Prompt: Some people think that the media should report details of crime to the public. To what extent do you agree or disagree?

The vast majority of the population deems that social media and the Internet should provide various information about crime against society. I tend to think that a large number of people is right. Therefore, I advocate strongly with this statement and am going to reflect my own view of this issue in this essay. Ċ On the one hand, people should receive news about crimes such as murders, theft and kidnapping. Likewise, this material must be reliable and is composed of truth, evidence and witnesses. However, it would be unfair not to mention the fact that tabloids or resources sometimes do not publicise such content. Thus, society often does not know what happens in their surroundings. Hence, a person can be in danger and he may become a sacrifice for the crime. One of the main reasons why social media does not want to disclose details consists of pressure from local governments or the unwillingness to mitigate society. Ċ On the other hand, some experts contend that different information or multiple details should public. Besides, they claim that various awareness is better, rather than ignorance. For instance, representatives of the population can assist police departments to catch a murderer or they can be useful during the lawsuit when they testify. Moreover, if a total of people will know about dreadful cases over their environment, it can be very useful to avert further ramifications such as the emergence of new victims. Ċ To summarise, I would stress that having made these points, it is true that tabloids, daily presses and the Internet should share material about different cases in the local area. In addition, what governments and policies should do is composed of preventing crime everywhere.