These few posts will be a collection of my own writings, either written during exams or normal school practice. I'm posting them here to keep a collection of these writings in somewhere I can always find them.
Anderson Junior College
JC 1 Promos 2007
“Developed countries should lead the way in the conservation of our environment” Do you agree? (I sort of forgot the actual question, its something like that)
Gaia is in danger. This is a fact known to almost every living person on Earth. With the Artic predicted to have lost 40% of ice by 2050 and having temperatures high enough to sunbath or swim in swimsuits, I believe this is a wake up call to everyone, to start doing something for our environment.
Here comes the question. Who will bear the cost? It seems as the most direct solution for developed countries such as the United States or Britain to bear bulk of the monetary cost in our efforts towards conservation of the environment. Simply because they have more reserves compared to third world countries who do not even have the means to feed their people. More importantly, they are the ones who own the most factories, engaging in the production of goods for consumption all over the world. But, does owning the most number of factories mean that they are the main culprits for the destruction of our environment? Not exactly. Does being richer and more developed directly lands developed countries into the role of a monetary bearer for the preservation of the environment?
Considering the world’s “big brother”, the United States, tops the world in everything be it good or bad. If there were to start putting in effort in environmental conservation, promoting the good side towards conservation, perhaps half the world would follow suit. Perhaps this would be overgeneralizing, but my point is that developed countries should set an example should set an example by first starting to bear the cost for environmental conservation. In doing so, they are encouraging every other nation in the world to take up conservation of our environment under their lead. Taking “Live Earth”, the 24 hour long event as an example, only developed countries have the ability to support such a major event. This is something that poor counties do not have the means to. By taking up the cost of such a major event creates awareness about the importance of conservation worldwide. Knowledge about the effects of global warming of melting sea-caps will allow people to understand and start putting in effort to try and savage the situation. Instead of bearing the total cost for the conservation, developed countries should on the other hand aim to produce a start up cost, this cost will benefit the world in gaining knowledge and is not for an idle cost. Although this cost may not be recovered, but it is necessary as only developed countries have the economic ability to support such major events.
Another somewhat logical argument is that one should be responsible for one’s actions. That is, if country X was the one who destroyed the environment, country X should bear the cost. Contradictory to what it seems, not all developed countries are the ones who produce the most waste gas. When asked who is the third largest producer of waste gas behind United States and China, many would probably name a developed and industrialized country such as Germany. Many would be shocked to hear that it is Indonesia. Indonesia is neither developed nor industrialized but creates tons of carbon dioxide because of deforestation.
The culprit for producing waste gas is not that of a developed country, should Indonesia bear the cost for environmental conservation? Through the clichéd thinking of bearing responsibility for one’s act. One would most probably nod in agreement. However, Indonesia is not a developed country and may not have the ability to produce additional reserves towards conservation. Judging based on fairness, it seems illogical for countries who did not contribute the most to waste gases to bear the bulk of the cost for conservation. It would seem as punishing the innocent.
Having proven that developing countries are not exactly innocent in causing harm to the environmental brings me to may next point, that it is not to say that developing countries should not be involved in environment conservation. Therefore developed countries should not be the only ones bearing the cost for environmental conservation. If developed countries put in large amounts of money to develop environmentally friendly products which are CFC free or technology that makes use of natural forces rather than coal, yet developing countries such as Indonesia are burning down their forest, all efforts will be going down the drain. Perhaps developed countries should help come up with the start up cost to educate the world, but the maintenance cost of sustaining the “going-green” efforts, should come from all nations, as it always takes two hands to clam, one-sided effort will only lead to waste.
In conclusion, I agree with the statement to a small extent. Developed countries should bear the start up cost of conserving the environment because developed countries have higher economic abilities as compared to developing countries. This is however not to say that developing countries can keep their arms folded and sit back and relax. Conservation of the environment should be done with nations having one common goal. It can only be achieved when nation co-operate and not boycott an agreements. Only that way are we able to conserve our environment.
Comments: Arguments put across are well argued and developed. Points are logically linked and evaluated. Style is very good – keep it up. What you need – specific examples as concrete evidence to further boost your arguments. Language is fluent and clear. Continue to practice - ____________.
Score: C 19/30 + L 14/20 = 33/50
One of the most fun time I had writing this essay. The style came naturally in a very relaxed manner.
Friday, December 4, 2009
“Every nation should invest in the Arts” Do you agree?
These few posts will be a collection of my own writings, either written during exams or normal school practice. I'm posting them here to keep a collection of these writings in somewhere I can always find them.
Anderson Junior College
JC 1 Term 3 Practice Question 2007
“Every nation should invest in the Arts” Do you agree?
Art can come in many different forms, whether it is in the visual form of paintings and sculptures, literary form of poetry and drama or even the audio form of classical music. In most countries that we see, the Arts cannot support themselves, they have to depend on subsidies from the government or private establishments, only that way can the awareness of Arts be raised. Even in richer countries, not all areas if Art can be fully developed, should the money be spent in fully developing the Arts or should the funds be directed to other areas of concern such as the starvation problem in poorer countries? Although it seems crucial for the government to aid the Arts scene, we must not forget this ethical question.
As suggested earlier, the Arts are seldom able to support themselves. If there are no forms of subsidies forthcoming, the Arts scene may perish, which is a pity. Take for example the traditional Thai dance, it is a part of Thailand which shows it past and traditional roots. It is an inheritance from the past Thai empire and perhaps one of the few links back to the lifestyles of their ancestors. What will be lost along with the dance is the culture and heritage of the Thais, this lost cannot be measured in monetary values, thus the ‘true’ cost of the lost is much heavier than it can be imagined. Public money spent in such a venture is thus for a worthy cause and will definitely be worth spending.
One should also be long sighted and realize how can investing in the arts now help in the long run. Using public funds to develop the arts scene may be seen as a head start to allow the arts scene to be independent. We should look beyond the funds spent now and weigh the pros can cons on a long term basis. The money spent on the arts now may be used in other sectors such as defence and education which are undeniably important due to the positive externalities arised. However, sufficient amount of investment in the arts will encourage the public to get involve, relieving the economic burden on the government such as the case of Singapore public funds are used for the promotion of the arts festival, organizing competitions thus encouraging the public to support the arts scene. The government will no longer need to continue spending money on the arts when the arts become self-sufficient, it will thus be lending a helping hand rather than throwing in money completely.
