Post your essay. Get expert feedback. For free.We're trying to help students improve their writing the hard way. Do you know students who want critical essay reviews from a professor of English Literature? Click like to share. Click here to sign up and post your own essay. We offer no paid services. All reviews are completely free.
Some People Believe It Is Often Necessary, Even Desirable, For Political Leaders To Withhold Information From The Public. Others Believe That The Public Has A Right To Be Fully Informed. - With A Free Essay Review
Although the public has a right to be informed, it may not be appropriate for the public to acknowledge some sensitive information; thus, I agree that it is often necessary, even desirable, for political leaders to withhold information from the public, because some information can make the public upset, and it can make it harder for leaders to control the situation.
To begin with, I think it is necessary to make it clear that for the political leaders to withold information from the public for what purpose. I think it is less controversial that political leaders should not withhold information from the public for their own interests or for the interest of small group while this is against the benefit of the majority of citizens and the society. Therefore, I will focus on whether it is justifiable for political leaders to withhold information from the public for the interest of the public.
I think sometimes, it is necessary for political leaders to withhold information from the public because some information may be very sensitive, and can possibly make the public upset, and it may not be good for the situation. In this case, it may be hard for leaders to control the problem. For instance, concerning the issue about terrorists, political leaders may withhold information from the public to ensure that the public are calm, otherwise the public may be very upset, and it is not good for people to feel endangered. In this situation, I think it is necessary for political leaders to withhold the information from the public, because otherwise it would be harder for leaders to control the situation.
However, I agree that the public has a right to be informed, because they need to know what these political leaders they support are planning on doing, and express their opinions. It is reasonable that the public wants to know what is going on, and why leaders they voted for decide to do one thing. In addition, people can think critically, and make good judgment when they are well-informed; however, I do not think the public should be fully informed about everything. However, sometimes the less people know about something, the less we worry about it, and maybe it is the way to make life happier and easier. In addition, if it is certain that political leaders withhold information for the interest of the nation, then, it would better for the public to trust the people they voted for.
To sum up, I think sometimes it is necessary for political leaders to withhold information from the public for the benefit of the country, even though the public has a right to be informed.
The first paragraph is one long, syntactically awkward sentence, which I've improved minimally by changing a comma to a semi-colon. One of the reasons it is awkward is that the central claim ("I agree etc.") is consequent upon the clause that precedes it (via the word "thus") and at the same time consequent upon the clause that follows it (via the word "because"). Try to avoid that type of construction. (Here’s an egregiously bad example of the problem in case what I’m talking about is unclear: “Because leaves are on the trees, I like the summer because the sun shines.”)
The first sentence of the next paragraph is a fragment (an incomplete sentence) and is opaque. The second sentence is also initially confusing ("less controversial" than what?). Your approach, however, is the correct one, though it takes you too long to establish the approach you are taking.
Your first argument, in the next paragraph, is reasonable enough, though the reference to "the situation" is here, as earlier, very vague. More interestingly, the phrase "very sensitive" is also vague as a qualifier of "information." I know it is used all the time in that way, but it is used often because it is vague; indeed, it is often used euphemistically. Finally, the word "upset' is vague. Your example more or less clarifies what you mean by these words, but it's not a good idea to rely on an example to do that. Note that you end the paragraph with another vague expression: “control the situation.”
Your next paragraph does not add much argumentative complexity to your discussion. You essentially claim that the public should be informed by right, except when they shouldn't be informed. Your summation (the final paragraph) concisely demonstrates this point. But if you are arguing that the public has a right to be informed and that, even so, political leaders should withhold information, then you are arguing that leaders should violate the rights of the people. That sounds like an interesting way of putting things, so you should probably make the point explicit.
Still, it might be worth thinking about some additional issues here, perhaps first among them would be the issue of what tends to happen when a culture of secrecy pervades government. You might also consider whether there might be some more specific criteria (more specific than "for the benefit of the people”) that ought to be met before deciding that leaders should withhold information. Saying that it ought to be "for the benefit of the country" is a bit like begging the question, since one way of putting the question would be: Is it for the benefit of the country if political leaders withhold information? Obviously it's not really satisfying to just say: It's for the benefit of the country only in the case where the leaders withhold information for the benefit of the country.