My class recently had a debate in censorship and that made me wonder whether is censorship is justified. I googled the word censorship and got these information. “Censorship is the removal and withholding of information from the public by a controlling group or body. Typically censorship is done by governments, religious groups, or the mass media, although other forms of censorship exist. The withholding of official secrets, commercial secrets, intellectual property, and privileged lawyer-client communication is not usually described as censorship when it remains within reasonable bounds. Because of this, the term "censorship" often carries with it a sense of untoward, inappropriate or repressive secrecy. Censorship is closely related to the concepts of freedom of speech and freedom of expression. When overused, it is often associated with human rights abuse, dictatorship, and repression.” 1
I cannot imagine a world without censorship. “In many countries there will be multiple liability for production of slanderous material, material which incites racial hatred. Where the author or publisher can not be traced or are insolvent the printers can be sued or prosecuted in some circumstances. The relatively small number of internet service providers (ISPs) should be made liable if they assist in the provision of dangerous and harmful information such as bomb making instructions, hard core pornography.” 2
Young children will be watching pornography without control. 8% of criminals rate pornography as their highest sexual interest. Psychologist, Edward Donnerstein from the University of Wisconsin found that brief exposure to violent forms of pornography can lead to anti-social attitudes and behaviour. This shows how dangerous pornography can be. Without censorship, I cannot imagine what will happen to the world. “In 8 of January of 2007, Brazilian authorities tried to censor the site Youtube.com due to a video of scenes of sex between the model Daniela Cicarelli and her boyfriend Renato Malzoni, filmed by a paparazzo on a beach in Spain. Companies responsible for the access to the Internet in Brazil, such as Brasil Telecom and Telefonica, initially accepted the judicial order readily, and hindered access to the site with the offending videos. Due to the great displeasure regarding the decision in the community, authorities rescinded their order the following day, and Youtube.com was once again widely available to computer users in Brazil.”1
“During the Spanish-American War of 1898, reporters, if anything, led cheers for the military. Throughout World War I, journalists considered themselves part of the war effort, not independent observers. This pattern of press and military cooperation continued through World War II. But starting with the Korean War and then Vietnam, the press took an increasingly independent and critical view of the military. In Vietnam, more than 2,000 accredited reporters roamed freely throughout battle zones interviewing ordinary soldiers rather than relying on the often rosy picture of the war presented by the Pentagon. There were few incidents of news stories endangering U.S. troops or military operations. But negative press accounts fueled anti-war feelings back home. When the war in Southeast Asia finally ended, many in the military blamed the press for "losing Vietnam." Some Pentagon officials resolved to restrict press coverage of future American wars. In 1983, the Pentagon barred all journalists from the initial invasion of Grenada. Then in 1989, the Pentagon selected a dozen reporters to cover the invasion of Panama and restricted them to an airport in Panama until nearly all fighting ended.”3 Negative reports will make the situation worse like in the case of the Vietnam War.
“The issues at stake in this debate, protection of children, terrorist activity, crime, racial hatred are all international problems. If a global solution is required then it can be achieved by international co-operation and treaties. It is acknowledged that it is justifiable to censor where harm is caused to others by the speech, words or art of an author, all the examples cited above are clearly causing harm to various groups in society. By a combination of the initiatives listed above it is possible to limit that harm.” 2 Activists might fight for freedom of speech, but freedom without control will make the world a worse place to be in.1 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Censorship2 http://www.idebate.org/debatabase/topic_details.php?topicID=833 http://www.crf-usa.orgIraqwar_htmliraqwar_press.html
Wednesday, May 23, 2007
Tuesday, May 15, 2007
The problem with the modern media is they do not have a sense of social justice. Do you agree?
The modern media today over emphasizes on the fact of attracting the reader's attention, thus neglecting certain aspects of social justification. It covers a wide range of audience, from the young to the old, and conveys pieces of information to all.
In the website attached beneath, the author talks about the presence of U.S army troops in Iraq. Plagued with figures, he supports his stand with no regards to social values or ethics. He blatantly ignores the feelings of certain individuals and the stand of Iraq.
Also, he states "From the beginning, these contractors have been a major hidden story of the war, almost uncovered in the mainstream media and absolutely central to maintaining the U.S. occupation of Iraq." This shows what the media did to cover up certain truth which will hinder the support for U.S troops, and as such it chooses not to mention such facts.
By doing so, the audience perception of events as mentioned will be blurred. They would lack of a justified perception and thus be influenced by the author.