On the other hand, this may not seem applicable to all countries as suggested by the question. Developing the arts should not be at the extent of depriving those in need of the public funds for survival. In the promotion of arts, the nation may forget about the needy ones who could make use of these funds for survival. In developing countries like Utopia or Cambodia, the funds that the government chose to invest in the arts could be used to save the starving people instead. The suffering people will be more deserving of the funds, after all, we are saving lives, something that is more evident than seeing the arts scene decline. In this case, it seems more ethical for us to spend the money on the less fortunate as they will definitely appreciate it more.
In my opinion, this issue should be views on a case by case basis, richer countries may have the ability to support the arts without much sacrifice, poorer nations however, can make better use of the funds, helping starving people, for a better cause. Maybe the time has not come for all nations to be heavily involved in promoting the Arts, but I believe in time to come, all nations should have the economic ability to do so. In our charitable hearts to direct funds to the poor, I do not think it is completely impossible to savage the dying heritage in the country either. Countries may choose to encourage minority races to keep their traditions for a cause, it is more important to see the meaning of promoting the arts scene rather than invest heavily without knowing the true cost.
Comments: This is a remarkable essay! It’s lucid and passionate. However, you need to work harder on providing evidence to support your stand and conviction.
Score: 44.5/50
It’s a high score mainly because a new teacher marked this, he gave really high scores on the whole(:
Anderson Junior College
JC 1 Term 3 Practice Question 2007
“Every nation should invest in the Arts” Do you agree?
Art can come in many different forms, whether it is in the visual form of paintings and sculptures, literary form of poetry and drama or even the audio form of classical music. In most countries that we see, the Arts cannot support themselves, they have to depend on subsidies from the government or private establishments, only that way can the awareness of Arts be raised. Even in richer countries, not all areas if Art can be fully developed, should the money be spent in fully developing the Arts or should the funds be directed to other areas of concern such as the starvation problem in poorer countries? Although it seems crucial for the government to aid the Arts scene, we must not forget this ethical question.
As suggested earlier, the Arts are seldom able to support themselves. If there are no forms of subsidies forthcoming, the Arts scene may perish, which is a pity. Take for example the traditional Thai dance, it is a part of Thailand which shows it past and traditional roots. It is an inheritance from the past Thai empire and perhaps one of the few links back to the lifestyles of their ancestors. What will be lost along with the dance is the culture and heritage of the Thais, this lost cannot be measured in monetary values, thus the ‘true’ cost of the lost is much heavier than it can be imagined. Public money spent in such a venture is thus for a worthy cause and will definitely be worth spending.
One should also be long sighted and realize how can investing in the arts now help in the long run. Using public funds to develop the arts scene may be seen as a head start to allow the arts scene to be independent. We should look beyond the funds spent now and weigh the pros can cons on a long term basis. The money spent on the arts now may be used in other sectors such as defence and education which are undeniably important due to the positive externalities arised. However, sufficient amount of investment in the arts will encourage the public to get involve, relieving the economic burden on the government such as the case of Singapore public funds are used for the promotion of the arts festival, organizing competitions thus encouraging the public to support the arts scene. The government will no longer need to continue spending money on the arts when the arts become self-sufficient, it will thus be lending a helping hand rather than throwing in money completely.
On the other hand, this may not seem applicable to all countries as suggested by the question. Developing the arts should not be at the extent of depriving those in need of the public funds for survival. In the promotion of arts, the nation may forget about the needy ones who could make use of these funds for survival. In developing countries like Utopia or Cambodia, the funds that the government chose to invest in the arts could be used to save the starving people instead. The suffering people will be more deserving of the funds, after all, we are saving lives, something that is more evident than seeing the arts scene decline. In this case, it seems more ethical for us to spend the money on the less fortunate as they will definitely appreciate it more.
In my opinion, this issue should be views on a case by case basis, richer countries may have the ability to support the arts without much sacrifice, poorer nations however, can make better use of the funds, helping starving people, for a better cause. Maybe the time has not come for all nations to be heavily involved in promoting the Arts, but I believe in time to come, all nations should have the economic ability to do so. In our charitable hearts to direct funds to the poor, I do not think it is completely impossible to savage the dying heritage in the country either. Countries may choose to encourage minority races to keep their traditions for a cause, it is more important to see the meaning of promoting the arts scene rather than invest heavily without knowing the true cost.
Comments: This is a remarkable essay! It’s lucid and passionate. However, you need to work harder on providing evidence to support your stand and conviction.
Score: 44.5/50
It’s a high score mainly because a new teacher marked this, he gave really high scores on the whole(:
Foriegn Brides
The next few posts will be a collection of my own writings, either written during exams or normal school practice. I'm posting them here to keep a collection of these writings in somewhere I can always find them.
Cedar Girls Secondary School
Sec 3 EOY English Language Paper 1 2005
Foreign Brides 23/9/05
With the development of our nation, many people are now caught in the ever changing fast paced society in Singapore. Men tend to be stuck in the rat race and women are now given equal opportunities compared to men, some even earning tens of thousands a month. Thus Singaporean women have higher expectations of men, many would rather marry foreigners and shin men from jobs of the lower class, for example, the hawkers, those working in the wet market and “karang gunis”. These men eventually turn to foreign brides with the hope of setting up a happy family of their own. These men tend to be around thirty to fifty years old, with an average monthly income.
How well does the statement ‘live happily ever after’ stand? How many couples are getting divorced daily? Men may initially feel an attraction towards these women, mainly from Thailand, China or even Vietnam, but this is all but a physical attraction. How different is this from blind dates? To really ‘live happily ever after’, couples have to be able to accept all flaws of the other party and understand each other and are able to confide in each other when needed. How accurate is it to judge a person’s character based on a picture or at first glance? Men who marry foreign brides may not get to enjoy eternal marital bliss after all.
There are also cases if men being cheated by agencies who promise to deliver these foreign brides to them. Those who genuinely want to set up a family may be cheated of thousands of dollars which they have been scrimping and saving for months. Is it safe enough to get foreign brides through agencies? There is no guarantee as many turn out to be a hoax. The latter later regrets having not signed any official documents to take legal actions against the company.
We also never know what these foreign brides are thinking about, they are not locals after all. They are brought up in a foreign land and who do not know their principles, beliefs and mindsets. Some foreign brides squander large amounts of money on branded goods and demand that their husbands buy designer products for them or threaten to leave, many dote on their wives and think on means and ways to provide the best for them. The brides are thus taking advantage of their marriage for their own personal gains.
