. Rather, the process of jury selection as it stands is designed to guarantee that there is no bias with both prosecution and defence being allowed to examine and object to a juror. Furthermore, most reporting on violent crime is about simple facts rather than any attempt to influence opinion on specific crimes. This is the essence of what news is, people have a right to know what is going on in their society, even if what is going on is brutally violent.
Reporting generates a constant iteration of fear in the public, and precipitates a ratchet effect toward crime

It is better that people be afraid of what is really happening than to be blissfully ignorant and thus vulnerable. Crime can be frightening, but people need to know about it so they can prepare themselves to deal with it. Furthermore, if violence is growing within communities, there may well be a need for better policing, so calling for such provisions is not necessarily just treating the symptoms of social illness, but rather is holding society together and maintaining necessary order.[1] Fear may cause people to do irrational things, but so too can ignorance. [1] Jones, Stephen. Understanding Violent Crime. London: Open University Press. 2000.
The state owes a duty of protection to victims, victims’ families, and those accused of committing crimes

Some journalists and media outlets are despicable in the way they treat people. Preying upon victims and their families is absolutely wrong, but a ban is not the way to solve this problem as it would simply move the media frenzy to whenever the ban on a case is removed and the details become public. Instead better regulation of the press is needed in such emotional cases in order to make sure that the media is respectful of families and also to make sure that those accused are seen to be innocent until proven guilty.
The contagion effect of reporting on violence leads to increased impetus for terrorist attacks and serial killings

Terrorists and serial killers make up a tiny proportion of murders and violent criminals in Western countries. In the United Kingdom for example there have been less deaths due to terrorism between 2000 and 2010 than due to bee stings.[1] As a result the very few copycat attacks are not really the issue at all when the question of reporting on violent crimes in the media is under discussion. Talk about these rarities serves only to distract people from the reality that most violent crime is not so bizarre as these cases.[2] Rather, the need to report on violent crime stands for all the violent crimes committed in every society, and fears of terrorists and serial killers can do little to challenge that need. [1] Anderson, David, ‘The Terrorism acts in 2011’ Report of the Independent Reviewer on the Operation of the Terrorism Act 2000 and Part 1 of the Terrorism Act 2006, June 2012, http://terrorismlegislationreviewer.independent.gov.uk/publications/report-terrorism-acts-2011?view=Binary [2] Morton, Robert. “Serial Murder”. National Center for the Analysis of Violent Crime. 2005. http://www.fbi.gov/stats-services/publications/serial-murder
It is necessary for people to understand the extent of criminal activity in order for them to coordinate an effective response

It is not necessary for people to know the extent of criminal activity in order to be able to take precautions, everyone regardless of whether they know the amount of crime in an area should take what precautions against being attacked that they can. For example they should stick to walking on well-lit streets at night. Local groups on the other hand do not need to be informed by the newspapers if there is crime in the area, they will already know because they live there how safe the area is. The police will certainly give residents the information if there is a threat to them even if they are not giving that information to the media.
To not promote the truth of events is contrary to the duty, and to the right of free speech, of a responsible media

There is no such thing as these two duties that the opposition asserts for the media. The media is a business like any other, because its business is information and news it will report on violent crime as it is something that the people care about so will purchase news about it, but it does not have a duty to do such reporting. Similarly there is no duty to report on things that influence the lives of the citizens of the state, again the media does so but only because it sells. Indeed large amounts of media do not report things that are either things that most people care about or things that seriously influence society. There are lots of magazines and newspapers on things like hobbies, such as toy models, but it is absurd to suggest that this is what most people care about or that the issues that affect toy model hobbyists influence the rest of society. It would be equally absurd to suggest that such a magazine or newspaper should have a section devoted to violent crime because that is what is important.
The media’s reporting and investigating acts as a check on the behavior of the justice system

Political will to affect change in areas riddled with violent crime is not generated by media reporting on the violence. Rather, the way the media reports, prioritizing the sensational, blood and guts, aspects of crimes, results in frightened voters clamoring for something to be done. This usually just results in more policing and more draconian sentencing laws. Neither of which solve the underlying problems of poverty and poor provision of essential state services. Rather, they serve merely as stand-ins for real action, resulting in no efforts to genuinely reclaim troubled communities. By excluding media reporting on the most visceral goings on in these areas, namely violent crimes, politicians and the people affected can enter into rational dialogue that is not perverted by media sensationalism.
The mainstream media is essential for the accurate reporting of information; without it reporting on violent crimes, they would simply be reported by less accountable, less accurate freelance reporters and blogs