However, it is not to a large extent that the modern media does not have a sense of social justice. If it did not have such morals, it would not have reported news like the presence of U.S troops in Iraq, as this would ruin the United States' image. Instead, it reported this incident, portraying acts carried out by the United States troops in Iraq.
To conclude, I would agree that the modern media is not justified in terms of moral values to a large extent because if it is justified, it would have reported with great transparency, including all details in the reports.
http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/Mercenaries/Shadow_Army_Iraq.html
In the website attached beneath, the author talks about the presence of U.S army troops in Iraq. Plagued with figures, he supports his stand with no regards to social values or ethics. He blatantly ignores the feelings of certain individuals and the stand of Iraq.
Also, he states "From the beginning, these contractors have been a major hidden story of the war, almost uncovered in the mainstream media and absolutely central to maintaining the U.S. occupation of Iraq." This shows what the media did to cover up certain truth which will hinder the support for U.S troops, and as such it chooses not to mention such facts.
By doing so, the audience perception of events as mentioned will be blurred. They would lack of a justified perception and thus be influenced by the author.
However, it is not to a large extent that the modern media does not have a sense of social justice. If it did not have such morals, it would not have reported news like the presence of U.S troops in Iraq, as this would ruin the United States' image. Instead, it reported this incident, portraying acts carried out by the United States troops in Iraq.
To conclude, I would agree that the modern media is not justified in terms of moral values to a large extent because if it is justified, it would have reported with great transparency, including all details in the reports.
http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/Mercenaries/Shadow_Army_Iraq.html
Monday, May 7, 2007
2. The media is corrupting our society. Do you agree?
The media plays an important role in our society today. It envelopes us from all aspects, and to a certain extent, it influences our opinions and thoughts on social and political issues.
From the link attached beneath, it is evident how biased the author is. He puts forth his opinion in an attempt to change the mindset people have of Bush. The essay revolves around political corruption and paints a negative picture of him.
Even a simple piece of news could influence my mindset as well. I took no sides before reading this particular article. However, after doing so, it became clear to me that I somehow shared the author's point of view. Inevitably, I was influenced.
In addition, the author chose to play around with strong words and backed up his arguments with substantial evidence of figures. This further affects the impression Bush is offering to many.
On the contrary, the media might not be corrupting our society. This is because some might already share the same views as the author. As such, this is just another platform for readers to communicate amongst themselves. Besides, the media includes not only the press, but the television and radio. Thus there are many channels which present both side of the information, be it postive or negative.
http://www.commondreams.org/archive/2007/04/13/493/
From the link attached beneath, it is evident how biased the author is. He puts forth his opinion in an attempt to change the mindset people have of Bush. The essay revolves around political corruption and paints a negative picture of him.
Even a simple piece of news could influence my mindset as well. I took no sides before reading this particular article. However, after doing so, it became clear to me that I somehow shared the author's point of view. Inevitably, I was influenced.
In addition, the author chose to play around with strong words and backed up his arguments with substantial evidence of figures. This further affects the impression Bush is offering to many.
On the contrary, the media might not be corrupting our society. This is because some might already share the same views as the author. As such, this is just another platform for readers to communicate amongst themselves. Besides, the media includes not only the press, but the television and radio. Thus there are many channels which present both side of the information, be it postive or negative.
http://www.commondreams.org/archive/2007/04/13/493/
Tuesday, April 24, 2007
Should guns be permitted?
With reference to the recent Virginia Tech rampage shootings, it is evident that America does not limit the usage of weapons like guns. The absence of such official sanctions creates an environment where anybody can own firearms, reason being the American government believes in a liberal society. One would be able to own these weapons which are deemed as a means of self-defence.
Guns are not necessarily harmful weapons. They act as a means of self-defence in cases of threat. Imagine if you are at risk of being harmed by another party, having a gun would put you at an advantage as you can now practise self-defence. You would not feel as vulnerable, but instead relieved that you have a weapon to rely on.
Afterall, it is up to the individual to decide his intepretation of guns. If he has morals, he would not utilize the gun in the wrong way, which is to harm others. In the case of the Virginia Tech rampage, Cho the killer decides to use the gun on wiping out people. This unprecedented incident, which has never occured in American history proves that most do not misuse guns as weapons for attacks.
However, some might think otherwise. They would percieve it as a destructive weapon and see it as an imminent threat to their lives. Guns are only destructive in the wrong hands; in people who have lost their sense of moral and start misusing guns.