One might however pity these brides as they might have been forces into circumstances like these. Some do it to supplement the family income, others for the hope of a better lifestyle. Whatever the reason, they are humans with a heart after all, no one wants to be away from home all their life, no one wants to endure the pain of homesickness. We should too spare a though for their feelings, of how they might feel in a land away from home.
These brides may be cheated or even worse abused by their husbands. They may be tricked into believing that their husbands were actually “businessmen” who later turn out to be a small time hawker or claim to have a car which turn out to be a bicycle. Is it fair for them to be conned into marriage? These brides should have rights to legally charge these men who do abuse them after drinking too much or losing large amounts after gambling. Their brides are not her for them to vent their anger on.
In conclusion, I personally feel that although foreign brides may be a solution to loneliness, the thought of whether the marriage will last has to be considered. The men might be relieving them of a temporary financial situation but how well can they provide them for the rest of their lives or ensure that they are really happy. The risk of getting divorce is very high and it is pointless to spend money on a marriage that will not last. There are also dangers of getting them to Singapore and the men face a constant threat of when is she going to leave or whether she has taken their money. I feel that it is wrong to deprive them of basic human right to choose their spouses. If the demand for these foreign brides are not high, the market will eventually be closed down, giving freedom to them. Thus I feel it is better to wait for the day your true live appears instead of gambling your happiness and money on foreign brides, not because of the risk involved, but also a release for them, and also the men to treasure true love when it comes.
Comments: Very good work
Score: 25/30
Well, the language and structure is not excellent but I typed it out as I wrote it, so it was exactly what I wrote when I was fifteen(:
Cedar Girls Secondary School
Sec 3 EOY English Language Paper 1 2005
Foreign Brides 23/9/05
With the development of our nation, many people are now caught in the ever changing fast paced society in Singapore. Men tend to be stuck in the rat race and women are now given equal opportunities compared to men, some even earning tens of thousands a month. Thus Singaporean women have higher expectations of men, many would rather marry foreigners and shin men from jobs of the lower class, for example, the hawkers, those working in the wet market and “karang gunis”. These men eventually turn to foreign brides with the hope of setting up a happy family of their own. These men tend to be around thirty to fifty years old, with an average monthly income.
How well does the statement ‘live happily ever after’ stand? How many couples are getting divorced daily? Men may initially feel an attraction towards these women, mainly from Thailand, China or even Vietnam, but this is all but a physical attraction. How different is this from blind dates? To really ‘live happily ever after’, couples have to be able to accept all flaws of the other party and understand each other and are able to confide in each other when needed. How accurate is it to judge a person’s character based on a picture or at first glance? Men who marry foreign brides may not get to enjoy eternal marital bliss after all.
There are also cases if men being cheated by agencies who promise to deliver these foreign brides to them. Those who genuinely want to set up a family may be cheated of thousands of dollars which they have been scrimping and saving for months. Is it safe enough to get foreign brides through agencies? There is no guarantee as many turn out to be a hoax. The latter later regrets having not signed any official documents to take legal actions against the company.
We also never know what these foreign brides are thinking about, they are not locals after all. They are brought up in a foreign land and who do not know their principles, beliefs and mindsets. Some foreign brides squander large amounts of money on branded goods and demand that their husbands buy designer products for them or threaten to leave, many dote on their wives and think on means and ways to provide the best for them. The brides are thus taking advantage of their marriage for their own personal gains.
One might however pity these brides as they might have been forces into circumstances like these. Some do it to supplement the family income, others for the hope of a better lifestyle. Whatever the reason, they are humans with a heart after all, no one wants to be away from home all their life, no one wants to endure the pain of homesickness. We should too spare a though for their feelings, of how they might feel in a land away from home.
These brides may be cheated or even worse abused by their husbands. They may be tricked into believing that their husbands were actually “businessmen” who later turn out to be a small time hawker or claim to have a car which turn out to be a bicycle. Is it fair for them to be conned into marriage? These brides should have rights to legally charge these men who do abuse them after drinking too much or losing large amounts after gambling. Their brides are not her for them to vent their anger on.
In conclusion, I personally feel that although foreign brides may be a solution to loneliness, the thought of whether the marriage will last has to be considered. The men might be relieving them of a temporary financial situation but how well can they provide them for the rest of their lives or ensure that they are really happy. The risk of getting divorce is very high and it is pointless to spend money on a marriage that will not last. There are also dangers of getting them to Singapore and the men face a constant threat of when is she going to leave or whether she has taken their money. I feel that it is wrong to deprive them of basic human right to choose their spouses. If the demand for these foreign brides are not high, the market will eventually be closed down, giving freedom to them. Thus I feel it is better to wait for the day your true live appears instead of gambling your happiness and money on foreign brides, not because of the risk involved, but also a release for them, and also the men to treasure true love when it comes.
Comments: Very good work
Score: 25/30
Well, the language and structure is not excellent but I typed it out as I wrote it, so it was exactly what I wrote when I was fifteen(:
Sunday, May 20, 2007
The media is corrupting our society. Do you agree?
The media is corrupting our society. Do you agree?
As much as we do not want to hear it, media has been blamed for every violent behavior or unhealthy images portrayed to the public. The recent Virginia tech shootings, serves as a great example, much of the responsibility has been pushed to the media, youtube has been criticized for allowing such violent and disturbing scenes to be viewed by the public. Another evident example is the banning of models who are too skinny as they are blamed for encouraging anorexic behavior. I beg to differ in this opinion as I believe that humans are strong-willed and will not simply accept whatever is being shown by the media, with education, we are able to differentiate what is right and wrong, and this can only be done by ourselves, we cannot depend on others to decide for us.
Anyway from what I have seen of the movies coming around over the past few years, apart from the blood looking more real, along with the better choreography and special effects, it doesn’t make them any more violent than in the 70’s or before. Since the amount of violence in media has not shown an increase, why is there a significance in the amount of violence in our everyday lives? There must be other factors other than media itself that triggers such a reaction.
Growing up as a child, I remember my parents disallowing me to watch certain television shows which are too violent or gory in nature. When asked why, they simply said that I was too young and had to wait till I was older. That was 10 years ago. Parents nowadays are a lot busier and do not even know what their children are watching, let alone ban them from watching these shows. The media simply provides what the viewers want, if more violence is demanded, more violence will be provided. My point here is to highlight, who are the real role models of children? Children get role models from what their parents do, not based on what’s popular on television or music. Parents should not shriek the responsibility and push the blame to the media for every bad thing that happens for being an influence.
