When we say regulate, we mean a body in place controlling what we should do. And that will have a larger implications or effects on our performances. what if the regulator happens to be the government, or government agency that will not want to see anything bad about the government out to the public? All that journalists need is to have proper codes of conducts/ethics or guideline that will ensure objectivity, not subjectivity, fairly balanced not balance, fairly represented stories. If we are regulated we will have a limited space to operate and that will deny entire community the free information they need to take decisions or actions-to improve on their livelihoods.

It is enough that there are press laws in every country of the world. And whether we agree to this assertion or not, the press is regulated, even in politically democratic circles where "Press Freedom" is often sang like a song, through what the governments do or fail to do.For instance, in climes with little media penetration due to poor economies arising from bad economic policies, corruption and squander-mania, the direct effect may include poor pay for workers and the possibility of collection of bribes by journalists which most likely, would in turn influence what thy put out. This is a way of controlling the media without using laws. Then there are laws which spell out how journalists should do their jobs in most countries of the world. This is another level of press regulation. Another level appears to be the influence of owners of media houses in what they allow to pass through their media houses for themselves and their cronies in some countries. The last and the most important and highly penetrating level is the level of "Professional Code of Conduct and Ethics". At this level, a journalist can woo the invasion of his media house by politicians or military rulers through his carelessness and negligence in this area. It is also through what journalists do in this area that can keep their world on its toes for what is right. The third level of regulation which is through the influence of media owners and their cronies is a very bad level which results in self-censorship by the press. At this level the journalist develops fears for those inside and those outside. MacBride et al corroborated this harsh reality which also involves not only media owners but also government's stance against a very sensitive realm of the state -the media- saying "… A climate of fear can also insidiously result in self-censorship". They also admitted that "measures of censorship drastically limit the journalist's capacity to do his work effectively". For the fact that the world does not play by the rules, it is sometimes good to allow the media some sphere of radical freedom that would generate good reports which could effect great changes in societies. I, therefore, call not for another form of regulation but for the timely and rightful application of ethical standards with wisdom and some elements of radicalism with prior consideration for public good where it seems that following due process will not achieve the desired result. Journalistic independence with some radical ambiance should be justified and allowed at this point.This will ensure that rules do not kill the job while self-censorship which is very dangerous to the media is eschewed.
IJENDU IHEAKA .E. NEWS AGENCY OF NIGERIA.(NAN) LAGOS, NIGERIA.

The debate about wether press should be regulated is as old as the profession itself, just as the argument on wether journalism is a profession or vocation. Be that as it may, the struggle by those in power to control the press has never seased. Hence the ruling class always wait for the golden opportunity to do so, and unfortunately the press often open the door for them to let in. Incidence such as the BBC is one of such trap the press has fallen. However, in order not to throw away the baby with barth water, what the press need is to tighten the noose of self regulation. Thus, it needs to strenghen enforcement of ethics and standard among practitioners and media houses alike. Adamu S Ladan, Freedom Radio, Kano, Nigeria

No arguments against freedom of press. some countries like Pakistan, peoples give their lives for freedom of press but they are fail to get result in favor of this noble profession and peoples as well.here in Pakistan all liberties and freedom is only of owners of media houses .as working journalist no one can,t do any thing as his own mind, facts, and reality, every one are bound to his/her boss who are 99.5%are owners .any owner of media house can write and broadcast any thing against any one.....in favor of rights society some regulations needed .

I think that the media does not self-regulate, is yes, they obey a higher law. I mention this, because while I was doing an internship as an aid in the sector of Criminology Civil Police of Foz do Iguaçu / Parana / Brazil, I found the spot, talking to criminals, about what they thought of the cop shows of TV's? Asked if they believed led to other televised events happen, they unanimously reply that the facts of the day before being released on TV, generate new facts in the criminal area. Criminal does not like "losing" to another. So if a director of a TV channel you do not know "dose" what goes on the air, someone has to say "imposing", giving them vestments as the consequences of saying something to a large audience. There are countless reasons that lead people to choose a "-Regulatory Framework" as the ideal means of communication in the world. This is a very complex subject, we would discuss that days, months and perhaps years to create parameter bearable for the media publicize events of everyday people ...