Bans and restrictions on the old media would equally affect the ‘new’ media of the internet age. Bloggers could just as easily be taken to court for their reporting as conventional journalists so the news would still be restricted. While individuals may still report crimes this would become limited to the local area where people do have a genuine interest in the crime rather than it being reported nationally.
Both debtor and creditor are to blame for debt

It is not just the creditor who calculates the risk; the European Central Bank sets the interest rates for the whole Eurozone, it does not give a different rate for Greece than for Germany. The Euro brought interest rates together not lenders. Moreover simply because a lender miscalculated the risk should not mean that they take the burdens of the debtor. In such circumstances the debtor has already benefited from the low interest rates the creditor charged.
Growth is what is needed

Relatively speaking European nations can still borrow at low interest rates, and the European Central Bank even more so. This situation is much better than it has been for countries that have received forgiveness in the past. These countries have mostly been poor, such as the Heavily Indebted Poor Countries Initiative that forgave debts of the poorest countries on earth,[1] and in no position to get their economies to grow. In Europe however what is needed is cold turkey through supply side structural reforms to make the peripheral states competitive, this is what Germany did in the early 2000s and it worked, if anything too well as it has resulted in Germany exporting to the rest of the Eurozone with peripheral countries being uncompetitive by comparison.[2] Once these states are competitive their economy with grow and they will be able to pay off the if debts what is needed then is bailouts at very low interest rates that keep the debt ticking over while the debtor gets into this position. This could be aided by the ECB encouraging inflation so that the value of the debt slowly falls[3] which would be much more controlled than forgiveness. [1] ‘Debt Relief Under the Heavily Indebted Poor Countries (HIPC) Initiative’, International Monetary Fund, 2 April 2013 [2] Onaran, Özlem, ‘From wage suppression to sovereign debt crisis in Western Europe: Who pays for the costs of the crisis?’, Economic Policy: In Search of an Alternative Paradigm, 3 December 2010, p,2 [3] Krugman, Paul, ‘Inflation and Debt (Wonkish)’, The New York Times, 28 May 2011
Bailouts don’t solve the problem

Bailouts and austerity can and do solve the problem. The bailout means the creditor is paying less due to lower interest rates so providing the debtor with time to solve the underlying economic problems. In the case of Ireland this time was bought to sort out the Irish banks, while for Greece it means that there can be structural changes to the economy such as breaking the power of the unions that help make the economy uncompetitive globally. There have been countries where austerity has worked and have returned to rapid growth, Latvia for example had growth of 5% in 2012 and plans to pay off its bailout from the IMF in 2014 despite having cut its government budget by 9% of GDP in 2009.[1] [1] Bandow, Doug, ‘The Triumph Of Good Economics: ‘Austere’ Baltic States Outgrow Their European Neighbors’, Forbes, 15 April 2013
Moral hazard

Debt forgiveness does not preclude stipulations that the debtor nation must restructure their economy so that they regain competitiveness. Creditors can simply refuse to lend to the debtor in the future if they are not clearly cleaning up their act. We should also remember that such moral hazard does not just apply to the borrower but to the lender as well. If lenders know that they will always get their money back as a result of a bailout then what reason do they have to make prudent lending decisions?
Interest rates will rise

The Euro may also finally prove to be an advantage to the peripheral nations as it allows them to avoid this problem with debt forgiveness or cancellation. Demands for higher rates of interest by creditors after forgiveness would not be a problem for Eurozone nations because the European Central Bank can play its role as lender of last resort, for a time while the peripheral countries build up trust through sound fiscal management it can lend to governments to ensure that their interest rates do not spike
Both debtor and creditor are to blame for debt

In a bailout all the blame, and therefore the resulting pain, is put upon the debtor. This is wrong, there are two parties in any debt. The creditor plays just as much of a role as the debtor in creating unsustainable debts. While it may be the responsibility of the debtor not to take on so much debt that they then can’t afford to pay off it is also the responsibility of the creditor to assess the risk that debtor has of defaulting.[1] When the creditor incorrectly measures this risk, or worse helps to encourage the debtor to take greater risks, then the creditor must bear some of the blame and should accept the risk he was taking means that the debtor cannot repay. When the Eurozone was created lenders made the mistake of assuming that all the member states were now at the same risk of default; this was clearly a mistake made by the creditors when they priced government debt from Greece and Germany similarly.[2] It was clear that the Euro would not instantly solve all the problems of peripheral economies yet they were given almost the same lending rates as core economies like Germany. [1] United Nations Conference on Trade and Development, ‘Principles on Promoting Responsible Sovereign Lending and Borrowing’, United Nations, 10 January 2012, P.6 [2] Mansori, Kash, ‘Why Greece, Spain, and Ireland Aren’t to Blame for Europe’s Woes’, The New Republic, 11 October 2011
Bailouts don’t solve the problem