People just use movies and TV to cover up the real issues involved in things like this. Most of those who shoot up schools or become extremely promiscuous come from terrible home lives. Parents who walked out on them or separated families or were imprisoned are common, although parents who are never there can be just as detrimental in these cases. Mental disorders and psychopaths also have to be taken into consideration; even if they aren't evident before they act out, psychoses can severely alter a person's sense of reality and fiction, and psychopath can deaden them to the wrongness and consequences of what they do. Also, the real role models need to be taken into consideration.
Much as I have commented on the role models in the lives of children, who is to be role models of these role models. Well, the answer is simple, education. Education will enable us to differentiate between what’s right and what’s wrong. So instead of blaming the media for corrupting our society, we should take it in our stride that all things cannot go the way we want. The only best thing we can do it do in cultivate individual censorship, to only take in what is right, based on moral education that we have received.
As much as we do not want to hear it, media has been blamed for every violent behavior or unhealthy images portrayed to the public. The recent Virginia tech shootings, serves as a great example, much of the responsibility has been pushed to the media, youtube has been criticized for allowing such violent and disturbing scenes to be viewed by the public. Another evident example is the banning of models who are too skinny as they are blamed for encouraging anorexic behavior. I beg to differ in this opinion as I believe that humans are strong-willed and will not simply accept whatever is being shown by the media, with education, we are able to differentiate what is right and wrong, and this can only be done by ourselves, we cannot depend on others to decide for us.
Anyway from what I have seen of the movies coming around over the past few years, apart from the blood looking more real, along with the better choreography and special effects, it doesn’t make them any more violent than in the 70’s or before. Since the amount of violence in media has not shown an increase, why is there a significance in the amount of violence in our everyday lives? There must be other factors other than media itself that triggers such a reaction.
Growing up as a child, I remember my parents disallowing me to watch certain television shows which are too violent or gory in nature. When asked why, they simply said that I was too young and had to wait till I was older. That was 10 years ago. Parents nowadays are a lot busier and do not even know what their children are watching, let alone ban them from watching these shows. The media simply provides what the viewers want, if more violence is demanded, more violence will be provided. My point here is to highlight, who are the real role models of children? Children get role models from what their parents do, not based on what’s popular on television or music. Parents should not shriek the responsibility and push the blame to the media for every bad thing that happens for being an influence.
People just use movies and TV to cover up the real issues involved in things like this. Most of those who shoot up schools or become extremely promiscuous come from terrible home lives. Parents who walked out on them or separated families or were imprisoned are common, although parents who are never there can be just as detrimental in these cases. Mental disorders and psychopaths also have to be taken into consideration; even if they aren't evident before they act out, psychoses can severely alter a person's sense of reality and fiction, and psychopath can deaden them to the wrongness and consequences of what they do. Also, the real role models need to be taken into consideration.
Much as I have commented on the role models in the lives of children, who is to be role models of these role models. Well, the answer is simple, education. Education will enable us to differentiate between what’s right and what’s wrong. So instead of blaming the media for corrupting our society, we should take it in our stride that all things cannot go the way we want. The only best thing we can do it do in cultivate individual censorship, to only take in what is right, based on moral education that we have received.
Saturday, May 12, 2007
“Media will be the death of sport.” Do you agree?
“Media will be the death of sport.” Do you agree?
Sport is physical activity of any kind which is carried out to exercise the body and as recreation. Nowadays however, it is not unusual to hear of millionaire sportsmen who are raking in the dollars with endorsement contract, some even before they have truly proven their worth in the sport they specialize in. Turn on ESPN and you’ll see athletes moving around, wearing name-brand outfits supplied by their sponsors. Today the value of a sportsman is less likely to be measured by their performance but the amount they are worth in the modeling field.
Television is a branch out of media. With live-telecast of matches, people are now able to sit in the comfort of their homes to enjoy the match on that plasma TV just in front of them. If everyone thinks that watching the match is much more interesting than playing the game, the sport will soon “die” as there isn’t anyone interested to participate in the action but choose to remain passive. I personally think that this is highly unlikely as since ancient times in Greece, sports have always exist as a form of entertainment, there are other things that distract sportsmen and their fans. In all ages, there have been people who watched and people who played. People just have a different attitude towards sports, it is their decision whether to participate in it physically. People who are interested will get off their arm-chairs and be off to play the games without any prompting.
On the other hand, televisions can actually promote interest in sports. Couch potatoes love thrills and will watch anything thrilling over television. Sports programs will be broadcast and this may rouse the idle ones to go into action. In fact, during the world cup, you will find youngsters pestering their parents to buy football equipment, trying to imitate their favorite football stars, player football in school fields and open public spaces.
Despite the media attention some well known sportsmen get, there are still some who desire more than just the extrinsic rewards, those who truly stick to the game. A sport is a challenge that sportsmen hope to conquer. There are sportsmen who give up well paying jobs just to pursue the heart of the sport.
Trough it all, media and sports are two different issues all together. It is due to our imagination that leads to suggest that one will be the death of the other. Sport has undergone greater threats to its annihilation than mere television and has lived through them all. Therefore I believe the true spirit of sports will stay on forever.
Sport is physical activity of any kind which is carried out to exercise the body and as recreation. Nowadays however, it is not unusual to hear of millionaire sportsmen who are raking in the dollars with endorsement contract, some even before they have truly proven their worth in the sport they specialize in. Turn on ESPN and you’ll see athletes moving around, wearing name-brand outfits supplied by their sponsors. Today the value of a sportsman is less likely to be measured by their performance but the amount they are worth in the modeling field.
Television is a branch out of media. With live-telecast of matches, people are now able to sit in the comfort of their homes to enjoy the match on that plasma TV just in front of them. If everyone thinks that watching the match is much more interesting than playing the game, the sport will soon “die” as there isn’t anyone interested to participate in the action but choose to remain passive. I personally think that this is highly unlikely as since ancient times in Greece, sports have always exist as a form of entertainment, there are other things that distract sportsmen and their fans. In all ages, there have been people who watched and people who played. People just have a different attitude towards sports, it is their decision whether to participate in it physically. People who are interested will get off their arm-chairs and be off to play the games without any prompting.