I feel that guns should not be permitted on a large scale, but rather with stringent qualifications to own one. For example, people who wish to purchase guns would have to fill in their particulars and history records, which are to be verified by the authorities. The authorities would then decide whether or not to approve his purchase.
If guns were not permissible, would people be able to save themselves from an impending rape or assault? I believe on the whole that guns are still beneficial to a great extent, for it protects the well-being of oneself.
Guns are not necessarily harmful weapons. They act as a means of self-defence in cases of threat. Imagine if you are at risk of being harmed by another party, having a gun would put you at an advantage as you can now practise self-defence. You would not feel as vulnerable, but instead relieved that you have a weapon to rely on.
Afterall, it is up to the individual to decide his intepretation of guns. If he has morals, he would not utilize the gun in the wrong way, which is to harm others. In the case of the Virginia Tech rampage, Cho the killer decides to use the gun on wiping out people. This unprecedented incident, which has never occured in American history proves that most do not misuse guns as weapons for attacks.
However, some might think otherwise. They would percieve it as a destructive weapon and see it as an imminent threat to their lives. Guns are only destructive in the wrong hands; in people who have lost their sense of moral and start misusing guns.
I feel that guns should not be permitted on a large scale, but rather with stringent qualifications to own one. For example, people who wish to purchase guns would have to fill in their particulars and history records, which are to be verified by the authorities. The authorities would then decide whether or not to approve his purchase.
If guns were not permissible, would people be able to save themselves from an impending rape or assault? I believe on the whole that guns are still beneficial to a great extent, for it protects the well-being of oneself.
Tuesday, April 17, 2007
Nowadays, the mass media do not report the news; they make the news. Discuss this with references to recent events.
'Recent events' refer to happenings that have just occured, or is still occuring at this point in time. It describes a string of particular happenings. I have based my essay on the mass killings in a University in the United States, the killings in Afghanistan through a blast, and the launching of Afghan attacks by Taliban. As these incidents have just happened, I consider them as 'Recent events'.
Judging by the headlines, these events are attention-grabbing. Crude words like 'shootings', 'killer' and 'launch' instantly saps one's attention, bringing a great deal of focus to it. In the article of the launching of attacks by Taliban on Afghanistan, the headline is titled with descriptors like 'launch'. Instead of using words like 'Taliban carries out attacks on Afghanistan', the journalist chooses the word 'launch'. By doing so, the media is exaggerating the extent of the news by playing around with words.
In the other article of the mass killings in the Virginia University in the United States, the killings is emphasised by a numerical value. The journalist opts to put in the number '33', to portray a significant number who perished in the killings. Imagine, if the number did not appear in the headlines, but rather the headline reads ' Details of Killer emerged' , would you be as awed?
As for the article on the Taliban killings, it is put forth as ' the heaviest fighting in an area so close to the capital since 2001' in the first paragraph. Of course, the extent to 'heavy fighting' differs from one to another. As such, this extent is subject to the journalist alone; where he might use these words in an attempt to attract the reader's attention. The University kilings have inputs like 'rocked with grief' in the report as well. All these are done in the hope of making these news impactful.
Furthermore, the media puts more efforts in publishing such news. From the link of the website of world news, the category of news reporting killings outweighs those of other genres. Does this mean that the world is saturated with violence? There are other 'minor' news like the Nigerian VP's particiapation in the general election, but the media displays it as 'secondary news'.
If you notice, covers on tabloids are mostly news of such content. Even news programmes on the television airs such news in priority.
Perhaps it is because the reader's interest lies mainly in tangible news like these that have resulted in this unpredecented way of reporting news. In addition, happenings like killings of this sort certainly do not happen in our day-to-day lives. They inject a sense of amazement and regret in us. For example, I tend to read articles of such content in detail, whereas I would just scan through news related to politics or of other genres.
Thus, the mass media make the news only to cater to the audiences' taste and preferences.
Website of World News
http://sg.news.yahoo.com/world/index.html
University Massacre Killings in the United States
http://sg.news.yahoo.com/070417/1/47vx0.html
Bombing of a UN Car in Afghanistan
http://sg.news.yahoo.com/070417/1/47vus.html
Launching of attacks by Taliban on Afghanistan
http://sg.news.yahoo.com/070417/3/47vxu.html
Judging by the headlines, these events are attention-grabbing. Crude words like 'shootings', 'killer' and 'launch' instantly saps one's attention, bringing a great deal of focus to it. In the article of the launching of attacks by Taliban on Afghanistan, the headline is titled with descriptors like 'launch'. Instead of using words like 'Taliban carries out attacks on Afghanistan', the journalist chooses the word 'launch'. By doing so, the media is exaggerating the extent of the news by playing around with words.