Considering the number of bailouts there have been half a dozen bailouts[1] in countries ranging from Ireland to Spain to Cyprus we can see that bailouts quite simply do not work. The reason why is simple; a bailout is providing loans to someone who can't payback their loans, all this does then is roll over the debts that they don't need to pay it quite so quickly as they otherwise would. This clearly then is a method to extend the crisis not resolve it. Bailouts rely on the economy picking up so that the debtor government can bring in more tax receipts and then repay their loans but the austerity imposed to reach a surplus to enable the government to repay their loans simply leads to the government laying off workers who then need unemployment benefit and don't spend as much in the economy. As a result austerity creates a downward spiral in the economy that makes repayment of loans impossible. Greece shows this, it has had 5 rounds of austerity and yet the debt continues to rise and the economy continues to shrink - by 7% in 2012.[2] On the other hand forgiveness provides space for growth and allows capital to be focused on investment rather than loan repayment, Germany’s economic miracle in the 1950s and 60s came after just such a deal when Germany had its debts cancelled in 1953.[3] [1] BBC News, ‘Timeline: The unfolding eurozone crisis’, 13 June 2012, (added since then is a bailout for Cyprus) [2] Panaritis, Elena, ‘Debt Forgiveness In Inevitable and Will Save the Euro’, Huffington Post, 6 December 2012 [3] Dearden, Nick, ‘Greece and Spain helped postwar Germany recover. Spot the difference’, guardian.co.uk, 27 February 2013
Debt forgiveness is more practical than bailouts

Bailouts rely upon the countries that are providing the bail out to come up with the money with which to bail out the nation that is in need of credit. This will impact upon their national budgets and they may even need to raise taxes as a result. With debt forgiveness there is no need for new money to be provided as debt is simply being cancelled. The debtor would no longer need to repay the money. Neither they nor the creditors will need to find new money. The creditor is losing money but for the most part this is illusionary as they can’t really have been sure that they were going to get the money back when the country is in need of bailouts; Greece's debt is rising from 175% of GDP in 2012 to 183% in 2013 despite bailouts, can creditors keep expecting to get all their money back as debt keeps rising?[1] In this case because of the close links between European states the creditors will benefit as much as the debtors; the debtors would once more be able to buy creditors goods and services so benefiting all parties economies. [1] Panaritis, Elena, ‘Debt Forgiveness In Inevitable and Will Save the Euro’, Huffington Post, 6 December 2012
Moral hazard

If debt is forgiven is that not just encouraging the borrower to keep on borrowing rather than changing his ways? If debt is forgiven then a borrower may expect that if they get into such dire straits again they will simply have their debts forgiven again. This then would mean the creditor paying over and over again for the debtor's profligacy. The periphery states have to get their books in order rather than expecting the core states to always pick up the tab for them.
Interest rates will rise

Even if the countries in question are able to get into the position of being in a primary budget surplus then they will still need to borrow money. All governments need to borrow money because taxes come in unevenly so the government needs to be able to borrow in case it does not get all the taxation it expects in a given month. Thus for example in July 2012 the UK borrowed £600 million when a year earlier there had been a £2.8bln surplus thus there was an unexpected gap.[1] Usually when a nation, or any organisation, goes bankrupt the immediately have the problem that no one will lend to them because investors will not believe that their investment is safe; that debtor has already defaulted so he is considered a bigger risk of doing so again. As a result interest rates rise. Argentina’s interest rate peaked at 125% in August 2002 less than a year after default at the end of December 2001 having been at less than 20% before the crisis.[2] [1] Pym, Hugh, ‘UK government borrows £600m in July as tax receipts dip’, BBC News, 21 August 2012 [2] ‘Argentina Interest Rate’, Trading Economics
Debt forgiveness spreads the burden of debt

While banks may be partially responsible for the crisis we need to remember that it is not all nefarious capitalists who are the losers here. Most of the money that is in any economy is the people's money not the institutions. Everyone has large investments in through their pension funds or their own savings that are then loaned out by the institution into which they have been deposited; hitting banks is then not hitting the capitalist bankers at all but the small lenders who they rely on as they will surely just pass the cost on.
Bailouts are unpopular