On the other hand, televisions can actually promote interest in sports. Couch potatoes love thrills and will watch anything thrilling over television. Sports programs will be broadcast and this may rouse the idle ones to go into action. In fact, during the world cup, you will find youngsters pestering their parents to buy football equipment, trying to imitate their favorite football stars, player football in school fields and open public spaces.
Despite the media attention some well known sportsmen get, there are still some who desire more than just the extrinsic rewards, those who truly stick to the game. A sport is a challenge that sportsmen hope to conquer. There are sportsmen who give up well paying jobs just to pursue the heart of the sport.
Trough it all, media and sports are two different issues all together. It is due to our imagination that leads to suggest that one will be the death of the other. Sport has undergone greater threats to its annihilation than mere television and has lived through them all. Therefore I believe the true spirit of sports will stay on forever.
Monday, May 7, 2007
Censorship can never be justified, do you agree?
Censorship can never be justified, do you agree?
In a democratic society like ours, it is believed that every man should have the freedom of saying whatever he wants to, it seems so important that the press should be given complete freedom. Complete freedom here being the press should not be restricted in any manner, to be allowed to publish anything the wish, without the implementation of censorship. The press has been fighting for completed freedom right from a start to make do with censorship, but before we make a decision, we should consider whether censorship is justified.
In some parts of the world, the press has more freedom than other parts due difference in censorship. In communist countries such as China, the press belongs to the state and can publish anything they wish to, as long as it is on the side of the state – nothing more. Whereas in democratic countries such as the US, the press has a certain measure of freedom. It can raise its voice against the government or even take the stand of the opposition party and attack the government – as long as they keep within the law.
Having explained freedom and censorship, here is the real catch. It is the government which decides what the law is. Therefore, following this line of argument, the press’s freedom can be curbed by just passing new laws. This is very possible in the case of Singapore where despite growing power of the opposition parties, the government still holds higher power. It is possible for the government to ban papers which they feel are against them. Then again, as Singapore is a democratic society, citizens are supreme and can always vote the government out if any unfair practices are made.
The government giving complete freedom to the press without having censorship may not necessarily be the most desirable situation. In a society where absolute freedom is given to only a particular group of persons, it is as good as giving permission to write anything about any issue or on anyone. This will lead to a fear of the press. Newspapers have already been known to destroy public figures by prying into their private lives and publishing news about them. Much of there tabloids contain sensational news but serve little purpose. Being a business itself, newspapers will publish anything to sell copies, to gain profit as the expense of the lives of others. People’s lives may be destroyed from such harassment.
In conclusion, my view is that the press can only be given freedom up to a point where it does not encroach on the freedom or the good of the state. No one, including the press should be given so much freedom that he is able to cause damage to others. Perhaps in future, when the press becomes absolutely responsible, this situation can be reviewed. For now, censorship is not only justified but also necessary as there are tendencies of misusage of freedom.
Links to articles:
http://en.epochtimes.com/news/6-11-10/47995.html
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QZk4PpIue2s
http://www.infoplease.com/ce6/society/A0857225.html
In a democratic society like ours, it is believed that every man should have the freedom of saying whatever he wants to, it seems so important that the press should be given complete freedom. Complete freedom here being the press should not be restricted in any manner, to be allowed to publish anything the wish, without the implementation of censorship. The press has been fighting for completed freedom right from a start to make do with censorship, but before we make a decision, we should consider whether censorship is justified.
In some parts of the world, the press has more freedom than other parts due difference in censorship. In communist countries such as China, the press belongs to the state and can publish anything they wish to, as long as it is on the side of the state – nothing more. Whereas in democratic countries such as the US, the press has a certain measure of freedom. It can raise its voice against the government or even take the stand of the opposition party and attack the government – as long as they keep within the law.
Having explained freedom and censorship, here is the real catch. It is the government which decides what the law is. Therefore, following this line of argument, the press’s freedom can be curbed by just passing new laws. This is very possible in the case of Singapore where despite growing power of the opposition parties, the government still holds higher power. It is possible for the government to ban papers which they feel are against them. Then again, as Singapore is a democratic society, citizens are supreme and can always vote the government out if any unfair practices are made.
The government giving complete freedom to the press without having censorship may not necessarily be the most desirable situation. In a society where absolute freedom is given to only a particular group of persons, it is as good as giving permission to write anything about any issue or on anyone. This will lead to a fear of the press. Newspapers have already been known to destroy public figures by prying into their private lives and publishing news about them. Much of there tabloids contain sensational news but serve little purpose. Being a business itself, newspapers will publish anything to sell copies, to gain profit as the expense of the lives of others. People’s lives may be destroyed from such harassment.
In conclusion, my view is that the press can only be given freedom up to a point where it does not encroach on the freedom or the good of the state. No one, including the press should be given so much freedom that he is able to cause damage to others. Perhaps in future, when the press becomes absolutely responsible, this situation can be reviewed. For now, censorship is not only justified but also necessary as there are tendencies of misusage of freedom.
Links to articles:
http://en.epochtimes.com/news/6-11-10/47995.html
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QZk4PpIue2s
http://www.infoplease.com/ce6/society/A0857225.html
Saturday, April 28, 2007
Virginia Tech
Virginia Tech: Who is to be blamed?
What is it that makes men, and in some cases boys get up in the morning, slaughter innocent civilians in a place of learning and then end their own lives?
I believe this question has been on the minds of the public ever since the breaking news of the Virginia Tech Shootings. The aftermath of every school shooting is somewhat similar in the rituals and tributes given to victims of the tragedy. Every tragedy is however different and full of baffling details. A recent article in the times magazine reported detailed statistics on campus deaths, trying to make sense of this massacre. Despite a decreasing trend in violent crimes being spotting in campus, a generally rare incident the Virginia Tech shooting is by far the most tragic with the highest number of deaths recorded. Who is to be blamed for this outburst of violence?
Let us first take a look at the two semi-automatic pistols used in his rampage. Virginia law restricts customers to buying one gun a month and does not require any licensing such as permits or safety certificates. Cho Seung-Hui had followed all federal and Virginia laws when he made his purchases; he had proper identification and had no criminal records. The use of guns in crimes against college students attributed to 9% of the various weapons of assault, while 65% comes without weapons. Throw a stone in America and the chances of you hitting some one who owns a pistol will be relatively high. It is an American culture to be adequately armed against assaults. Owning a pistol may alter the course of a tragedy. In a Mississippi high school, an armed administrator apprehended a school shooter. In a Pennsylvania high school, an armed merchant prevented further deaths. Perhaps an armed teacher or student present in Virginia tech could have prevented the resultant of so many deaths.