In the other article of the mass killings in the Virginia University in the United States, the killings is emphasised by a numerical value. The journalist opts to put in the number '33', to portray a significant number who perished in the killings. Imagine, if the number did not appear in the headlines, but rather the headline reads ' Details of Killer emerged' , would you be as awed?
As for the article on the Taliban killings, it is put forth as ' the heaviest fighting in an area so close to the capital since 2001' in the first paragraph. Of course, the extent to 'heavy fighting' differs from one to another. As such, this extent is subject to the journalist alone; where he might use these words in an attempt to attract the reader's attention. The University kilings have inputs like 'rocked with grief' in the report as well. All these are done in the hope of making these news impactful.
Furthermore, the media puts more efforts in publishing such news. From the link of the website of world news, the category of news reporting killings outweighs those of other genres. Does this mean that the world is saturated with violence? There are other 'minor' news like the Nigerian VP's particiapation in the general election, but the media displays it as 'secondary news'.
If you notice, covers on tabloids are mostly news of such content. Even news programmes on the television airs such news in priority.
Perhaps it is because the reader's interest lies mainly in tangible news like these that have resulted in this unpredecented way of reporting news. In addition, happenings like killings of this sort certainly do not happen in our day-to-day lives. They inject a sense of amazement and regret in us. For example, I tend to read articles of such content in detail, whereas I would just scan through news related to politics or of other genres.
Thus, the mass media make the news only to cater to the audiences' taste and preferences.
Website of World News
http://sg.news.yahoo.com/world/index.html
University Massacre Killings in the United States
http://sg.news.yahoo.com/070417/1/47vx0.html
Bombing of a UN Car in Afghanistan
http://sg.news.yahoo.com/070417/1/47vus.html
Launching of attacks by Taliban on Afghanistan
http://sg.news.yahoo.com/070417/3/47vxu.html
Wednesday, April 11, 2007
1. “YouTube has no ethics, it's been created for the sole purpose of entertainment and money.” Do you agree?
You Tube is a free-sharing online portal, accessible to all users, as long as they have internet access. It has facilitated in the sharing of videos, across boundaries and cultures.
It is of course inevitable that You Tube is created for the purpose of generating income. Would you not want recognition for an ingenious invention that you have come up with? Imagine that you put in your utmost, only to realise at the end of the day that you do not stand to gain any benefit from it. Every website or organisation would want to earn from their inventions.
If You Tube has no ethics, it would not be freely accessible to all users. Instead, the creator should just charge a minimal fee for viewing of the videos to generate more income for himself. However, he made it a free portal for all. By doing so, world-wide users are able to access videos freely as it bears no cost to view these videos.
Take for example the ban of You Tube in Thailand. A video depicting the Thai king's face filled with grafitti was openly showcased in the video. Was this an unethical act done by the creator of You Tube or many users using You Tube? This was a childish and imprudent act of a sole user. Maybe the creator of You Tube did not take into account on how to limit or filter unethical videos which might be posted, but does this neccessarily mean that You Tube has no morals at all?
You Tube is not merely created for the sole purpose of money and entertainment. In the hope of educating people, it also serves as an online platform for people to share their different perspectives on certain videos.
However, it is deficient in filtering out videos of explicit content or deemed as unethical. This would thus lead to the misconception of people, making people think of You Tube as an unethical mode of sharing videos. To put it in this manner, You Tube would seem as though it has no morals. Thus, You Tube should implement a system whereby certain videos would be banned automatically from being uploaded.
In all, You Tube is generally a website that means well for the public. Without it, would we have seen and gained new insights into videos we have never seen before? Being ethical would depend largely on the moral sense of the online community that uses You Tube.
It is of course inevitable that You Tube is created for the purpose of generating income. Would you not want recognition for an ingenious invention that you have come up with? Imagine that you put in your utmost, only to realise at the end of the day that you do not stand to gain any benefit from it. Every website or organisation would want to earn from their inventions.
If You Tube has no ethics, it would not be freely accessible to all users. Instead, the creator should just charge a minimal fee for viewing of the videos to generate more income for himself. However, he made it a free portal for all. By doing so, world-wide users are able to access videos freely as it bears no cost to view these videos.
