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.
Sunday, May 20, 2007
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.
Saturday, March 31, 2007
‘The teenage years are the best years of one’s life.’ Would you agree with this view?
Most adolescents going through their teenage years now will most probably shake their heads when anyone makes a comment that teenage years are the best years of one’s life. An adolescent in this case would be referring to young people at their formative age of 13-19. During these years, special attention needs to be paid to them as this is the crucial period of molding their characters and personalities. Used in the current context of being a teenager, I do believe that this current generation of teenagers are leading the best years of their lives. As no one can turn the clock back, we can only live through this once. However, different people face different kinds of troubles in their lives, I feel that this statement may be subjective to different people.
Teenagers tend to live in their own narrow world and think that no one on this earth has more problems than them. Especially towards adults whom they feel show no understanding of what they are going through. Adults on the other hand think that teenagers are not making full use of their carefree life instead choose to think that they are the most pitiful souls of this world. The recent article on emo teens, short for emotional teenagers has spurred many differentiating views on whether it is considered normal or alright for a teenager to behave in that manner. Some feel that it is a passing stage in life that teenagers will eventually grow out of it. To others, they feel that it is an act of stupidity to slash one’s own wrist, to inflict pain on oneself.
The education system in Singapore has gone through a dramatic change; in the past where knowledge is power, no longer applies to the current situation where students have to explore both application and practical skills. With the paramount stress level of having to be academically competitive to remain in the rat race, young people face the constant pressure of having to maintain their top form. The society we now live in has little tolerance for failures. How can teenage life be one of the best years if there is not even time to take a breather from studies? There are no memories that stand out other than those of having to spend days burning mid-night oil just to study for that major exam.
Another reason why teenage years are not the best years of one’s life is because teenagers have to go through some debilitating emotional adjustments as they learn to survive in the world. They are to cope with rejections as they get into relationships as well as understand the changes pertaining to their bodies. When this happens, parents who are supposedly more experience should technically be able to guide these lost teens. Sadly, parents having gone through this stage of life feel little need to cajole or mollycoddle them. This ultimately causes young people to feel alone and frustrated in their troubles.
Just before we start to think that teenagers lead such miserable lives, we should try to look at the brighter side of things. Half-full or half-empty? You decide. Granted, the education system has pushed teenagers to their limits, always trying to bring out the best in everyone, however, why not look at the positive aspects of this brand new education system? The education system now focuses on building a person’s character as a whole. Not focusing on the type of subjects you are inclined to, there is a need for contrasting subjects to broaden perspectives. Just to name a few, civics lessons, co-curricular activities as well as PE lessons are implemented to add more colour to our mundane lifestyle as a student. Teenage years should be considered the most memorable time of our lives, this is where we build bonds, where we have no burdens to carry.
Adults face a different kind of pressure that teenagers may not understand. This kind of pressure may be from a different area e.g. working life, but the stressed experience is certainly not less. Adults work, fore bearing the knowledge that they have an existing family to support, their responsibilities are enlarged to everyone who depends on them. If a student fails in an examination, he can opt to retake it. Once an adult fails, he will directly affect many people around him. An adult will also have to face the ugly world of backbiting and cunning dealings and will always be caught in office politics and selfish attitudes. These are often out of one’s control.
Whether or not teenage years are the best time of one’s life is subjective. A person may live in a sheltered environment while growing up and become unaccustomed to the real world, yet another person may have been long accustomed to the real world already having been exposed to it at a young age. In my opinion, teenagers of my generation are leading the best times of their lives having no burden to carry and having the freedom to live in a world free of ugly politics and having the time to build genuine relationships with their friends. For those who think that teenage years are torturous, have yet to wake up to the real world that we will have to face eventually. Therefore, I urge those who are not currently enjoying their teenage lives to live their life as a happy teen.
Teenagers tend to live in their own narrow world and think that no one on this earth has more problems than them. Especially towards adults whom they feel show no understanding of what they are going through. Adults on the other hand think that teenagers are not making full use of their carefree life instead choose to think that they are the most pitiful souls of this world. The recent article on emo teens, short for emotional teenagers has spurred many differentiating views on whether it is considered normal or alright for a teenager to behave in that manner. Some feel that it is a passing stage in life that teenagers will eventually grow out of it. To others, they feel that it is an act of stupidity to slash one’s own wrist, to inflict pain on oneself.
The education system in Singapore has gone through a dramatic change; in the past where knowledge is power, no longer applies to the current situation where students have to explore both application and practical skills. With the paramount stress level of having to be academically competitive to remain in the rat race, young people face the constant pressure of having to maintain their top form. The society we now live in has little tolerance for failures. How can teenage life be one of the best years if there is not even time to take a breather from studies? There are no memories that stand out other than those of having to spend days burning mid-night oil just to study for that major exam.
Another reason why teenage years are not the best years of one’s life is because teenagers have to go through some debilitating emotional adjustments as they learn to survive in the world. They are to cope with rejections as they get into relationships as well as understand the changes pertaining to their bodies. When this happens, parents who are supposedly more experience should technically be able to guide these lost teens. Sadly, parents having gone through this stage of life feel little need to cajole or mollycoddle them. This ultimately causes young people to feel alone and frustrated in their troubles.
Just before we start to think that teenagers lead such miserable lives, we should try to look at the brighter side of things. Half-full or half-empty? You decide. Granted, the education system has pushed teenagers to their limits, always trying to bring out the best in everyone, however, why not look at the positive aspects of this brand new education system? The education system now focuses on building a person’s character as a whole. Not focusing on the type of subjects you are inclined to, there is a need for contrasting subjects to broaden perspectives. Just to name a few, civics lessons, co-curricular activities as well as PE lessons are implemented to add more colour to our mundane lifestyle as a student. Teenage years should be considered the most memorable time of our lives, this is where we build bonds, where we have no burdens to carry.
Adults face a different kind of pressure that teenagers may not understand. This kind of pressure may be from a different area e.g. working life, but the stressed experience is certainly not less. Adults work, fore bearing the knowledge that they have an existing family to support, their responsibilities are enlarged to everyone who depends on them. If a student fails in an examination, he can opt to retake it. Once an adult fails, he will directly affect many people around him. An adult will also have to face the ugly world of backbiting and cunning dealings and will always be caught in office politics and selfish attitudes. These are often out of one’s control.
Whether or not teenage years are the best time of one’s life is subjective. A person may live in a sheltered environment while growing up and become unaccustomed to the real world, yet another person may have been long accustomed to the real world already having been exposed to it at a young age. In my opinion, teenagers of my generation are leading the best times of their lives having no burden to carry and having the freedom to live in a world free of ugly politics and having the time to build genuine relationships with their friends. For those who think that teenage years are torturous, have yet to wake up to the real world that we will have to face eventually. Therefore, I urge those who are not currently enjoying their teenage lives to live their life as a happy teen.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)