Focusing on the identity of the killer. A young South Korean-born man who, according to fellow students, teachers, counselors and even his own family, was incapable of communicating with others personally. The media has in many ways emphasized Cho’s ethnicity and economic background by wondering what would set off a hardworking, quiet, South Korean immigrant from a middle class dry-cleaner-owning family. This behavior was unexpected from South Korean immigrants with much more expected from Middle Easterners and Muslims after the 911 incident. According to Cho's grand aunt in South Korea, Cho's parents had offered autism as an explanation for his behavior. Cho's flat emotional affect was evident through middle and high school years, during which he was bullied for speech difficulties. Relatives thought he might be a mute. Or mentally ill," reported the New York Times. Cho's underlying psychological diagnosis remains a matter of speculation.
Technology has played a huge part in the Virginia Tech mass murder, from Cho’s chilling videos to the memorials downloaded on Youtube. According to an early report in the Washington Post, the Virginia Tech shooter, Cho Seung-Hui, was a fan of violent video games, especially Counter-strike, which Microsoft publishes for the Xbox. As much as we all think games are fine, the truth is that games can be very disturbing and quite visceral. Are kidding ourselves if we ignore the fact that immersion in violence doesn't somewhat desensitize us to it. And if you can become desensitized to violence being in your right mind, is it such a great leap to accept that a person who is already suffering a mental illness would not be more affected? People like Cho are usually depressed, rejected or bullied with psychotic/sociopathic tendencies to begin with. It wouldn't matter if they were playing violent games, they are already a ball of fire building up to explode.
We cannot really pinpoint who is to be held responsible for this tragic happening. Neither should we spend too much effort in trying to hold someone responsible. The key takeaway here is that we have to prevent these unstable personalities to start work again. School attacks are rarely impulsive, teachers and parents should be alert to certain warning signs that a student is succumbing to violent urges.
What is it that makes men, and in some cases boys get up in the morning, slaughter innocent civilians in a place of learning and then end their own lives?
I believe this question has been on the minds of the public ever since the breaking news of the Virginia Tech Shootings. The aftermath of every school shooting is somewhat similar in the rituals and tributes given to victims of the tragedy. Every tragedy is however different and full of baffling details. A recent article in the times magazine reported detailed statistics on campus deaths, trying to make sense of this massacre. Despite a decreasing trend in violent crimes being spotting in campus, a generally rare incident the Virginia Tech shooting is by far the most tragic with the highest number of deaths recorded. Who is to be blamed for this outburst of violence?
Let us first take a look at the two semi-automatic pistols used in his rampage. Virginia law restricts customers to buying one gun a month and does not require any licensing such as permits or safety certificates. Cho Seung-Hui had followed all federal and Virginia laws when he made his purchases; he had proper identification and had no criminal records. The use of guns in crimes against college students attributed to 9% of the various weapons of assault, while 65% comes without weapons. Throw a stone in America and the chances of you hitting some one who owns a pistol will be relatively high. It is an American culture to be adequately armed against assaults. Owning a pistol may alter the course of a tragedy. In a Mississippi high school, an armed administrator apprehended a school shooter. In a Pennsylvania high school, an armed merchant prevented further deaths. Perhaps an armed teacher or student present in Virginia tech could have prevented the resultant of so many deaths.
Focusing on the identity of the killer. A young South Korean-born man who, according to fellow students, teachers, counselors and even his own family, was incapable of communicating with others personally. The media has in many ways emphasized Cho’s ethnicity and economic background by wondering what would set off a hardworking, quiet, South Korean immigrant from a middle class dry-cleaner-owning family. This behavior was unexpected from South Korean immigrants with much more expected from Middle Easterners and Muslims after the 911 incident. According to Cho's grand aunt in South Korea, Cho's parents had offered autism as an explanation for his behavior. Cho's flat emotional affect was evident through middle and high school years, during which he was bullied for speech difficulties. Relatives thought he might be a mute. Or mentally ill," reported the New York Times. Cho's underlying psychological diagnosis remains a matter of speculation.
Technology has played a huge part in the Virginia Tech mass murder, from Cho’s chilling videos to the memorials downloaded on Youtube. According to an early report in the Washington Post, the Virginia Tech shooter, Cho Seung-Hui, was a fan of violent video games, especially Counter-strike, which Microsoft publishes for the Xbox. As much as we all think games are fine, the truth is that games can be very disturbing and quite visceral. Are kidding ourselves if we ignore the fact that immersion in violence doesn't somewhat desensitize us to it. And if you can become desensitized to violence being in your right mind, is it such a great leap to accept that a person who is already suffering a mental illness would not be more affected? People like Cho are usually depressed, rejected or bullied with psychotic/sociopathic tendencies to begin with. It wouldn't matter if they were playing violent games, they are already a ball of fire building up to explode.
We cannot really pinpoint who is to be held responsible for this tragic happening. Neither should we spend too much effort in trying to hold someone responsible. The key takeaway here is that we have to prevent these unstable personalities to start work again. School attacks are rarely impulsive, teachers and parents should be alert to certain warning signs that a student is succumbing to violent urges.
Sunday, April 15, 2007
Media
Nowadays, the mass media do not report the news; they make the news.
Discuss this with references to recent events.
Mass media has, for the past few decades, severed as a resource to provide information readily. Mass media in this aspect would consist of the television, radio, newspapers, magazines, or simply any means of providing information. It brings the world closer to our field of vision, to allow us to be more well armed to make our own judgments on certain events. However, there is just one minor detail that we have seemingly forgotten, that is mass media is a business by itself. The main agenda of a business is to make profit. What is a TV station without viewers? What is a magazine without readers? The world of media has evolved over the years, failing to attract readers or viewers would be deemed as a failed business. Quite often nowadays, the media cannot be totally relied upon to tell the whole truth. In their eagerness to gain patrons, media agencies have slanted the truth or published selectively. There are many examples of manufactured truth just make their reports more attractive. Tabloids especially have committed blunders and hastily publish information which is later found out to be untrue.