Take for example the ban of You Tube in Thailand. A video depicting the Thai king's face filled with grafitti was openly showcased in the video. Was this an unethical act done by the creator of You Tube or many users using You Tube? This was a childish and imprudent act of a sole user. Maybe the creator of You Tube did not take into account on how to limit or filter unethical videos which might be posted, but does this neccessarily mean that You Tube has no morals at all?
You Tube is not merely created for the sole purpose of money and entertainment. In the hope of educating people, it also serves as an online platform for people to share their different perspectives on certain videos.
However, it is deficient in filtering out videos of explicit content or deemed as unethical. This would thus lead to the misconception of people, making people think of You Tube as an unethical mode of sharing videos. To put it in this manner, You Tube would seem as though it has no morals. Thus, You Tube should implement a system whereby certain videos would be banned automatically from being uploaded.
In all, You Tube is generally a website that means well for the public. Without it, would we have seen and gained new insights into videos we have never seen before? Being ethical would depend largely on the moral sense of the online community that uses You Tube.
Tuesday, April 3, 2007
‘The teenage years are the best years of one’s life.’ Would you agree with this view?
Teenage years is a transition period whereby adolescents go in search for their own identity, learning more about themselves in this process.
However turbulent this period may be, it is the most exhilirating phase in everyone's lives. The search for one's identity through experimenting with various fads inevitably spice up the teenage years. This once in a lifetime experience would no longer be existent after the teenage years, where one gradually develops his own stand and perspective. It is through these experiences that a teenager's life is enriched.
Take in the case of the 'emo' fad, would you not be eager to don dark T-shirts, sneakers and be adorned with multiple piercings or tattoos for once? After all, it will be almost impossible to dress in this fashion once you enter adulthood. Emotionally, teens also discover more about themselves, eventually looking back to realise that it is just part-and-parcel of the growing up process.
My parents trudge home drearily, burdened with worries not only from the workplace, but from the responsibilities that they hold as well. Looking at them, I somehow treasure the carefreeness I get to enjoy now. Being constantly engaged with thoughts of sustaining the household or figuring on how to communicate with my angst-filled teen is definitely something that I would want to avoid at all cost. Being a teen is good in a sense, as there is no need to be occupied with abundant woes.
On the other hand, teenage years are susceptible to influential friends and perhaps negative influences. It is a phase where teens view friends as top priority. Thus, if they hang out with the wrong crowd, they could be misleaded. As cited in the articles, teens cut themselves to follow the trend of being 'emo'. Self-destructive acts like these should not be tolerated as they threaten the emotional well-being of teenagers. This definitely does not make teenage years the best of one's life.
To sum it up, these years are filled with zeal. It is also the only period in our lives where we become independent and develop our own thinkings without having to worry about sustaining the household. This sensation will not be experienced once the teenage years have passed.
However turbulent this period may be, it is the most exhilirating phase in everyone's lives. The search for one's identity through experimenting with various fads inevitably spice up the teenage years. This once in a lifetime experience would no longer be existent after the teenage years, where one gradually develops his own stand and perspective. It is through these experiences that a teenager's life is enriched.
Take in the case of the 'emo' fad, would you not be eager to don dark T-shirts, sneakers and be adorned with multiple piercings or tattoos for once? After all, it will be almost impossible to dress in this fashion once you enter adulthood. Emotionally, teens also discover more about themselves, eventually looking back to realise that it is just part-and-parcel of the growing up process.
My parents trudge home drearily, burdened with worries not only from the workplace, but from the responsibilities that they hold as well. Looking at them, I somehow treasure the carefreeness I get to enjoy now. Being constantly engaged with thoughts of sustaining the household or figuring on how to communicate with my angst-filled teen is definitely something that I would want to avoid at all cost. Being a teen is good in a sense, as there is no need to be occupied with abundant woes.
On the other hand, teenage years are susceptible to influential friends and perhaps negative influences. It is a phase where teens view friends as top priority. Thus, if they hang out with the wrong crowd, they could be misleaded. As cited in the articles, teens cut themselves to follow the trend of being 'emo'. Self-destructive acts like these should not be tolerated as they threaten the emotional well-being of teenagers. This definitely does not make teenage years the best of one's life.
To sum it up, these years are filled with zeal. It is also the only period in our lives where we become independent and develop our own thinkings without having to worry about sustaining the household. This sensation will not be experienced once the teenage years have passed.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)