Forgiveness would be equally unpopular; debtors would be seen as getting the benefits of being lazy and not cleaning up their act by increasing productivity. The populations of Germany, Finland and other core countries would not stand for it and would likely vote down such a deal in parliament. Slovakia for example in late 2011 voted against expanding the European Financial Stability Facility, the Eurozone’s bailout facility.[1] [1] Cameron, Rob, ‘Slovakia votes down eurozone bailout expansion plans’, BBC News, 11 October 2011
Those who get into debt are morally responsible for repayment

When a drug addict is given more of the drug he craves is it only the addict and not also the dealer who is responsible? Yes the debtor has promised to pay but at some point the lender has to accept that the creditor can't pay or that it is in neither of their interest that they do so. While a state theoretically has almost unlimited access to money to pay their loans through taxation and national assets in practice lenders are aware of this which is why governments such as Greece have been able to borrow up to 175% of GDP. Clearly when a country has borrowed so much even 100% taxation is not going to be enough to pay off the loan. Clearly the people would not accept such punitive taxation, and attempts to increase taxation in Greece have not worked.[1] They may also not be willing to accept selling off land, which often has an emotional importance far beyond the monetary worth of that asset. Since a state and a whole people can't be forced to pay there needs to be a compromise. [1] Panaritis, Elena, ‘Debt Forgiveness In Inevitable and Will Save the Euro’, Huffington Post, 6 December 2012
Growth is what is needed

Yes growth is needed but this does not provide growth instead it leads inexorably towards default. It is therefore in the creditor's interest to make the debts the debtor has sustainable. The best way to do this is to reduce the amount of debt significantly through some forgiveness. Once some debt is forgiven then the state will be able to repay the rest itself with much less difficulty because it will no longer be crippled by repaying interest payments, it can then help rebuild demand in the economy. This is what happened in the 1980s in Latin America, growth did not restart until the Brady plan of 1989 forgave large quantities of debt.[1] [1] Velasco, Andres, ‘Europe’s Debt Relief Calculus’, Project Syndicate, 13 December 2012
Debt forgiveness spreads the burden of debt

Debt forgiveness spreads the burden of the debt much better than bailouts do; with bailouts it is entirely states and their taxpayers who come up with the necessary money, with forgiveness private speculators and investors such as banks are hit just like the governments. Nowhere in the Eurozone are the banks popular so it makes political sense that they should bear some of the burden; people and companies that have risked their money should not deserve to always be protected by bailouts. Moreover we must remember that several of the causes of the financial crisis were originally created by the banks – the lenders not the debtors. Most obvious is subprime mortgages which was caused by risky loans.[1] This risk was not just prevalent in mortgages but throughout the financial sector which were using mathematical models to attempt to price risk.[2] Of course government regulation or lack of it can also be considered to be partially responsible for the financial crisis but the point is that the blame, and thus the pain, should be shared. Those who have been a part of the cause of the crisis do not deserve to have their misdeeds rewarded by bailouts. [1] Wallison, Peter J., ‘The True Story of the Financial Crisis’, The American Spectator, May 2011 [2] Salmon, Felix, ‘Recipe for Disaster: The Formula That Killed Wall Street’, Wired, 23 February 2009
Bailouts are unpopular

Bailouts are unpopular among all those involved; for politicians in all countries it means conflict that is disruptive to the unity of the Eurozone. For debtors the bailouts are unpopular because they are accompanied by austerity that means lower incomes and job losses. For the creditors it is unpopular because the perception is that good money is being thrown after bad with no result. In February 2012 in Germany 62% were opposed to  a new bailout for Greece,[1] while in Greece a few months later 77% of Greeks said they wanted the bailout terms revised.[2]  Since bailouts are proving not to solve the problem in the long term this becomes a cycle where the populations of all sides increasingly resent the populations from the other. For a group that is attempting to create 'ever closer union' this not a good position to be in and it could lead to the dissolution of the union entirely. Debt relief on the other hand while it would be unpopular in Germany and other creditor nations could be explained as creating a clean break and by explaining how it benefits the businesses of the core regions by allowing increased demand for their products. [1] Kirschbaum, Erik, ‘Germans overwhelmingly oppose Greek bailout: poll’, Reuters, 26 February 2012 [2] Petrakis, Maria, and Weeks, Natalie, ‘Greek Opinion Poll Shows Majority Want Revised Terms’, Bloomberg, 30 May 2012