Celebrities have been victimized by the media very much too often. It is true they are often the subject of new hounds, but should a line be drawn to separate their public and private lives? How many times have we heard of celebrity’s marriages or divorces which later turn out to be fictional? The media portray themselves as a watchdog over celebrities, to report any misconduct in behavior, as such; they live under the watchful eye of the public. Due to their overzealous attempt to bring news to the public, media has at points created news either intentionally or unintentionally. One recent example from the past week is the death of Nina Wang. Yes, this public figure has led a high profile life being the famously frugal tycoon. Media is at work here to inform the public about her sudden death, but media is at the same time making use of this event to draw readers. Why is her death reported in such depth? Extensive reports about her past lifestyle and lavish funeral, the media has chosen to blow up the death of this celebrity and not simply anyone else because a celebrity’s death will cause readers to pick up the newspapers and the 4 other ‘W’s come into play.
Another example of media at work will be the detaining of the British Navy crew in Iran. British sailors have claimed of being mistreated, however clips were aired on Iran’s satellite TV showing the sailors playing chess and table tennis, proving that the have been treated with respect and were leading comfortably. Media in this case has not created news as the video clips are from a reliable source of the Iran government. However, media is at work by selecting to showcase the video, tensions will rise in Iran felling wrongly accused by the British sailors. The media might have also chose not to broadcast certain videos, censorship is thus present. Seeds of discord have been sown between these 2 countries due to the usage of the media.
Last but not least, charity has always been regarded as an act from the heart. Recent articles about generous donations from organizations or over rated reports of volunteers going all way out to help the needy has caused doubts about the real meaning behind charity. Do not get me wrong by saying that we should not help those in need. However, apart from reporting that little bit of truth involved, the media has chosen to blow up the issue as there articles attract readers. Humanitarian acts as such have been proven to be able to attract readers. Therefore, the media has taken advantage of our humanity to sell this news.
Clearly, the media has spoiled its own reputation by performing certain unethical acts. In my opinion, the media is not entirely to blame. Having said before that mass media is a business, it is necessary to cater to their buyers which are us, if we are in demand for news on the private lives of celebrities, the media creates this news to prevent disappointment. We are actually dictators of media where the clichéd and over used phrased of “consumer is king” comes into play. The mass media is merely catering to the needs of consumers to make even more profit. To a certain extent, we can prevent the media from creating news if we stop being in demand for our so called “juicy” news. The media can be relied upon to tell the truth, but two things have to be kept in play. We as consumers cannot expect too much from the media to be full of entertaining news all the time. The mass media themselves should not be too cooped up with trying to earn more profits or try to compete with each other, instead strive to uphold the true meaning of media – to provide the truth to readers.
Discuss this with references to recent events.
Mass media has, for the past few decades, severed as a resource to provide information readily. Mass media in this aspect would consist of the television, radio, newspapers, magazines, or simply any means of providing information. It brings the world closer to our field of vision, to allow us to be more well armed to make our own judgments on certain events. However, there is just one minor detail that we have seemingly forgotten, that is mass media is a business by itself. The main agenda of a business is to make profit. What is a TV station without viewers? What is a magazine without readers? The world of media has evolved over the years, failing to attract readers or viewers would be deemed as a failed business. Quite often nowadays, the media cannot be totally relied upon to tell the whole truth. In their eagerness to gain patrons, media agencies have slanted the truth or published selectively. There are many examples of manufactured truth just make their reports more attractive. Tabloids especially have committed blunders and hastily publish information which is later found out to be untrue.
Celebrities have been victimized by the media very much too often. It is true they are often the subject of new hounds, but should a line be drawn to separate their public and private lives? How many times have we heard of celebrity’s marriages or divorces which later turn out to be fictional? The media portray themselves as a watchdog over celebrities, to report any misconduct in behavior, as such; they live under the watchful eye of the public. Due to their overzealous attempt to bring news to the public, media has at points created news either intentionally or unintentionally. One recent example from the past week is the death of Nina Wang. Yes, this public figure has led a high profile life being the famously frugal tycoon. Media is at work here to inform the public about her sudden death, but media is at the same time making use of this event to draw readers. Why is her death reported in such depth? Extensive reports about her past lifestyle and lavish funeral, the media has chosen to blow up the death of this celebrity and not simply anyone else because a celebrity’s death will cause readers to pick up the newspapers and the 4 other ‘W’s come into play.
Another example of media at work will be the detaining of the British Navy crew in Iran. British sailors have claimed of being mistreated, however clips were aired on Iran’s satellite TV showing the sailors playing chess and table tennis, proving that the have been treated with respect and were leading comfortably. Media in this case has not created news as the video clips are from a reliable source of the Iran government. However, media is at work by selecting to showcase the video, tensions will rise in Iran felling wrongly accused by the British sailors. The media might have also chose not to broadcast certain videos, censorship is thus present. Seeds of discord have been sown between these 2 countries due to the usage of the media.
Last but not least, charity has always been regarded as an act from the heart. Recent articles about generous donations from organizations or over rated reports of volunteers going all way out to help the needy has caused doubts about the real meaning behind charity. Do not get me wrong by saying that we should not help those in need. However, apart from reporting that little bit of truth involved, the media has chosen to blow up the issue as there articles attract readers. Humanitarian acts as such have been proven to be able to attract readers. Therefore, the media has taken advantage of our humanity to sell this news.
Clearly, the media has spoiled its own reputation by performing certain unethical acts. In my opinion, the media is not entirely to blame. Having said before that mass media is a business, it is necessary to cater to their buyers which are us, if we are in demand for news on the private lives of celebrities, the media creates this news to prevent disappointment. We are actually dictators of media where the clichéd and over used phrased of “consumer is king” comes into play. The mass media is merely catering to the needs of consumers to make even more profit. To a certain extent, we can prevent the media from creating news if we stop being in demand for our so called “juicy” news. The media can be relied upon to tell the truth, but two things have to be kept in play. We as consumers cannot expect too much from the media to be full of entertaining news all the time. The mass media themselves should not be too cooped up with trying to earn more profits or try to compete with each other, instead strive to uphold the true meaning of media – to provide the truth to readers.
Sunday, April 8, 2007
YouTube outrage
“The real innovation that Youtube provides is that --- individuals and groups can produce entertainment. The lawsuit is one of the Great Battles over who controls or provides access.” Do you agree?
Founded in February 2005, YouTube aimed to allow free video sharing which allows users to upload and share their video clips. These videos can be viewed by the public and members are allowed to give comments and rate them. The site gradually grew and now consists of a wide range of videos including movie and TV clips and music videos, as well as amateur content such as videoblogging and short original videos. The company was named TIME magazine's "Invention of the Year" for 2006 as well as voted one of the most user friendly websites by users.
