The problem with the modern media is they do not have any moral values and are only profit driven.
I do not agree with the statement. In today’s context, mass media plays a very important role in our lives. Even in times of war, mass media was used as a tool to communicate with the general public and practices propaganda. Nowadays, media more or less serves the same purpose but in addition, it helps connects the world together, hence in other words, make the world smaller. However, there are certain rules and regulations governing the operation of mass media and all kinds of information displayed to the public. Even though the fact that the set of rules and regulations are created because of possibilities of undesirable materials being shown to the public, but it does not mean that the mass media is a place filled with profit driven people who go to any extend to earn as much profit as possible whereby in any case if there are no rules and regulations governing them, they will go berserk and start making up news. However, that’s not the case. With reference to the incident whereby a mediacorp artiste Christopher Lee was charged with drink-driving and sentenced to 4 weeks of jail term. Common sense will tell us that it is his fault for not upholding his image an artiste and no doubt he deserves his sentence. However, the pressed opened up the forum for any forms of discussions which allowed people who feel that Lee committed the mistake in a moment of folly appealed to the public to give Lee another chance. This shows that the media helps provide a platform for discussions and educates the public that we should not always look at things at one perspective, while the media itself remains neutral. Some companies who offer high prices to pay for their commercials are rejected by the media and we can see that media still holds the basic value of what to show to the public and what not to show.
Wednesday, May 16, 2007
Wednesday, May 9, 2007
Censorship can never be justified. Do you agree?
I agree with the statement. By definition, censorship is the practice or system of censoring something that is normally considered offensive, morally harmful, or politically harmful.
Throughout history, as we human develop, the degree of censorship has significantly lowered and we are more ‘opened’. Take for example, television shows that are broadcast to the mass public does not censor away kissing scenes even though there is a high possibility of exposure to children.
Across the globe, different countries hold different values about the degree of censorship that should be imposed in their nation. This is mainly determined by the culture of its citizens because ultimately, the policies about censorship affect the way of life of the citizens.
In Singapore, a movie rated R21 is rated PG Taiwan. One good example is a lesbian movie, which has yet to be previewed. This movie is a production of Taiwan, and before it is previewed in Singapore, the movie will be sieved and selected scenes will be cut off, yet the movie is still rated R21. This clearly shows a big difference between censorship of two countries. Taiwan and Singapore belongs to Asia. Both countries are made up of mainly the Chinese and yet the difference can be worlds apart. This again shows that the degree of censorship has no boundaries to speak of even between countries with similar culture.
In conservative societies like Pakistan and Turkey, saying prohibited stuffs like the discussing of sensitive issues about religion can lead to attacks by extremists. The government is sometimes unable to control the after effects of the release any insulting remarks about any community. Hence, the government in such countries has to have a strict control over the mass media on every type of information released to the public.
Hence, these cases show that the degree of censorship actually depends on the people themselves. The culture will affect the censorship. Hence, there is no universal way of justifying censorship.
I agree with the statement. By definition, censorship is the practice or system of censoring something that is normally considered offensive, morally harmful, or politically harmful.
Throughout history, as we human develop, the degree of censorship has significantly lowered and we are more ‘opened’. Take for example, television shows that are broadcast to the mass public does not censor away kissing scenes even though there is a high possibility of exposure to children.
Across the globe, different countries hold different values about the degree of censorship that should be imposed in their nation. This is mainly determined by the culture of its citizens because ultimately, the policies about censorship affect the way of life of the citizens.
In Singapore, a movie rated R21 is rated PG Taiwan. One good example is a lesbian movie, which has yet to be previewed. This movie is a production of Taiwan, and before it is previewed in Singapore, the movie will be sieved and selected scenes will be cut off, yet the movie is still rated R21. This clearly shows a big difference between censorship of two countries. Taiwan and Singapore belongs to Asia. Both countries are made up of mainly the Chinese and yet the difference can be worlds apart. This again shows that the degree of censorship has no boundaries to speak of even between countries with similar culture.
In conservative societies like Pakistan and Turkey, saying prohibited stuffs like the discussing of sensitive issues about religion can lead to attacks by extremists. The government is sometimes unable to control the after effects of the release any insulting remarks about any community. Hence, the government in such countries has to have a strict control over the mass media on every type of information released to the public.
Hence, these cases show that the degree of censorship actually depends on the people themselves. The culture will affect the censorship. Hence, there is no universal way of justifying censorship.
Wednesday, May 2, 2007
Guns. An invention which benefits mankind or harm us?
The tragedy that happened at Virginia Tech is not simply just a case whereby the general public starts grieving over the victims and grumbling about the level of safety and security in their society.
Its leads us to another issue of the ease of availability of guns to the mass public as long as you have the money. Even though, statistics have shown that the number of homicides using guns have decreased dramatically over recent years, it does not mean that they are considered as isolated cases.
Gun is a deadly weapon and a double edged sword. It can be used to protect the civilians in the hands of a policeman but a totally different object when it comes in the hand of a criminal.
The question to ponder is not the number of dead or how the figures of homicides have decreased, but how in the first place an average teenager of an ordinary American high school get his or her gun and start on a killing spree? Most importantly, why do they have to purchase such weapons of mass destruction in the first place?
By common knowledge, all these guns are obtained from the black market. As long as you have the money, one will be able to purchase a gun. No wonder newspaper reports that it is easier to get a gun then a driving license as driving license is obtained only after one has passed the test under the supervision of a professional after paying a considerable amount of money. These trades between the buyer and seller are carried out in the dark corners of the society which are most of the time unreachable by the authorities. It does not mean that passing more stricter laws on the purchasing or production will control the amount of guns sold to the public. As long as the demand is there, the supply side will always find ways to obtain goods for these consumers.
Let us trace our way back to the demand side for guns. Why in the first place do these people want guns? Some say that keeping a gun by their side gives them defense against anyone who wants to hurt them. I believe this is a job for social psychologist to work on. What exactly is the mind set of these guns purchasers? The only thing I can conclude is that people nowadays are complex, highly intelligent organisms, which will always find fault with each other, and in some extreme cases, exterminate one another.
Its leads us to another issue of the ease of availability of guns to the mass public as long as you have the money. Even though, statistics have shown that the number of homicides using guns have decreased dramatically over recent years, it does not mean that they are considered as isolated cases.
Gun is a deadly weapon and a double edged sword. It can be used to protect the civilians in the hands of a policeman but a totally different object when it comes in the hand of a criminal.
The question to ponder is not the number of dead or how the figures of homicides have decreased, but how in the first place an average teenager of an ordinary American high school get his or her gun and start on a killing spree? Most importantly, why do they have to purchase such weapons of mass destruction in the first place?
By common knowledge, all these guns are obtained from the black market. As long as you have the money, one will be able to purchase a gun. No wonder newspaper reports that it is easier to get a gun then a driving license as driving license is obtained only after one has passed the test under the supervision of a professional after paying a considerable amount of money. These trades between the buyer and seller are carried out in the dark corners of the society which are most of the time unreachable by the authorities. It does not mean that passing more stricter laws on the purchasing or production will control the amount of guns sold to the public. As long as the demand is there, the supply side will always find ways to obtain goods for these consumers.
Let us trace our way back to the demand side for guns. Why in the first place do these people want guns? Some say that keeping a gun by their side gives them defense against anyone who wants to hurt them. I believe this is a job for social psychologist to work on. What exactly is the mind set of these guns purchasers? The only thing I can conclude is that people nowadays are complex, highly intelligent organisms, which will always find fault with each other, and in some extreme cases, exterminate one another.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)