Such an advanced novelty may very well be the new media of entertainment in future. So why is there such uproar about this website? Countries including Iran, US and Australia have been banning specific video clips or imposing bans to disallow students to visit YouTube in campus. Other countries namely Thailand and Brazil have engaged in lawsuits either due to political reasons or overly exposing videos. Even as such, many people are still strong supporters of this website, looking at it as a source of diversion and amusement apart from this hectic lifestyle that we live. Thus, I believe that YouTube exist to produce mainly entertainment or as a channel for broadcasting yourself, to promote more interaction in this shrinking world. It is the acts of violation that destroys this mean of modern entertainment, the real issue that we should be looking at is who should be allowed to run this site for it to function effectively, without invading the privacy of others or insult the belief of others unknowingly.
YouTube has created a new way for millions of people to entertain, educate, shock, rock and mock one another on a scale we've never seen before. Few years back, this would not have been possible, but the world has changed. In the past 24 months, thousands of ordinary people have become famous. Famous people have been embarrassed. What happened? YouTube's creators had produced a revolution. First, the revolution in video production made possible by cheap camcorders and easy-to-use video software. Second, a cultural revolution of people creating and sharing videos with one another. The third revolution is a cultural one, consumers are impatient with the mainstream media. Where audience are only fed with what the media chooses to broadcast, propaganda, what the media wants us to think, not being able to share their view pertaining issues they disagree with. People want unfiltered video from Iraq, Lebanon and Darfur—not from journalists who visit there but from soldiers who fight there and people who live and die there.
YouTube is ultimately more interesting as a community and a culture, however, than as a cash cow. The way blogs made regular folks into journalists, YouTube makes them into celebrities. The real challenge old media face isn't protecting their precious copyrighted material. Now that people have the ability to entertain themselves, it is more vital of how should the modern talented artist still continue to win the battle for fame against these others.
Facing the charges by various companies and countries YouTube sure has a lot to answer to these people. But let us first take a look at what did it all begin with. Just last month, Viacom demanded that YouTube ore than 100,000 of its video clips, but remove earlier this week, Viacom moved the fight to court: it sued Google in federal court in Manhattan for “massive intentional copyright infringement” and demanded $1 billion in damages. The problem is that copyright law—like so many other areas of the law—doesn’t provide clear answers. Therefore to say there was copyright infringement may be subjective.
From what I feel, YouTube is a form of entertainment and nothing else. Users are the ones who violate the laws by posting illegal or unethical materials online. Then again, one may argue that where are the employees of YouTube? True enough, the YouTube staff have to be the one to control all these violations. Should we just conclude that there are not doing their job? YouTube appeals to the mass as a mean of entertainment, to promote themselves to be made known to the public as many videos have been posted. Little thought has been given to who can control or post materials. As such I think that using etiquette control over what is posted on YouTube can still allow it to function and continue to bring enjoyment to the lives of others, whether it is mocking oneself or sharing interesting videos, the issue should not be whether YouTube produces entertainment, but rather who gets to operate this large company.
Founded in February 2005, YouTube aimed to allow free video sharing which allows users to upload and share their video clips. These videos can be viewed by the public and members are allowed to give comments and rate them. The site gradually grew and now consists of a wide range of videos including movie and TV clips and music videos, as well as amateur content such as videoblogging and short original videos. The company was named TIME magazine's "Invention of the Year" for 2006 as well as voted one of the most user friendly websites by users.
Such an advanced novelty may very well be the new media of entertainment in future. So why is there such uproar about this website? Countries including Iran, US and Australia have been banning specific video clips or imposing bans to disallow students to visit YouTube in campus. Other countries namely Thailand and Brazil have engaged in lawsuits either due to political reasons or overly exposing videos. Even as such, many people are still strong supporters of this website, looking at it as a source of diversion and amusement apart from this hectic lifestyle that we live. Thus, I believe that YouTube exist to produce mainly entertainment or as a channel for broadcasting yourself, to promote more interaction in this shrinking world. It is the acts of violation that destroys this mean of modern entertainment, the real issue that we should be looking at is who should be allowed to run this site for it to function effectively, without invading the privacy of others or insult the belief of others unknowingly.
YouTube has created a new way for millions of people to entertain, educate, shock, rock and mock one another on a scale we've never seen before. Few years back, this would not have been possible, but the world has changed. In the past 24 months, thousands of ordinary people have become famous. Famous people have been embarrassed. What happened? YouTube's creators had produced a revolution. First, the revolution in video production made possible by cheap camcorders and easy-to-use video software. Second, a cultural revolution of people creating and sharing videos with one another. The third revolution is a cultural one, consumers are impatient with the mainstream media. Where audience are only fed with what the media chooses to broadcast, propaganda, what the media wants us to think, not being able to share their view pertaining issues they disagree with. People want unfiltered video from Iraq, Lebanon and Darfur—not from journalists who visit there but from soldiers who fight there and people who live and die there.
YouTube is ultimately more interesting as a community and a culture, however, than as a cash cow. The way blogs made regular folks into journalists, YouTube makes them into celebrities. The real challenge old media face isn't protecting their precious copyrighted material. Now that people have the ability to entertain themselves, it is more vital of how should the modern talented artist still continue to win the battle for fame against these others.
Facing the charges by various companies and countries YouTube sure has a lot to answer to these people. But let us first take a look at what did it all begin with. Just last month, Viacom demanded that YouTube ore than 100,000 of its video clips, but remove earlier this week, Viacom moved the fight to court: it sued Google in federal court in Manhattan for “massive intentional copyright infringement” and demanded $1 billion in damages. The problem is that copyright law—like so many other areas of the law—doesn’t provide clear answers. Therefore to say there was copyright infringement may be subjective.
From what I feel, YouTube is a form of entertainment and nothing else. Users are the ones who violate the laws by posting illegal or unethical materials online. Then again, one may argue that where are the employees of YouTube? True enough, the YouTube staff have to be the one to control all these violations. Should we just conclude that there are not doing their job? YouTube appeals to the mass as a mean of entertainment, to promote themselves to be made known to the public as many videos have been posted. Little thought has been given to who can control or post materials. As such I think that using etiquette control over what is posted on YouTube can still allow it to function and continue to bring enjoyment to the lives of others, whether it is mocking oneself or sharing interesting videos, the issue should not be whether YouTube produces entertainment, but rather who gets to operate this large company.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)